A critique of Patrick Hall's vote against 10:10
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Shane Hughes
Nov 15, 2009, 4:53:21 AM11/15/09
to Transition Bedford
I've just put up a post on the TB site and given that the post is
critical about our local MP's decision to vote against the 10:10 bill,
i'd like to give TB members the opportunity to ask me to remove the
article or some content if deemed in anyway problematic. see here;
http://transitionbedford.org/2009/11/15/patrick-hall-voted-against-1010/
Shane
critical about our local MP's decision to vote against the 10:10 bill,
i'd like to give TB members the opportunity to ask me to remove the
article or some content if deemed in anyway problematic. see here;
http://transitionbedford.org/2009/11/15/patrick-hall-voted-against-1010/
Shane
Sue Mitchell
Nov 15, 2009, 2:12:24 PM11/15/09
to transitio...@googlegroups.com
It is a terrible shame that our MP voted against this motion, but it is hardly surprising - whatever his personal views on the subject. Even Ed Miliband voted against, and he has been a strong supporter of 10:10 from the outset.
Here is Ed's excuse for not backing the motion, :
At the end of the day, it was pretty inevitable that they would both "toe the party line", as instructed by the Government's Chief Whip. That's how things work in the House of Commons. This quote from Wikipedia explains their predicament:
"For a Minister, or even an unpaid Parliamentary Private Secretary, the consequences for defying the party whip are absolute: they are dismissed from their job immediately, if they have not already resigned, and return to being a backbencher. Sometimes their votes in Parliament are called the "payroll vote",because of the fact that they can be taken for granted. The consequences for a back-bencher can include the lack of future promotion to a government post, a reduction of party campaigning effort in his constituency during the next election, deselection by his local party activists, or, in extreme circumstances, "withdrawal of the whip" and expulsion from the party."
See this link for a breakdown of how everyone voted:
Only 12 Labour MPs dared to rebel - including the MP for Luton North. Well done that man! Mind you, it looks as if he always votes against his own party as a matter of principle, so maybe he doesn't even support the idea of 10:10, but just wants to rebel:
Sorry if this all seems a bit depressing - that's not my intention! I'm just trying to explain why we shouldn't be surprised that so few Labour MPs supported the Lib Dem's 10:10 motion.
The good news is that it also works the other way, of course. Should Ed and the Government come up with a blinding plan to cut carbon emissions, we can be fairly certain that it will receive a majority vote in the House, thanks to nearly all the Labour MPs obeying the party whip!!
We're counting on you, Ed!!
Sue
|
Shane Hughes
Nov 20, 2009, 5:33:44 AM11/20/09
to Transition Bedford
WOW!!! Sue i just took a look at the links you've posted. It's pretty
amazingly stark. All MP's voted with their party accept a few labor
MP's voted against their party and in support of the bill. Some
individual views, like Patrick Hall, may well be in line with their
party. This vote has clearly shown that as a party politician your
view is either in line with the parties, or you just realign the view
or you lie about you views in the way you vote.
I don't know much about politics but I have less faith than before in
our "stupid" political system.
amazingly stark. All MP's voted with their party accept a few labor
MP's voted against their party and in support of the bill. Some
individual views, like Patrick Hall, may well be in line with their
party. This vote has clearly shown that as a party politician your
view is either in line with the parties, or you just realign the view
or you lie about you views in the way you vote.
I don't know much about politics but I have less faith than before in
our "stupid" political system.
Sue Mitchell
Nov 20, 2009, 12:13:32 PM11/20/09
to transitio...@googlegroups.com
That just about sums it up!!
I was thinking about putting a question on the subject tonight. I'll think a bit more about it while hanging around in the library after work.
Sue |
|
Sue Mitchell
Nov 22, 2009, 2:39:47 PM11/22/09
to transitio...@googlegroups.com
Shane (and anyone else who's following this exchange),
Maybe there's a way that MPs CAN vote against their Party on Climate Change, without being punished ......
In a recent Employment Tribunal ruling, the judge decided that:
"A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations."
Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.
Afterwards, the Defendent's solicitor said:
"This case confirms, for the ever increasing number of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles, that they are protected from discrimination."
It seems to me that Ed is employed by the Government as Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, ie that is his job. Therefore it would be illegal, under a Regulation which his employer, the present Labour Government, introduced into British Law (ironic, eh?), for him to be removed from said job because his deeply-held environmental beliefs compelled him to disagree with his employer's views or actions.
The same would apply to Patrick, whose job is Member of Parliament for Bedford & Kempston.
I wonder if either of them would be prepared to put it to the test?
For the full story, see this link:
|
|
Sue
|
|
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages