Tag Archives: filibuster

The Conservatives are now the Party of Upskirting

Selfie-centred: This has never happened (thank goodness) but it is exactly the kind of thing Sir Christopher Chope was supporting.

The practice of taking photographs of female celebrities’ private parts by pointing a camera up their skirts or dresses has won a ringing endorsement from Conservative backbencher Sir Christopher Chope and his ever-willing henchman Phillip Davies.

Mr Chope filibustered a private members’ bill calling for upskirting to be criminalised. Along with his supporters, he spoke for a total of four hours in order to prevent the legislation from progressing through Parliament.

He has defended this indefensible behaviour by saying he hates private members’ bills – shurely shome mishtake as he has tabled dozens of them himself:

Mr Davies is on the record as a supporter of men’s rights, which he believes are being eroded by feminists. Does he believe men have a right to examine the quality of a lady’s underwear if she doesn’t agree to it?

Prime minister Theresa May has expressed her own dissatisfaction with the outcome:

But she was lying again, I expect. If Mrs May was all that upset about it, she would have punished her errant MPs, perhaps by withdrawing the Tory whip from them.

But that would mean losing her majority in Parliament.

So her hands are tied.

And for all her fine words, her actions show tacit support for what her MPs did.

The official Conservative Party twitter feed also tried to de-legitimise the backbenchers’ point of view as an expression of Tory taste…

… and failed:

On Twitter, some of the usual suspects have been having a fine time satirising the sexists on the Tory benches:

One has to ask, though – why defend this intrusive and demeaning behaviour?

Other than perversion for its own sake, what exactly is the point of upskirting?

What do the paps who profane themselves with this practice possibly hope to find?

A long-lost masterpiece by Van Gogh?

The Titanic sailing back into harbour at long last?

Extraterrestrial life?

No.

The best they can hope to see, no matter how many such photos they take…

… is what Christopher Chope sees every time he looks in a mirror.

Filibustering Tory launches Bill for charges across the NHS. Let’s hope someone talks it out

Christopher Chope is one of the gobby Tories who have filibustered – talked until there’s no more time for debate – a series of worthy Private Members’ Bills in the House of Commons.

Chope, a private landlord, filibustered a bill to make revenge evictions an offence.

He also filibustered a private member’s bill that would have placed restrictions on hospital parking charges for carers.

And he blocked a bill to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

Now he wants to introduce a Private Members’ Bill of his own – to introduce charges for a vastly-increased range of NHS services.

This is the thin end of the Tory wedge.

Having introduced private companies into the health service, Tories like Mr Chope want them to be able to charge extra for the care they have blocked the public service from providing.

What corruption.

It is obvious what must be done.

I look forward to hearing that Labour MPs have filibustered this ridiculous Tory and his ridiculous bill out of all reckoning.

MP Christopher Chope wants to increase charges throughout the NHS and will use the debate in the House of Commons to persuade his fellow Conservatives to include it in their next manifesto.

Currently NHS charges are restricted to only a few areas such as dentistry, eye tests, and prescribed medicines.

Right winger Mr Chope’s bill would open the floodgates to charging for a host of other services which could include GP appointments and some hospital procedures.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ConDemnedBritain/permalink/1477099355724788/

The National Health Service (Co-Funding and CoPayment) Bill would “make provision for co-funding and for the extension of co-payment for NHS services in England”.

Source: MPs set to debate charging patients to use the NHS – Mirror Online


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Could this be the beginning of the end for MPs who ‘talk out’ private members’ bills?

Christopher Chope (left) and Philip Davies (right) ‘talked out’ a private member’s bill to end ‘revenge’ evictions by private landlords.

Perhaps you think it’s okay that private members’ bills – attempts at making laws that are not part of a government’s programme – can be stopped by the likes of Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

These buffoons gleefully block useful legislation such as the bid to give free hospital parking to carers (while Mr Davies charged his own parking to the taxpayer, please note) and the proposal to force landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation (Mr Davies himself is a landlord).

They happily hide behind a Commons rule that a “closure” motion, stopping a Bill from being talked out, can be called if its sponsor can muster 100 MPs to support it – and the legislation should not pass if it does not have the support of 100 MPs.

