Comments on: How democracy works http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/ Heather Brooke is an award-winning writer, journalist and activist Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:17:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nick http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/comment-page-1/#comment-1814 Nick Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:59:19 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=665#comment-1814 Isn't it more a case of David Heath not understanding the system as well as Julian Lewis? He seems to have asked for a debate *after* the vote has been counted! So it's unsurprising that the Deputy Speaker (an elected MP, by the way, hardly an appointed functionary) decides that there is to be no further discussion. If Heath had been paying attention, he'd have moved his point of order immediately after Lewis's: before the vote. It's not unusual for a debate to have a time limit, or for MPs to try all sort of procedural shenanigans to get their favoured provisions through before that time limit, so Heath should have been aware. Anyway, as you no doubt know, this provision has *not* become law yet. It still has to pass through the Lords. Now, they are apparatchiks, but they will have the ability to remove this clause, or at least change it sufficiently that it is debated fully when the bill returns to the Commons. Isn’t it more a case of David Heath not understanding the system as well as Julian Lewis? He seems to have asked for a debate *after* the vote has been counted! So it’s unsurprising that the Deputy Speaker (an elected MP, by the way, hardly an appointed functionary) decides that there is to be no further discussion. If Heath had been paying attention, he’d have moved his point of order immediately after Lewis’s: before the vote. It’s not unusual for a debate to have a time limit, or for MPs to try all sort of procedural shenanigans to get their favoured provisions through before that time limit, so Heath should have been aware.

Anyway, as you no doubt know, this provision has *not* become law yet. It still has to pass through the Lords. Now, they are apparatchiks, but they will have the ability to remove this clause, or at least change it sufficiently that it is debated fully when the bill returns to the Commons.

]]> By: heather http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/comment-page-1/#comment-1813 heather Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:58:41 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=665#comment-1813 Julian, Sadly there are few journalists who have the time and support to do this sort of work. I don't know if it's the fault of the media organisations who demand too much from fewer and fewer reporters or the general public who seem only interested in trivia and celeb news than in what's actually happening in their own country. You should be proud that you're one of the elite fact peddlers. Julian,
Sadly there are few journalists who have the time and support to do this sort of work. I don’t know if it’s the fault of the media organisations who demand too much from fewer and fewer reporters or the general public who seem only interested in trivia and celeb news than in what’s actually happening in their own country.

You should be proud that you’re one of the elite fact peddlers.

]]> By: John L Bell http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/comment-page-1/#comment-1812 John L Bell Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:54:12 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=665#comment-1812 It couldn't be an attempt to obscure any investigation of which particular property tax payers' money has being spent? Not on a second home but unauthorised property portfolios. As a tax paying citizen I object to paying for their second homes..... never mind extending their property portfolio. Sections 2-4 of the Fraud Act will be their downfall. It is just a matter of time! It couldn’t be an attempt to obscure any investigation of which particular property
tax payers’ money has being spent? Not on a second home but unauthorised property portfolios.
As a tax paying citizen I object to paying for their second homes….. never mind extending
their property portfolio.
Sections 2-4 of the Fraud Act will be their downfall.
It is just a matter of time!

]]> By: vaci http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/comment-page-1/#comment-1811 vaci Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:36:49 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=665#comment-1811 At first glance I thought rule 53A read: "the returning officer shall destroy each candidate's home address three weeks after the election" At first glance I thought rule 53A read: “the returning officer shall destroy each candidate’s home address three weeks after the election”

]]> By: Julian Todd http://heatherbrooke.org/2009/how-democracy-works/comment-page-1/#comment-1810 Julian Todd Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:52:49 +0000 http://www.yrtk.org/?p=665#comment-1810 As usual, it requires me to do the real hard dog-work that none of your high-fallutin professional journalists ever seem to get round to! http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-03-02&number=45 As usual, it requires me to do the real hard dog-work that none of your high-fallutin professional journalists ever seem to get round to!

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-03-02&number=45

]]>