You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Blocking a bid to get compulsory emergency first aid training for schoolkids.
Hopefully they'll clamp down on it. Who voted for these scum?
Sounds a great idea, but did anyone actually think how it would work in practice?
At a simple level, which subject do you want to drop to fit it in? How will it be taught, or where are all the teachers qualified in FA coming from?
etc, etc
Bunch of ****s and they say the house of lords acted in an undemocratic manner
[i]Who voted for these scum? [/i]
Lots of you.
Well they could discuss it like adults rather than sticking their fingers in their ears while saying "la la la not listening"Sounds a great idea, but did anyone actually think how it would work in practice?
I thought filibustering was just an American thing
What a bunch of knob-ends, they don't care about people in any way, just their own fevered agenda
on a lighter note, filibustering done right
I think filibustering's fine but they should have to speak ever faster in an Alphabet Aerobics style.
Mrs Dubleyou was going to teach this next year, but the school have dropped it from the curriculum.
All of the PE teachers are qualified to teach it and it was going to be a couple of lessons each.
Sounds a great idea, but did anyone actually think how it would work in practice?
The Scando's have, but they've done everything better.
This was one of the things I used to enjoy doing at schools as part of our 'neighbourhood policing', as well as the upsides and downsides of drugs. We haven't done this for a few years now 😥
Sounds a great idea, but did anyone actually think how it would work in practice?
Some teachers would teach first aid? If I can do sex ed anything is possible.
I think filibustering's fine but they should have to speak ever faster in an Alphabet Aerobics style.
Chemical Calisthenics once they master the above.
First Aid is pretty simple stuff, for the sake of a few hours why shouldn't it be getting taught? its not like there are plenty of people already qualified to teach it. Even out of date stuff is better than nothing at all.
Get Mines Rescue in to do it, they're always a good laugh...
That is a shocking abuse of parliamentary power.
It needs more publicity so that people can see what shite some of our elected representatives get up to.
If I did TwitFace I'd be posting it.....
Its friday, you filibuster bills because there is no-one there to vote on them, end of story.
That is a shocking abuse of parliamentary power.
Filibustering is nothing new, been going on in parliament for over 150 years and ALL parties use it.
What a ****. A thick **** who can't remember things by his own admission.
Anyone know how common talking out is? I had a wee googly just now and couldn't find any useful information. It's certainly been in the public eye a lot recently. It's a pretty despicable tactic regardless of who does it.
Davies is a bit too scumbaggy about it- after he talked out the bill to scrap hospital parking charges for carers, he claimed he was speaking up for carers, frexample. There's playing the parliamentary game and then there's taking the piss, I reckon that one crossed the line.
At a simple level, which subject do you want to drop to fit it in?
How about RE, that's a pointless subject.
****ing appalling.
What a morally reprehensible shit. How on earth can he justify that?
Shackleton - MemberWhat a morally reprehensible shit. How on earth can he justify that?
“When I first got elected to Parliament my mentor was Eric Forth [the former Tory MP] and he really was the past master of talking out bills on a Friday,” he said. He did it for fun and he was brilliant at it. After he died I vowed I would do the same kind of work."
Noble inspiration indeed. Do it for the LOLZ.
As pointed out above this is a completely standard part of parliamentary life. It's also embarassing, childish and would get you a kick up the arse in almost any other walk of life. I've always liked the story of how they were ended in the House of Representatives over the atlantic:
In particular, Reed sought to circumscribe the ability of the minority party to block business by way of its members refusing to answer a quorum call—which, under the rules, prevented a member from being counted as present even if they were physically in the chamber—thus forcing the House to suspend business. This is popularly called the disappearing quorum.Reed's solution was enacted on January 28, 1890, in what has popularly been called the "Battle of the Reed Rules".[4] This came about when Democrats attempted to block the inclusion of a newly elected Republican from West Virginia, Charles Brooks Smith.[5] The motion to seat him passed by a tally of 162–1; however, at the time a quorum consisted of 165 votes, and when voting closed Democrats shouted "No quorum," triggering a formal House quorum count. Speaker Reed began the roll call; when members who were present in the chamber refused to answer, Reed directed the Clerk to count them as present anyway.[6] Startled Democrats protested heatedly, issuing screams, threats, and insults at the Speaker. James B. McCreary, a Democrat from Kentucky, challenged Reed's authority to count him as present; Reed replied, "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"[6]
Portrait of Speaker Reed by John Singer Sargent, Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives
Unable to deny their presence in the chamber, Democrats then tried to flee the chamber or hide under their desks, but Reed ordered the doors locked. (Texas Representative "Buck" Kilgore was able to flee by kicking his way through a door.)[7] Trapped, the Democrats tried to hide under their desks and chairs; Reed marked them present anyway.The conflict over parliamentary procedure lasted three days, with Democrats delaying consideration of the bill by introducing points of order to challenge the maneuver, then appealing the Reed's rulings to the floor. Democrats finally dropped their objections on January 31, and Smith was seated on February 3 by a vote of 166–0. Six days later, with Smith seated, Reed won a vote on his new "Reed Rules," eliminating the disappearing quorum and lowering the quorum to 100 members. Though Democrats reinstated the disappearing quorum when they took control of the House the following year, Reed as minority leader proved so adroit at using the tactic against them that Democrats reinstated Reed Rules in 1894.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brackett_Reed#As_the_Speaker_of_the_House
This is pathetic and I've emailed him asking him to justify it. You can teach opening an airway in a few minutes. This would save lives. I've witnessed this twice now once to a fellow MTBer who posts on here. He crashed and wasn't breathing. Another of our group opened his airway and he is alive now. It's such a simple thing to do.
You could spend a couple of hours teaching airways, control of bleeding and treatment of burns and refresh it each year. It would make a difference, cost nothing, and this pillock has blocked it.
I was about to start a petition against this but I see there is already one! Sign up everybody:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111441
(I should add I do somewhat like the ridiculous history behind the filibuster and the speeches that have resulted - but it's really not the right way to run the country, politics shouldn't be a parlour game...)
[i](I should add I do somewhat like the ridiculous history behind the filibuster and the speeches that have resulted - but it's really not the right way to run the country, politics shouldn't be a parlour game...) [/i]
But sometimes it works and ensures a 'bad' bill doesn't get into law:
b r - MemberSounds a great idea, but did anyone actually think how it would work in practice?
At a simple level, which subject do you want to drop to fit it in? How will it be taught, or where are all the teachers qualified in FA coming from?
I guess we will never know. Perhaps we need a debate on it. Oh hang on a minute.
Philip Davies is my MP. I didn't vote for him but enough idiots did 🙁
Don't suppose i can ever expect the **** to do anything [i]for[/i] his constituents
Amusing then that his slogan is "Your interests, not self-interest". Well OK, not all that amusing given what he does.
I've emailed him and asked my MP to give him a going over in the bogs (SNP MPs have to be useful for something 😉 ). For some reason this kind of thing pisses me off more than whatever Gove/Hunt/Osbourne/May are up to. At least you know that they are actively evil/stupid/ideologically blinded whereas Davies is just dicking about playing at king of bugger all.
I emailed him last night asking for his reasons and got a reply from him at 23.25.
In summary:
The reasons are in my speech - I suggest you get a copy of it and read it.
It's labours fault as they shortened the time for the debate by 75 minutes (from 5 hours).
It's every other MP's fault as apparently if more than 100 turn up then the bill automatically passes to the next stage. There were fewer than 100 so it's not my fault.
I was just following parliamentary procedures. So it's not my fault.
They're all cretins aren't they 🙄
How would you ban filibustering? Limit individual MPs talk time?
How would you ban filibustering? Limit individual MPs talk time?
Getting the speaker to grow a pair and tell them to stop f***ing about would be a good start.
How would you ban filibustering ?
Dead easy speaker actively listens to speeches and cuts off repetition of points already made irrelevence and waffle , and calls an end when the speaker has exhausted his actual points . This happens all the time in courts .
[img] 
[/img]
What an outdated, antiquated joke of a place Westminster is.
Ah, wanmankylungs bi-weekly "Tory outrage" thread...
'Government kills opposition party private members bill shock-horror' the 'dear santa' letter of the junior MP seeking to make a name for themselves. It's what governments do, pretty simple really, labour have killed just as many well meaning bills as anyone during their time in power.
It's a harsh lesson in political reality this one - if you want to change the law, you need to go out and win an election, then you get to become the government and Set the legislative agenda - now, I know you £3 Corbynites all wish that it could be different, because you're still in shock at ending up with a Tory government when you all thought that Miliband was a shoe in to lead the next stage of the great leap forwards... But you maybe ought to take this filibuster as a wake up call as to why your party previously elected a slick, charismatic 'pretty straight sort of guy' as its leader a few years ago instead of pleasant but bumbling utopian. To win elections rather than play sixth form token politics...
Eh, what's this got to do with elections? This wasn't a Labour idea being voted out, it was a smug prat thinking he's really clever by talking rubbish to deliberately run down the clock so it won't ever get to a vote.
If it had been debated, he'd put his arguments across and then it got rejected in a vote then fair enough.
If it had been debated, he'd put his arguments across and then it got rejected in a vote then fair enough.
Exactly. This behaviour would not be acceptable in any other form of life than on a panel show! If you did it in the pub someone would end up punching you!
Ninfan where do you stand in general on private members bills then?
Ninfan, I know for a fact that people who voted for this government are furious about the recent filibustering behaviour.
Utterly ridiculous that this is allowed to happen.
Eh, what's this got to do with elections?
It doesn't he just wanted to have a rant about Corbyn.
[quote=julianwilson opined]Ninfan where do you stand in general on private members bills then?
Depends on what position is the most outrageous /will annoy the most folk on here
The suggestion seemed an eminently good use of schooling as it would actually be a useful life skill and there is more to education/life than just becoming a useful worker ant.
Defos a "politicians outrage" thread not "Tory outrage" thread on my part. We have an elected parliament whose sole function is to make important decisions by voting after reasoned debate and yet the process can be frustrated by one individual talking out a debate and so imposing his individual will or in this case ego as a brake on the entire democracy.
The its Friday so not enough MP's in the house is also enoying it is their job they unlike most got a significant pay rise the least they can do is turn up to work in office hours .See the NHS proposals for what should constitute Normal Office Hours for MPs .
I was about to admit to being a disgusted Tory voter, and then I remembered I didn't vote for them last time!
yet the process can be frustrated by one individual talking out a debate and so imposing his individual will or in this case ego as a brake on the entire democracy.
You think that this was an individual decision to trash the bill rather than an assassination on orders from above?
They should get Nicholas Parsons to be the speaker and they should all have to obey the rules of Just a Minute.
[quote=ninfan ]now, I know you £3 Corbynites all wish that it could be different
Not me mate, and I still think he's a ****.
[quote=ninfan ]You think that this was an individual decision to trash the bill rather than an assassination on orders from above?
So those above are also ****s.
[quote=boriselbrus ]This is pathetic and I've emailed him asking him to justify it. You can teach opening an airway in a few minutes. This would save lives.
Which is what makes me really angry about this. I've certainly heard of people on first aid courses being quite upset when they've realised they could have saved a life if they'd had better knowledge. Sure some of the kids might be thick ****s like Mr Davies and forget what they've been taught, but some won't. You Mr Davies have blood on your hands (and by association ninfan you do too for supporting him).
Of course there might be something I'm missing here which means it's impractical, but it's not contained in Mr Davies' speech. It certainly STM that it's one of the more valuable things you could teach kids in school - as mentioned, it would only require a few hours every year - maybe they could do it before the summer break when they're on wind down and appear to have spare time?
More fundamentally this comes down to what our parliament is about. Should it be that only the party who got 37% of the vote gets to make policy to change things, or should it be possible for sensible suggestions to be considered whatever the source?
Ninfan, again: what do you think in general of private members bills?
Ninfan, again: what do you think in general of private members bills?
I think the best thing that parliament could possibly do is stop introducing new laws for a while frankly - under Blair it was, quite literally, several new new laws every day and has continued pretty much unchecked since then - the entire parliamentary system has become bogged sown in gesture politics an "political point scoring" has become more important to politicians of all parties than solving actual problems, with tickbox laws being introduced that serve only to remove discretion and recriminalise things that were already illegal.
(This of course is hardly a new complaint, William Cobbett was saying much the same in 1807!)
under Blair it was, quite literally, several new new laws every day and has continued pretty much unchecked since then -
Yet putting aside the total number of pieces of legislation, the actual number of private bills successful under thatcher and major was usually double if not more per year/session than under blair afterwards: i wonder where else these 'several new laws a day' were coming from? And should private members bills be cut because of pebbledashing legislation elsewhere in the political week?
Parliament.uk website us unclear how many members bills were debated/started but not made law however, so i can't see wherther the huge drop in private members bills made law under blair vs the conservative governments before was against a background of there being too many bills introduced or too few, or something else entirely.
Interesting also to wonder how many laws would have been more 'officially' supported by governments had they not been able to be put in more quietly as whips or handout bills. Would we still have had the following and if not how much later and in what form?
(shamelessly lifted from wiki):
Abortion Act 1967
Adoption Act 1964,
Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965,
Charter Trustees Act 1986,
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996,
Knives Act 1997,
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997,
Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2003
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004
Sustainable Communities Act 2006
ninfan - how about for once instead of trolling and whataboutery you discuss the actual issue at hand on it's own merits? No didn't think so.
Waah waah waah Grum
The government didn't support it, it got nuked - don't like it, get an electable leader and form a government.
That's politics and thus, frankly, the 'actual issue at hand'
Diddums.
@ Juliansilson - yes, it is interesting, I think it's pretty clear that many of the successful ones have been essentially adopted or 'waved through' by the government of the day as something they broadly supported but didn't want to 'put their name to' for, possibly more partisan, political reasons.
That is a your reply to not trolling?
Its such as shame as you are a bright fella, well informed but instead of debating you prefer to take up positions you dont believe in yourself [ defend the indefensible] and then just goad folk.
I suppose we all have to have a hobby.
as i said earlier his position is whatever will cause the most offence and get the biggest rise and so it still is. This covers his opinion on all topics for ever...except guns and killing stuff as he really does like those.
Context -
[i]Topics started:
The Latest Filibustering Disgrace.
The Next US President.
Nuking ISIS.
What's happening in Hannover?
Jeremy Hunt - Did he write a book calling for NHS to be dismantled?
David Cameron complaining about cuts...
How are the consultant contract negotiations going?[/i]
Context -
Topics started:
[i]Countryside Alliance opposition to #trailforwales
Jeremy Corbyn's Enormous Marrow
EU :Travel time = Work time
Hunting Act Amendment...
Russell Brand 24
Peaceful Protesters again...
Migrants from Africa, what to do?
Huge oil find in the Surrey hills[/i]
Indeed.
The Latest Filibustering Disgrace.
The Next US President.
Nuking ISIS.
What's happening in Hannover?
Jeremy Hunt - Did he write a book calling for NHS to be dismantled?
David Cameron complaining about cuts...
How are the consultant contract negotiations going?
What's wrong with that?
No Zoos?
ninfan.. you're becoming a parody of yourself..
Your ancestors would be turning in their graves at what an utter fool you are being..
What an outdated, antiquated joke of a place Westminster is.
It's perfect. For the 17th century.
I suppose what we need are some private members bills on gun licencing, outdoor access/fight to roam and curbing the power of trade unions (even more!), then wheel an mp out to kill them on a Friday afternoon -then see how ninfan feels about filibustering. I have a sense that he is against too much unconnected bitty legislation and favours the 'creative' use of our constitution to manage this, but unclear from two answers now whether he would actually support the abolition of private members bills rather than address the misuse of parliamentary time (by both masses of bills and also fillibustering) in order to achieve this.
Personally I think private members bills are something to be held on to. Under a political system that favours single party government it is already near impossible for 'minority' mp's (if you can call the snp 'minority' nowadays but really I am thinking the even smaller parties) elected with enormous support locally to put forward legislation. The issue of complex or messy over-legislating can be dealt with elsewhere and by other means -figures suggest that the mess of laws (and on this I agree with ninfan, it was a bit of a mess) under Blair actually had little to do with private members bills -the successful ones actually halved under Blair compared to the previous two periods of government.
fight to roam
Well I suppose there was a certain amount of that with the gamekeepers on Kinder before the right to roam.
[quote=wanmankylung ]What's wrong with that?
Well some of them are a bit - how can I put this - "zoo fightery". Not that I have a problem with that - most of them are quite entertaining. More to the point though, the list is completely irrelevant if you play the ball not the man - something it appears ninfan is incapable of. I hadn't even noticed you started this thread, and I think I've made my feelings fairly clear.
Interesting MP response in that it seems to ignore his primary role. Maybe the government could review the whole process, unless of course that doesn't ultimately benefit the wealthier in our society.
Sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
As for the tactic, pretty sad too. Imagine how proud you must feel if that was the highlight of your day? But nothing new in it.
And some want these people, running more and more of our society. Very odd....
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
The trouble is that the politicians have structured education so that it's difficult to find space in the timetable for things which aren't compulsory. I presume that's what you meant?
I meant, it's sad when we have to rely on politicians to determine whether you teach First Aid or not.
Yeah, I saw that was what you wrote, I was just exploring your understanding of the implications.
Oh, I thought you were stating what you presumed I meant.
I suggest appointing Nicholas Parsons as Speaker and introducing the rules of Just a Minute into political debate.
No deviation!! 😉