But this argument ignores the fact that private members’ bills are always debated on Fridays, when most MPs are returning to their constituencies to carry out the work they have to do there.

The solutions proposed by Mr Bercow are reasonable, and would enhance Parliament’s reputation by ensuring private members’ bills are of a sufficiently high quality and that they receive the same consideration in the Commons chamber as other legislation.

They could also mark the end of interference by MPs with their own interests at heart, rather than those of the public. One wonders what Philip Davies would do with himself then.

The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has suggested the system by which backbench MPs bring in legislation needs to be overhauled.

At present, private members’ bills receive limited debate on Fridays and they stand little chance of becoming law without government support.

It is common for MPs opposing such a bill to talk at length until it runs out of time.

Mr Bercow said this situation “has not enhanced the reputation of the House”.

The Speaker highlighted recommendations previously made by the Procedure Select Committee, including:

  • Moving private members’ bills from their traditional Friday sitting, when MPs often return to their constituencies
  • Introducing a “peer group review” with the aim of ensuring fewer, higher-quality bills
  • Enabling time limits on speeches in such debates.

Source: Speaker calls for rethink on private members’ bills – BBC News


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The Shame of Shipley fails to derail Bill protecting women against violence

Three faces of Philip Davies, and none of them pleasant: The MP talks (and talks, and talks) in a bid to talk out the Istanbul Convention Bill.

I know this is the Season of Goodwill, but I won’t shed any tears if a passing reindeer craps on Philip Davies’s head.

Today (December 16), this man – the Shame of Shipley – tried to filibuster a Parliamentary Bill that would ratify the Istanbul Convention on tackling and preventing violence against women.

Perhaps he holds some kind of grudge against the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, who co-signed a letter urging the UK government to ratify the Convention.

Emma Watson, the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador, co-signed a letter calling on the UK government to ratify the Istanbul Convention [Image: Rex Features].

Perhaps his problem lies in the fact that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, also signed.

Perhaps he thinks the Conservative Government is betraying him (he thinks it is sexist to focus on violence against women).

Here are some more of the things he said to justify his position during his 78-minute speech:

Because the title of the Bill has about ‘combating violence against women’ then it presumes as long as you support that premise you must support this particular Bill, and therefore if you oppose this Bill it means you must be in favour, as it follows, of violence against women and children.

“Now that’s the kind of level of debate I’d expect from the morons on Twitter.

Having offended Twitter users, he said:

I don’t take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys.

That’s not the point; the violence may not be worse, but there really is far more of it. I note that the Daily Mirror web page carrying the story from which I’m pulling these quotes has a link to another news story with photographs of a woman who suffered horrific burns after her boyfriend doused her in petrol and set her on fire.

He tried to compare domestic violence with street crime:

My premise is that all the evidence shows men are more likely to be victims of violent crime in this country than women.

“If somebody comes up to because they hate you and beats you up to a pulp, it seems to me the nuance of what they hate you is less important than the scale of the injuries you’ve suffered.

That’s not the point. Street crime involves people who are either strangers or who may be expected to have a certain amount of animosity towards a person. Domestic crime is in the home, where people should expect to feel safe, and is perpetrated by partners who are supposed to be a symbol of that safety – and not a threat. It is a false comparison

This is not, as they say, rocket science. He continued:

He raised the case of Sadie Morris:

A female paedophile was sentenced to five years in jail after photographing herself abusing a three-year-old girl.

Or even the case of a Romanian sex gang led by women who trafficked vulnerable women into Britain and forced them into prostitution.

So what? Two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right’; these crimes by women don’t justify crimes against them.

In the same vein, when Catherine West told him two women are killed every week, on average, and it is extremely uncomfortable attending their funerals and seeing their children, he said:

There are also funerals of men who have died, and I’m sure that’s just as uncomfortable an experience for their children.

Sure – but two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right’.

And he said the Istanbul Convention makes it

explicitly clear that it’s fine to discriminate against men.

Does it? Does it really, just by saying it isn’t fine to discriminate against women?

No. It’s a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that it is fine to discriminate against men, just because it isn’t fine to discriminate against women. Non-discrimination against either is not mutually exclusive. It would be interesting to challenge Mr Davies on which part of the Istanbul Convention suggests this is true.

The Shame of Shipley eventually shut up after speaking for 78 minutes, when a Motion of Closure (bringing a debate to the vote) was passed. At the vote itself, the Bill was approved by 135 votes to two against. This was the Second Reading, which means the Bill will be considered by a Parliamentary committee and the House of Lords before returning to the Commons for a third time.

The government in fact supports the Bill, and 36 Tory MPs voted for it after Mr Davies was finally forced to sit down.

The “morons” on Twitter have been taking their revenge, of course:

https://twitter.com/MiriamBrett/status/809723778720792576

Yes indeed. How do the people of Shipley sleep, after having inflicted this multiply-meandering pest on the rest of us?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Bain Capital advisor Andrew Lansley tries to derail Lobbying Bill. Conflict of interest?

Listening on lobbying: Andrew Lansley proved exactly how trustworthy he is with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Now he stands ready to hear discussion of his amendments to the new Lobbying Bill.

Listening on lobbying: Andrew Lansley proved exactly how trustworthy he is with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Now he stands ready to hear discussion of his amendments to the new Lobbying Bill.

This seems nothing more than a filibuster. Now that Lord Lansley has a cushy job working for a lobbying firm, he doesn’t want it coming under scrutiny.

Right?

But doesn’t that raise the issue of conflict of interest? Why is Lansley being allowed to talk about this matter at all?

Come to that, after the atrocity that was the Health and Social Care Act 2012, why is this creature allowed to talk about anything at all, ever?

Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, who now advises health companies, has been accused of trying to stall a parliamentary bill that proposes to expose lobbyists in Whitehall to greater scrutiny.

The Tory peer has tabled 30 amendments to a bill before the House of Lords that seeks to establish a new register for lobbyists who meet ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers.

Labour and transparency campaigners suspect there will not be time for a parliamentary committee to discuss the amendments, and that the changes are in effect an attempt to scupper the bill.

Lord Lansley has denied their claims, saying he wants to ensure that the bill enshrines current regulatory powers and protects those being regulated.

The lobbying (transparency) bill won support from across the Lords last month when it was introduced by the Labour peer Clive Brooke.

The proposed legislation would replace the government’s much-criticised lobbying register with one that would be far more comprehensive.

It would cover in-house lobbyists as well as agency lobbyists, and would be extended to cover meetings with senior civil servants and special advisers. At present, only meetings between agency lobbyists and ministers and permanent secretaries are recorded.

Source: Tory peer Andrew Lansley accused of trying to stall lobbying bill | Politics | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The evil MPs of Christchurch and Shipley

Evil: Christopher Chope (left) and Philip Davies (right) 'talked out' a private member's bill to end 'revenge' evictions by private landlords. Are they really representatives of the people?

Evil: Christopher Chope (left) and Philip Davies (right) ‘talked out’ a private member’s bill to end ‘revenge’ evictions by private landlords. Are they really representatives of the people?

 

Take a good look at the faces in the picture (above). The one on the left belongs to Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch and the one on the right is our long-term acquaintance, Philip ‘let the disabled work for less than the minimum wage’ Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley.

Yesterday (November 28), they proved that they really were “lower than vermin”, in the words of Aneurin Bevan, when they ‘talked out’ a private members’ bill aiming to outlaw ‘revenge’ evictions by private landlords, carried out against tenants who – for example – requested repairs on the properties they were renting.

Oh look – according to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Mr Davies is a landlord (albeit on a small scale), receiving rental income from a flat in London.

With Mr Chope, he made it his business to ensure that it would remain possible for callous landlords to victimise these people – even though it was against the wishes of the Coalition government.

The sort of person who does that is not a representative of the people. The sort of person who does that is supporting the privileged few; the rich landlords who are able to charge ridiculous rents and then throw out their tenants for requesting repairs. The sort of person who does that is chasing the money; supporting profit without responsibility.

This blog would suggest that such a person is a whore, in the worst connotations of the term.

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
warning you about the worst of our elected members!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook