There is a rather good parliamentary motion (early day motion 1253) that has been proposed by a cross party group of MPs headed by Zac Goldsmith:
“That this House welcomes the Coalition Agreement commitment to introduce a power of recall for constituents to recall their hon. Members; expresses its disappointment that a recall vote will only happen if the Committee on Standards and Privileges deems an hon.
Member guilty of serious wrongdoing; further expresses its disappointment that the Government has no plans to introduce a power for electors to recall members of the London Assembly, local councillors or Members of the European Parliament; further welcomes instead the provisions of the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill that would permit voters to recall their elected representatives if a majority has lost confidence in them, for whatever reason, and if enough voters sign a petition to trigger a recall vote; and urges the Government to incorporate these provisions as part of its legislative programme to put power in the hands of communities and individuals.”
I particularly like that this would allow more grass roots democracy by devolving decision making on our representatives to the local people they represent and would encompass a wider range of representatives such us councillors, as well as MPs. Having a recall possibility available would actually provide an improvement even if it were not used, recall being part of the framework would help to encourage our elected representatives to do just that, represent our collective view well.
Early day motions are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. Very few are actually debated. However they do at least illustrate the support of groups of MPs for the particular point of view.
The list of MPs who have signed this recall motion 1253 (to date 26th June 2011) shows that Stoke-on-Trent North MP Joan Walley has signed, well done Joan. Stoke-on-Trent South MP Rob Flello and Stoke-on-Trent Central MP Tristram Hunt have not as yet signed. Nor have the neighbouring MPs for Stone – Bill Cash, Newcastle-under-Lyme – Paul Farrelly or Staffordshire Moorlands – Karen Bradley.
The Unlock Democracy website facilitates an easy way for you to write to your MP if you like this motion and want to encourage your MP to sign. I have written to mine, Rob Flello.
“Members; expresses its disappointment that a recall vote will only happen if the Committee on Standards and Privileges deems an hon. Member guilty of serious wrongdoing.”
Why should MP’s be subject to a recall if they have NOT committed serious wrongdoing-as determined by a cross-party independent body?
“further welcomes instead the provisions of the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill that would permit voters to recall their elected representatives if a majority has lost confidence in them, for whatever reason, and if enough voters sign a petition to trigger a recall vote.”
Again, is this really a viable option?
It depends on the threshold for the petition of course, but do we REALLY think that a petition would show that a constituency has ‘lost the confidence’ in its MP? Or would it just show that political parties are going all out to trigger a by-election in a selected seat?
If this is to be what the committee wants, then the threshold to trigger a by-election MUST be somewhere over 50% of the constituency to show genuine lack of confidence in the MP rather than reflecting the activism of a small minority who voted against the sitting MP in the first place.
For example, the system the MPs have proposed if it did NOT include a threshold of over 50% could lead to partisan challenges to MPs in marginal seats of ALL parties by their opponents. It could lead to spurious by-elections on a monthly basis between general elections.
And what happens if the parliamentary majority of an entire government rests on just one or two seats? Are we really happy for opposition parties to build up a baseless campaign to recall government MPs in targetted marginal seats in the hopes that this would give them the parliamentary votes to bring down the entire government? Are we happy for the government to change overnight on the basis of a few thousand voters in targetted seats?
And thats not even mentioning the huge cost of spurious partisan recall by-elections.
Seems to me that these MPs need to consider all the consequences of what they are saying a little more carefully. perhaps when people like Zac Goldsmith have been there a little longer, they will understand these things better.
Yes I expect Zac Goldsmith ought to bow to your obvious superiority Shaun.
Seriously though “Why should MP’s be subject to a recall if they have NOT committed serious wrongdoing”
Because serious wrongdoing probably wouldn’t include acting against the electorate or going back on election lies(promises). Elected representatives are there to represent and if they’re not doing that those electorate should have means to correct that situation without leaving the fool in place for the rest of their term.
Yes political parties could use recall to play their silly party political games, but they would still have to get the electorate to sign up. It’s better than the electorate having no power once they’ve been conned or foolish enough to put the wrong person in.
As for your comment about needing 50%, that’s obviously crazy when we put them there on far far less than that. Consider the 2011 local election – it only took 7.7% of the electorate to put Alison Wedgwood in place! The ‘best’ was Mohammed Pervez at 26.8%. So a 5% threshold would be more than enough.
If a recall option were there it could be there would be less need for it as our representatives may be more inclined to act in our interest, so in practice it would rarely happen but if it did it would likely be well needed for good reason. A good representative should have no fear of recall.
Fact is -Bliar never had a majority and neither did your filthy “Lady” Shaun.
When this Country of cretins take any election as seriously as Britain’s Got Talent I’ll sit up and pay attention.
Seriously… do you give a toss who Ryan Giggs has been slipping a length to?
Must admit… I can’t sleep!
[quote=Nicky Davis]Yes I expect Zac Goldsmith ought to bow to your obvious superiority Shaun.[/quote]
Now that was funny!!
A recall option should be quite simple. Firstly a petition should be submitted citing grounds, followed by a recall election – notice the word election. So the idea it could result in electoral mischief is a load of old pair of meat plums in a hairy sack (how’s that for getting round the mod!!).
Blame the electoral system, you know the one that isn’t broken but allows a party a parliamentary majority with a minority of the overall vote. Then we get total gonads like Shaun citing all the male cow faeces in the world trying to say how other systems are inherently worse whilst forgetting that democracy is supposed to be about representing the people and their wishes.
Would that be the electoral system Rupert Murdoch has bought and paid for? You can have any colour you want, so long as it’s capitalism? We don’t need Statesmen, we need middle managers?
We could argue that certain interests are keen to deny us our democracy whilst concurrently spending millions to give other countries theirs!! I’m waiting to see what happens in Greece, the birthplace of democracy (providing you had a firing pin and testicles and weren’t a slave!!).
Steady Dave! We all know what else the Greeks invented… however liberal with a small ‘l’ – I’m not voting for that!
The most shameful thing about our recent referendum on AV was the turnout. A once in a generation opportunity to alter our constitution and two thirds couldn’t be bothered. It didn’t rain either.
Now if Cheryl was saying “YES” and Danni was saying “NO”…
[quote=tonyjohnt]Steady Dave! We all know what else the Greeks invented… however liberal with a small ‘l’ – I’m not voting for that![/quote]
If it’s what I think you’re referring to, then I’m afraid nature invented that, not the Greeks!!
NO DAVE! THE GREEKS INVENTED IT!
They’re all bummers!
Well, they obviously didn’t want to limit their choices then!!
Can’t be hereditary either!
Think about it.
Actuall, I bet it can given people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Oscar Wilde, James I and his father Henry Darnley, Sir Michael Redgrave, Edward II.
They’re just a few of the famous ones who’ve had children. Just because they fancy the same sex doesn’t stop them reproducing.
Think about it.
Given the consistantly poor standards of debate shown by Nicky, Dave Perry, Tony John and others on the site, I am given renewed confidence in my ‘obvious superiority’ every day!
You see, if you want to paint me as this supremely arrogant individual, you will find it is a part I can rise to
So what do we have here? We have Nicky talking complete balderdash because she seems unable to grasp the simple premise that this recall proposal refers to MPs and not councillors. Do some more reading on the subject and then come back to us.
Then we have David Perry who is equally unable to grasp the simple facts of life-that a recall motion on a small petition threshold and not governed by very clear and narrow criteria for recall would be subject to the utmost mischief making by political parties.
Is nobody on this site really able to believe that a political party in an ultra marginal seat would use a recall petition to call spurious by-elections in the seats they have the best chance of winning? Seems like a simple truism to me.
I’d quite like a by-election in Newcastle where we Tories only have to overturn a 1,000 or so majority. No doubt Labour would like a by-election in traditionally marginal Stafford (with one of the highest proportion of public sector workers in the country) to take place during the cuts and the national strike action by their mates in the unions.
And with the recall ballot mechansim that these MPs seem to be proposing, we may soon be able to get it!
And I shan’t comment on Tony John’s continuing obsessive rants about the inherently evilness of Lady Thatcher-despite her having left office some two decades ago. I shall just say that there is such a thing as taking your obsessions too far Tony, and leave it at that. You lost, get over it!
At the end of the day, all the manic ravings of the socialist brigade lined up against me here can go on and on as much as they like, and you can destroy as much of our delicate constitution as you like. But what you amount to is policy based on blind prejudice and leaps in the dark. Not the best way to govern, I’d have thought.
I would urge you all to pay more attention to the sound philosophy offered by David Perry at the end of all his posts (I assume as some sort of ironic statement, since he never actually follows it): “Logic rather than emotion for sounder reasoning”
I agree. Lets have a bit more logic and reason and a bit less pontificating from people who are not able to consider all of the consequences of their proposals.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]Given the consistantly poor standards of debate shown by Nicky, Dave Perry, Tony John and others on the site, I am given renewed confidence in my ‘obvious superiority’ every day!
You see, if you want to paint me as this supremely arrogant individual, you will find it is a part I can rise to
[/quote]
One word: hubris. If you were so superior you wouldn’t still be living at home at your age.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]At the end of the day, all the manic ravings of the socialist brigade … [/quote]
Haven’t quite worked out how an economic system relates in any way to the electoral system but maybe your seemingly superior intellect can enlighten us.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]So what do we have here? We have Nicky talking complete balderdash because she seems unable to grasp the simple premise that this recall proposal refers to MPs and not councillors. Do some more reading on the subject and then come back to us.[/quote]
Actually, had you read the article properly you’d have realised that Nicky was merely expressing her opinion that she’d like to councillors subject to recall. So much for that superior intellect!!
It’s becoming clear that Shaun is starting to become as unpopular on this site as Craig Pond and bubonic plague. Why? Could be his attitude? The same reason he fell out with his party perhaps? “I know better than you because I studied it!”
I’m curious, with all this superior intellect what does he actually do and is this right that at 30 or near enough he still lives at home? Reading his blurb he lives and works within his ward so that possibly narrows down what he does. Am I right in thinking the main source of employment in that ward is Trentham Lakes? So is he call centre agent at Fortis? An order picker at Screwfix Direct? Perhaps a waitress at The Harvester? Doubtfully a personal trainer at Greens!! Answers on a postcard @ pitsnpots…
Can’t even spell my name right, not that it stops you ranting.
“You lost, get over it”? When Shaun? ’79, ’83, ’87, ’92? Who’s dragging up history now?
Whatever happened at the last election, Cameron and his New Thatcherites (spit) did NOT win!
We will have strikes, division, an absence of social cohesion tomorrow… welcome back to government.
I hope the Blurton Mummy’s boy isn’t getting to you. Should never allow that with someone who strikes one as though the best part of them ran down the crack of their mum’s ass and ended up as a brown stain on the mattress.
So what do we have here? We have Shaun talking complete balderdash…
“this recall proposal refers to MPs and not councillors” you say. “Do some more reading on the subject” you say.
I’ve already done my reading Shaun but it seems you could do with some literary assistance. So let me help you. Look at the text of EDM1253 reproduced above, count down to the 5th to 7th lines “further expresses its disappointment that the Government has no plans to introduce a power for electors to recall members of the London Assembly, local councillors or Members of the European Parliament”. With me so far? Then look at the line after that “welcomes instead the provisions of the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill”:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/067/11067.i-i.html
Scroll down to section 3 of that link; “In this Act “elected representative” means any person elected in England to serve as a Member of Parliament, a Member of the European Parliament, a member of a local or parish council, or an elected Mayor.
He’s not annoying me bud. He’s a cretin by Tory standards.
Reckons he’s got a degree! Jeez… easy to see how the Chinese are walking all over us.
He has, and a master’s to boot. He’s probably why some argue that people with academia have no real world knowledge…
Going back to the original issue of recalling councillors, it would really only work in cases of serious misconduct eg. Lee Wanger being put on the sex offenders register. Otherwise it impossible to differentiate between a genuine complaint and one which is politically driven.
For example, you would have had the likes of Nicky Davis wanting to recall Ross Irving over the Trentham High School issue even though his conduct as a councillor was exemplary. And what a nasty, bitter and twisted campaign it was that was run against Ross by the left overs from the Trentham Action Group.
The remit of the various standards committees could include differentiating between the genuine, politically driven and outright mischievous complaints. After all, at parliamentary level they are cross party and at local level also include officers. I’m surprised Shaun didn’t suggest this with his superior intellect.
I’d like a recall for this entire government. The Tories didn’t dare stand on such a rabid right-wing platform. No-one voted for this!
Give us our democracy back. First thing they did was cover their arses with the fixed Parliament crap. No mandate – bunch of crooks!
Personally prefer fixed parliaments, stops elections being called when polls are more favourable. They have to face the country regardless of how (un)popular they are.
It was knocked back anyway. A simple (1 vote) majority will still suffice for a No Confidence Motion. That attempt by the non-socialist brigade to chip away at our “delicate constitution” seems to have slipped beneath Mastermind’s radar.
Yeah, so delicate we don’t really have one, just gentlemen’s agreements, they just make it up as they go along.
That’s what unwritten means David.
Still, we might all be skint but at least we can stab burglars again. Personally, I’d prefer a reduction in burglaries over carte blanche to kill the scumbags.
“you would have had the likes of Nicky Davis wanting to recall Ross Irving over the Trentham High School issue” Yes exactly, that would be one of the examples in
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/067/11067.i-i.html
1 (2) (b) (v)
“lost the confidence of his or her electorate”
(I disagree with your view on his conduct as a councillor. Not bothered now, gone, fine.)
“nasty, bitter and twisted campaign” – no not at all. Our message was short and straightforward, nothing twisted:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BwnPMdnm-yQhYWRlN2E1OWQtYWIxYy00NTRiLThhMDAtOTU0MTIwMDBkMGQ3&authkey=CN_V-8kF&hl=en_GB
We just stated honestly and factually what he had done, why we did not want him to represent us anymore and encouraged people to vote but not for him. Nothing nasty in there at all, just truth. Not bitter, especially now, more just pragmatic. It was a perfectly legitimate local campaign for which there are set rules that we followed meticulously. In the end of course people had a choice and they didn’t choose him. That’s the way of elections, you may win or lose.
But if you don’t like local campaigns then the recall procedure provides a different way of addressing the issue a lot earlier, so it would be better really. If we’d had recall we would not have had to wait until the election then mount a local campaign. Even better than recall would be for the elected member themselves to do the decent thing and step down if they had done wrong or could not bring themselves to represent their electorate any more.
What is the difference between a genuine complaint and one which is politically driven? Well the case you raised was certainly a genuine one, I would have said community rather than politically driven and certainly not party politically driven. But basically and more generally for the recall there would need to be evidence, which seems fair enough. And if it is politically driven does that not still constitute a genuine complaint if the evidence is provided. After all a lot of people would have to agree with it. You could say there will be party political games played, but isn’t that the case anyway with elections?
Diddum’s, the raving socialist brigade ARE getting their knickers in a twist aren’t they! poor things don’t like their opinions being questioned. What a shame. You’re all out of luck.
And before anybody starts going off on the arrogance card again, I was getting that when I was trying to have perfectly reasonable debates with you all. But reason is a foreign land to the socialist brigade of Williams, Perry and John. So I have given up. I embrace your collective unpopularity.
Just one thing though, if we must continue in this vein, can I just tell David Perry that I haven’t lived at home since I was in my second or third year at High School-quite literally some 15 or more years ago. I’m sure he wouldn’t want to carry on perpetuating an untruth would he?…hmmm, well we’ll see.
“Nicky was merely expressing her opinion that she’d like to councillors subject to recall”
Indeed. Her opinions must not be questioned. My opinions on the other hand are expressions of superiority and arrogance. What I said, that the recall motion is NOT subject to councillors was factually correct. Nicky can whinge all she likes, but its not going to happen.
“”You lost, get over it”? When Shaun? ’79, ’83, ’87, ’92? Who’s dragging up history now?”
Grow up Tony. You did lose, and I’m happy to go over it blow by blow for you anytime you like.
“I’d like a recall for this entire government. The Tories didn’t dare stand on such a rabid right-wing platform. No-one voted for this!”
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The socialists never believe that a TORY government has democratic legitimacy anyway tdo they. Thats why the Tony John’s of the world-the overpaid, underworked union barons-keep trying to bring down elected Tory governments by force and by bullying through the medium of strikes. They were at it again this last Thursday, just as they were in the 1980s.
The thing to do is to BAN striking entirely in certain key public services such as the police and prison staff, and to heavily regulate it in others such as health workers and teaching. They should have to ballot their members and achieve over a 50% turnout for striking to be legal in the public services. They should also have to arrange their days to fit in with management so that we don’t get another repeat of this ‘national day of action’ that each striking union magically came to without any form of co-ordination-aparantly! And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything!
Your turn, socialists!
PS, if you want to return to grown up debate, just let me know. But I suspect you’re far happier me playing up to the pantomime villain you want me to be!
[quote=Shaun Bennett]PS, if you want to return to grown up debate, just let me know. But I suspect you’re far happier me playing up to the pantomime villain you want me to be![/quote]
What debate? You pretty much answer everything with “ya boo, I’m cleverer than you”. One has to wonder if you’d be missed if you gave up?
[quote=Shaun Bennett]“Nicky was merely expressing her opinion that she’d like to councillors subject to recall”
Indeed. Her opinions must not be questioned. My opinions on the other hand are expressions of superiority and arrogance. What I said, that the recall motion is NOT subject to councillors was factually correct. Nicky can whinge all she likes, but its not going to happen.[/quote]
WTF!? Was she expressing an opinion of what she’d like to see? Or was she saying, incorrectly, that councillors would be subject to recall? Your opinions expressions of superiority and arrogance? Give us a break, talk about trying to play the victim.
Who cares whether or not you live at home. I would imagine David was trying to get a rise out of you the way he does with Terry (quite successfully it seems).
Falangist Shaun bans strikes
And I’ve been called a socialist!! Again, can’t quite get how an economic system tallies with an electoral one but that’s life.
Strikes me that Shaun is indicative of the contempt shown to public servants by this government and elements of the general public at large. People like him forget that their soft lives are undisturbed because of people like the police, prison service and the armed forces.
The whole public servant thing has been whipped up by an irresponsible press who have convinced large swathes of the population that public servants are all either diversity co-ordinators or “managers”. People are forgetting that these are the people who teach their kids, save people’s lives and maintain the nation’s security. Front line services need the “pen-pusher’s” to carry out essential support roles.
I can think of far worse things than these people striking. In quite a few countries Cameron’s “You do the fighting, and I’ll do the talking” comments would have been greeted by much sterner action than a strike. Maybe Cromwell was onto something.
“What debate? You pretty much answer everything with “ya boo, I’m cleverer than you”. One has to wonder if you’d be missed if you gave up?”
Ha, ha, ha. You people are completely clueless.
I HAVE given up. I’m not in the least bit interested what any of you socialists think-because you aren’t interested in talking sense, you’re just interested in knocking and being ‘web warriors’.
I’m just having a whale of a time and enjoying winding you all up into the bargain!
[quote=Shaun Bennett]I HAVE given up. I’m not in the least bit interested what any of you socialists think-because you aren’t interested in talking sense, you’re just interested in knocking and being ‘web warriors’.[/quote]
And that bothers us because…. Web warriors? Some of us have been real warriors.
“Web warriors? Some of us have been real warriors.”
Really, David. Do please tell us more.
Think that would be obvious to man of your intellect Shaun, I’m referring to a former profession.
Diddums, Shaun’s given up, doubt he’ll be missed.
Its not obvious until now David no, because you’ve never told me what you did, and unlike you, I don’t like to make assumptions about people without knowing the first thing about them.
I wonder what on earth happened to turn you into such a bitter and twisted individual then?
Oh no James, you don’t get out of it that easily. I’ll still be around for a very very long time yet, standing for election, holding you diehard socialist apologists to account and showing the way for the right.
But I’ve given up on you lot yes.
Like Craig Pond? Only with an MA! Both on the right, both fell out with their parties, both seeing lefties under the bed…
Shaun, I think it’s pretty obvious what someone means when they say “real warrior”, so for you to ask them to elaborate clearly illustrates that you’re not as clever as you think you are.
David Perry was clearly right on one point. You accuse people of being socialists because of their views of an aspect of the democratic process. Like he said, socialism is an economic system and I can’t see how it relates to the subject in hand. If by socialists you mean wanting greater electoral accountability then it shows how much you really believe in democracy.
As for accusing him of being bitter and twisted, have you not read the arguments between him and tonyjohnt on this site. He hardly strikes me as being bitter and twisted.
If have given up on this site I agree with James that you won’t be missed, just like Craig Pond. I also find it highly unlikely you’ll ever get elected with an attitude like yours.
If this unnamed ‘Guest’ will take a few moments to reflect rather than piling in to attack me, he would see that:
1) someone saying they were a ‘real warrior’ does not authomatically mean that they served in the armed forces. It could mean that they consider themselves a ‘warrior’ by organising and/or attending various direct action events for environmental ’causes’ or protests. Many on the left see these events as a battle with the forces of the establishment, and I have often heard them describe themselves as ‘warriors’ in a specific cause.
As I explained above, I for one try not to make assumptions about people that I know nothing about. A habit I would urge both you and David Perry to try to emmulate.
2) If I had accused him of being a socialist because of what he has said in this single debate, then you would both have a good point. However, another cursary glance over what I’ve said (sorry to bring you back to reality again) and you would realise that I never made that link at any time.
I accuse David Perry of being a socilaist because of the many many positions that he has taken up on the site over the time he has been with us. I name him fairly and squarely alongside the others in his merry band of carpers.
Again-and I can’t emphasise this to you enough-I only judge people based on what I know about them and what they say and do, not based on prejudice. For lesson, please see the above conclusion to point one.
Firstly, Pits and Pots is not to my knowledge ‘under my bed’ and secondly, if you have difficulty finding lefties in the City of Stoke-on-Trent then I suggest to you that you don’t get out enough.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]1) someone saying they were a ‘real warrior’ does not authomatically mean that they served in the armed forces. It could mean that they consider themselves a ‘warrior’ by organising and/or attending various direct action events for environmental ’causes’ or protests. Many on the left see these events as a battle with the forces of the establishment, and I have often heard them describe themselves as ‘warriors’ in a specific cause.[/quote]
What a load of pseudo-intellectual garbage. Er, how about some of the other comments I’ve posted on here?
[quote=Shaun Bennett]2) If I had accused him of being a socialist because of what he has said in this single debate, then you would both have a good point. However, another cursary glance over what I’ve said (sorry to bring you back to reality again) and you would realise that I never made that link at any time.
I accuse David Perry of being a socilaist because of the many many positions that he has taken up on the site over the time he has been with us. I name him fairly and squarely alongside the others in his merry band of carpers.[/quote]
So which positions are these or is this going to be another one of your accusations without citing evidence (ie specific examples)? I’m sure tonyjohnt would probably strongly disagree with your assertion that I’m a socialist. And bitter and twisted? Hardly.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]Again-and I can’t emphasise this to you enough-I only judge people based on what I know about them and what they say and do, not based on prejudice. For lesson, please see the above conclusion to point one.[/quote]
Hence why I think you’re a cock!!
[quote=Shaun Bennett]Firstly, Pits and Pots is not to my knowledge ‘under my bed’.[/quote]
Just crusty pics of Maggie!!
Like the sig, swapped notes with Cheney and Bush jnr?
“Hence why I think you’re a cock!!
Logic rather than emotion for sounder reasoning”
Hilarious! Its the way you tell them David.
Can I be the first to applaud you on the intellectual rigour, the logic and the reason with which you approached that comment David.
You really must calm down. Its not good for your blood pressure to get yourself so excited. If you keep working yourself up like that, your nurses might have to withold your laptop.
Ha, ha, ha.
No, Maggie has pride of place over my headboard!
My new picture is to represent my status now as the moustache-twirling pantomime villain of the site-a role in which I have been cast and which I intend to enjoy for a while. Plenty of time to return to politics later on.
No logic and reasoning in calling you a “cock” Shaun, just trying to get a rise, and succeeding by the very fact you’ve responded and even feebly tried throwing it back.
I imagine the “nurses” will take away the laptop after they witness the effects of the blood pressure. After all, why should they miss out and let it go to waste looking at “stuff” on the internet!!
However, you still haven’t answered the questions as to where you draw your conclusion that I’m a socialist, and bitter and twisted. Neither will you. Calling you a cock obviously generated too much emotion and distracted you from answering the question.
You still here? So much for taking your bat and ball away!
I’ve made it clear what I’m doing when the light of Shaun’s life pops her eval old clogs, I’m taking tap dancing lessons in preparation, I’ll give her a good send off alright, like ruddy Fred Aster up and down her old casket I’ll be. Hear say they intend to give us all a day off when it happens, and they’ll need to by god, there will be a lot of sore heads round that day among the working class, I’ll tell you.
Said this before and I’ll say it again, Shaun did not live though Maggie as a grown up, most of us did. All Shaun know is what he’s been told about Maggie.
Anyway as anyone seen that thing they unveiled today of Ronnie Regan, looks more like ruddy Elvis Presleys manager if you ask me. I’d like to know how much public money as been pumped into that Omarge to that ruddy washed up old sod. I’m all for public works of art, but thats taking it to far.
I’m amazed you don’t get what I’m trying to say Shaun.
Yes I know the power of recall being introduced in the Coalition Agreement does NOT include councillors.
But this is one of the points being questioned by
early day motion 1253, that they want the recall extended to do this and want instead the provisions of the Recall of Elected Representatives Bill that I described to you in detail previously that would include councillors.
I am expressing an opinion yes, but one that is not only mine but is in line with Zac Goldsmith and his group. I agree that it may well, unfortunately, not happen but as they’ve introduced EDM1253 I just thought it was worthy of debate. I don’t know if debate is really what we’ve got here (it’s worked it’s way down to the level of “Diddum’s”) but it’s certainly getting a few people talking.
“Maggie has pride of place over my headboard!” – Shaun Bennett. Good grief, as far as passion killing is concerned that must surely take the biscuit! Please Shaun, spare us any further details.
“Grow up” – Shaun Bent? Tell your folks – they can’t even spell Sean!
Yes (“we” Labour,) did lose , but you (Thatcherite – spit – filth) did NOT win.
Nicky’s opinions, like mine, Dave’s and many others are often questioned on here. Look at the shit Elsby withstands. No doubt you’d prefer her to shut up, make preserves for the WI and stand by her man. To imagine the aforementioned are in some secret, self- interested alliance is crazy and makes us seem like… well… un-principled Tories and Liberals. If you voice your opinion, however well or cack-handed, never expect it to be received like the sermon on the mount.
You’re either a wind up merchant or a typical John Selwyn Gummer…
Now we know why you’ve never pulled a woman Shaun….lol. You didn’t bid for the old cows hand-bag the other week did you.
It really is fascinating isn’t it how all the socialists pounce upon that little gem about Lady Thatcher over my headboard and run with it.
I think its quite clear that it was not serious, but again you so desperately want it to be true that you’re happy to go with it. Thats what I mean about the conduct of debate on this site. If you all grew up and engaged in serious debate perhaps there would be more people on here from the right prepared to debate WITH you!
Anyway, rant over. Back to being the pantomime villain.
Warren just sums up the intense nastiness of the socialists-and I look forward to messrs Tony John, David Perry and Nicky throwing in their two penneth later on in support for what he has said. And they call US the nasty party!
To sit there and say that not only wish for the day that someone dies but to actually say that you will rejoice and party when it happens is surely one of the most evil and disgusting things it is possible to say.
What did this Great Lady do to deserve such vile and spiteful abuse? She dragged the country kicking and screaming to economic prosperity-the prosperity we all benefitted from until Gordon Brown ruined it. She reformed our public services to make us fit for the 21st Century. She forced those who were employed unnessarily at taxpayers expense (yes, localauthorities DID used to create employment by taking on more staff than they required) to retrain and move into the private sector. She smashed the undemocratic power of the union bullies and turned them into helpless kittens. She won-and she KEPT winning! All such great achievements that have gone down in history.
By contrast, the only reason that there is nobody sitting wishing for Warren, Tony John or David Perry to pop their clogs is because nobody has ever HEARD of them! The only reason nobody will celebtrate when that day comes is because they have never achieved ANYTHING.
Something to reflect upon I think!
Oh and P.S. I think it extremely fitting that as well as the first ever parliamentary statue of a living former Prime Minister being granted to the Great Lady; we have now honoured the greatest US President of the last century as well.
Ronnie Regan was the other part of that very successful right of centre double act that dominated the free world in the 1980s. Leading his country to greatness, Regan won-and KEPT ON WINNING.
When the Warren Lloyd’s, the Tony John’s and the David Perry’s of the world were apologising for the Soviet Union and wishing for the day that the revolution came about in the west, Ronnie regan and Lady Thatcher were actively working to dismantle it.
The result? Labour today has to completely reject its history and apologise for everything it has ever done in order to be taken seriously. It has to adopt Tory-yes, Thatcherite-agenda if it ever wants to win power.
And the Tony John’s, the Warren Lloyd’s and the David Pery’s of the world hate it so much because they are left with nowhere to go but to SUPPORT in Labour’s name the very policies they once called evil under the Tories!
So who won the war?
“Grow up” – Shaun Bent? Tell your folks – they can’t even spell Sean!”
I rest my case M’Lud.
“Yes (“we” Labour,) did lose , but you (Thatcherite – spit – filth) did NOT win”
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]When the Warren Lloyd’s, the Tony John’s and the David Perry’s of the world were apologising for the Soviet Union and wishing for the day that the revolution came about in the west, Ronnie regan and Lady Thatcher were actively working to dismantle it.[/quote]
Where did this come from? No-one to my knowledge on this site has mentioned “come the revolution” nor apologised for the Soviet Union. In fact, I’ll just check my employment history for time I was an adult during the Cold War.
WTF!!??
Nicky says what she’d like to see and is told she’s being factually incorrect. Someone needs to read things better.
People being accused of being socialists because they endorse some sort of electoral reform? Although to be fair one person probably is genuinely a socialist but one certainly ain’t from what I’ve read here.
Has the world turned upside down? David Perry’s now a communist calling for revolution? My god, what happened to the toffee-nosed lord of Caverswall Manor who called people oiks? Could it be perspectives? A toff to the lefties, a commie to the frothers on the right?
One things for sure, someone sure knows how to make friends and win votes on this site. Yep, you guessed it, me old mucker Pickles jnr!!
Recall would just make elected representatives more accountable and increase faith in the democratic system. If they behave according to their code of conduct and do what their voters put them there to do they should have no worries. If they fail on either their constituents should be able to call them to account there and then instead of waiting another 2,3,4 years.
On conduct issues the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be able to call a recall election without a petition being submitted. With regard other reasons for recall, all petitions should be submitted to them, with the reasons why constituents want a recall. The Committee then has the final say on whether it goes ahead and would act like an oversight body. By doing so you reduce the risk of petitions being submitted on mischievous ground or because the seat is ultra-marginal. With the committee having a final say there is no need to set a high threshold for signatories on the petition. This system could also be adapted for use at local council level.
This is my personal opinion on how it should run, not the actual proposals. Nor is it endorsing socialism. Got that?
If this is how poor the debates are going to become on this site then why should we bother? Might as well give up on the site altogether. Juvenile, inane, crass? What words can I use to describe it? Also, does Shaun Bennett think he’s going to get people to vote for him after dragging himself into the gutter like he has here? If people get personal the best response is none at all, not giving it back. To be honest though, from where I’m sitting most posters are right when they accuse of him being pompous, arrogant, and all the other things he gets accused of. I would agree with James and the “ya boo, I’m cleverer than you” attitude that Shaun gives, but that’s the only way he can come back. If he wants to represent the people then talking down to everyone isn’t the way to go about it. However, I don’t think representing the people is what he has in mind, it’s more a power trip.
POWER TO THYE PEOPLE……..lol.
“Blame the electoral system, you know the one that isn’t broken but allows a party a parliamentary majority with a minority of the overall vote”
Sorry David, Tony. In all the froth you have been producing, I completely missed this little gem of reason and logic.
So in your opinions, governments only have a mandate to rule if they have achieved over 50% of the vote at a general election do they? Perhaps you believe parties have no right to govern on a parliamentary majority if they did not achieve a majority of the vote?
OK, I can go with that. So Thatcher and Major and Blair and Brown did not meet this criteria.
Well then we must now have the MOST democratic government with the BIGGEST mandate of the post-war period. Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg’s coalition commanded some 58% of the vote at the last election and therefore are perfectly entitled to govern as they are doing.
Oh dear, that would mean you’ll have to stop saying that this government has no democratic mandate won’t you, using your argument. I look forward to hearing that from you!
“If this is how poor the debates are going to become on this site then why should we bother? Might as well give up on the site altogether”
Oh well. I’m sure we won’t miss someone who doesn’t even have the guts to put their name to their comments. I never take seriously comments hiding behind the ‘guest’ description anyway. Close the door on your way out.
“Also, does Shaun Bennett think he’s going to get people to vote for him after dragging himself into the gutter like he has here”
Far be it for me to dare criticise the wisdom of a ‘guest’ but I think I’m right in saying that this site is perhaps the premier news site for local politics in this city. I also think I’m right in saying that it is used extensively by those in the political ‘know’-although perhaps not as much as it was. If you want to know whats going on, you come to Pitsnpots-and thats right, especially now that the Sentinel website has gone out of its way to dissuade people from going to look at it.
But on the OTHER side, Pitsnpots has been well and truely taken over by a foul-mouthed, abusive bunch of people from the left who seek to bully and belittle anyone who dares to challenge their cosy concensus. Because of this, nobody now takes seriously the comments section of this site. What began as a good idea has been destroyed by the people that use it.
And because of that, I don’t really care whether the people on this site think I will ever get elected or not. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other because if I did want to get elected, I certainly wouldn’t be trying to win a popularity contest on this site. And as it happens, there is no election for another 4 years and I’m going to have some fun in the meantime.
When the next election comes, be I standing as a Tory or as an Independent, I will fight a strong LOCAL campaign and I very much doubt I will ever meet anyone who has visited this site or taken offence by me.
I will also like to quash this strange idea that if someone like me has never been elected, then we are automatically inferior to those who have and we may not criticise them as equals. Presumably that means that eveyone who IS elected to something are ALWAYS automatically superior to thos who are not. Try and tell the people of Hanley West and Shelton that!
The reason I have never been elected in Stoke-on-Trent is amazingly because I am of a Tory persuasion. No more, no less. If I were to join the Labour Party and stand as a candidate for them, I’d be elected much easier.
So you see, this idea that I am preoccupied with winning election really is a strange one. If that was what I wanted, I could think of much easier ways to go about it!
Shaun, I don’t think I’ve ever said this government doesn’t have a democratic mandate. As you say, a majority voted for the two parties combined. Therefore logic says they do have a mandate from the people. As far as I can see the ONLY person who has expressed this is tonyjohnt.
Unfortunately, with the UK being unused to coalition governments, there will be many, including Lib-Dem and Conservative voters (like I was!) who question it’s legitimacy. In their eyes they voted for their party not a coalition of more than party. The same was said when Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister because people don’t understand how the appointment works (ie, his party still held a parliamentary majority, the position is merely an appointment by HM).
Nor have I expressed any real opposition to their policies. The only real concern I’ve expressed is that the Big Society isn’t what it’s cracked up to be and where and how deep the cuts are being made. I’ve made my position clear that cuts should be prioritised where public behaviour would save money, and wastage in the public sector.
However, culling jobs in a short space of time and therefore reducing overall disposable income would also reduce spending in the economy potential deepening recession, which I believe a number of economists have warned against (also stopping the NHS treating ‘bad lifestyle’ choices would be seen as downright cruel!).
More money could be raised by collecting unpaid taxes, tackling tax evasion and legislating against avoidance. Raising VAT lowers consumption, particularly at the bottom end and slows GDP growth. Cuts to the police and armed forces with what’s possibly round the corner make no sense, Maggie didn’t make that mistake.
My growing opposition to this government is over defence, law and order, and education. In particular the attitude being shown to senior police and military officers, and the growing softness on crime caused by the lack prison space. Security, both internal and external cannot be compromised just to ‘balance the books’, and good education is essential for economic growth (unless we want to see even more migrant workers in a generation’s time).
I have yet to establish where you get the idea I’m a rabid socialist from. You have yet to elaborate where you draw this conclusion from , save for the usual vague “it’s some of your other posts”. If you’d read the to-do between myself and tonyjohnt on this, and the stories about local house prices and the local jobs bonanza you’d have realised that I’m anything but.
I think the problem lies in the fact that if someone disagrees with you on one issue you automatically assume they disagree with you on everything. Hence why it seems when someone makes a point, you respond naming everyone that’s ever disagreed with you, like on this story. Likewise if people get personal and express a personal dislike it doesn’t mean they will always disagree with you.
Someone’s swiped my hammer and sickle.
It’s rather typical of you to make unwarranted assumptions Shaun. In fact you and I agree on something at least, I wouldn’t wish death on Maggie Thatcher or anyone else, not even Ross Irving or Roger Ibbs. I’m happy that they’re out of elected political power and happy to celebrate that, because I don’t think their politics is good for the city/country. But I wouldn’t be celebrating any death.
As for your headboard, well it’s a case of can’t beat them, join them, but rest assured there is no desperation whatsoever connected with it.
http://communist-party.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=8&Itemid=22
Now that I have started throwing back at you the sort of cheap shots and childish comments that you have been throwing at me for the past year on this site, suddenly you want to have a sensible conversation.
I have to say, that comment above is the best I’ve ever seen from you. My problem is NOT that you disagree with me. On the contrary, I welcome people disagreeing with me if they can put a logical case for what they are saying. I will then try to poke holes in the logic or I will accept that it is a good argument and call it a day.
The way I see it though, whenever I start to pick apart someones argument on the site, they often respond with cries of arrogance or else abuse because they think I should just accept their flawed case and move on. I don’t work like that. I want a proper discussion. If people can’t put an argument properly then they shouldn’t be carrying on. And similarly, if someone successfully picks apart my argument, I change my view.
Neither do I presume that if someone disagrees with me on one issue, they must disagree with me on everything. I just take people based on what they say and do. If you can find any occassion in which Tony John, yourself, Big Mac or others have ever AGREED with me on an issue of substance then fair enough. But I can’t think of any. I can only think of the times you’ve attacked me-often in a way that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. And of course I’m going to infer from that that you don’t have an actual argument on the issue.
If you all want to carry on to a higher standard of debate, then I’m sure we’d all get on fine. So in that vein:
“I don’t think I’ve ever said this government doesn’t have a democratic mandate”
Yes you’re right I don’t think you have. But since both you and Tony John made broadly similar points above about the electoral system, I just took you both together. My question was really aimed more at Tony John however.
“Unfortunately, with the UK being unused to coalition governments, there will be many, including Lib-Dem and Conservative voters (like I was!) who question it’s legitimacy.”
Again, yes I agree. I hope we don’t have more coalition governments, and by supporting FPTP we can now minimise that. I don’t question the legitimacy of this government, I just don’t like it very much when it departs from the Tory agenda.
“In their eyes they voted for their party not a coalition of more than party. The same was said when Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister because people don’t understand how the appointment works”
Again yes, but I blame the media for that. Their agenda was that they wanted an immediate general election and so they went on the attack for Brown being in place without having had an election. So far as I’m concerned, the constitutional position is clear and correct-a party has a right to change its leader and PM without the need for an election.
I never called for an election in 2007 for that reason. Now if Labur had then got rid of Brown as well…we’d have been in uncharted territory and you could then have argued for an election.
“The only real concern I’ve expressed is that the Big Society isn’t what it’s cracked up to be”
I agree. I don’t think we’ve explained this properly and the fault for that sits with Cameron and his supporters. The idea sounds good-bigger society and smaller government is a core Conservative principle. But how is it followed into policy??? There always has to be a minimum welfare state to support those that cannot support themselves. And NO Conservative will disagree with that.
“More money could be raised by collecting unpaid taxes, tackling tax evasion and legislating against avoidance”
Yes thats right and the Conservative Party will not be happy if it gets a reputation for being the party that turns a blind eye to tax evaders. We need to tackle these issues that you mention. But it can’t be an ALTERNATIVE to cuts, it must be in addition.
“Raising VAT lowers consumption, particularly at the bottom end and slows GDP growth. Cuts to the police and armed forces with what’s possibly round the corner make no sense, Maggie didn’t make that mistake”
Agreed, agreed, agreed!
“My growing opposition to this government is over defence, law and order, and education”
I could have quoted that entire paragraph because I wholeheartedly agree with all of it…except perhaps on education. I agree we’re not doing enough. But I do think we’re doing a fairly ok job there. I think we should bring back Grammar Schools as well.
“However, culling jobs in a short space of time and therefore reducing overall disposable income would also reduce spending in the economy potential deepening recession”
Yes thats reasonable. But the fact remains that savings have got to be made because of the position the country is in. It would be a false economy to avoid making the big and difficult decisions as soon as possible to cut back on waste and shrink the size of the state where possible. Short-term pain yes, but in the longer term we will be so much better off. The real betrayal would be for government to avoid taking the tough choices and leave the structure of the economy unchanged.
We have finite resources. Unless you raise taxes-which is not a good idea generally, and particularly not now-then you have to accept that things will have to be cut. Where do you start? The more items we add to the list of areas that must be protected-or increased-the more difficult the remaining choices become. Are the arts really more important than defence? Is international aid really more important than policing at home? Is the NHS treating ‘bad lifestyle’ choices really more important than cancer care, heart operations and kidney machines? Is the local gym really more important than childrens protection services? To some people, yes they are and you will always get whinging whatever you decide to cut. I’m sure you’ll agree that people just have to look at the big picture and muddle through in times like these. Its difficult for everyone.
As you can see, when people are reasonable, I will be reasonable. Lets have more conversations like that and end the sillyness.
I’m very glad to hear it Nicky. You’re right, it is completely in order to want to get rid of people from elected positions that you disagree with and whose views you think are damaging. We all want to do that-I happen to think the same about most of the present line up of Labour councillors.
But its totally out of order to do as Warren has said and actually want someone you failed to defeat to actually die! I can’t imagine wishing that on any of my political enemies.
Indeed, if Warren and others feel that strongly all these years on, surely it shows that she was an even bigger success than we thought. The hatred Warren, Tony John and others feel only goes to INCREASE her greatness and her reputation in our eyes.
And on that terrible day when the news comes through and Warren and Tony meet up for their party-yes there will be others too-it will be clear who the REAL losers are. Their final act of defiance will only go to mark their final ultimate defeat.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]Now that I have started throwing back at you the sort of cheap shots and childish comments that you have been throwing at me for the past year on this site, suddenly you want to have a sensible conversation.[/quote]
Not really, all you’ve done by throwing it back is undermine your own credibility. If you want to be taken as a serious electoral prospect, the best thing is to avoid it at costs.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]I have to say, that comment above is the best I’ve ever seen from you. My problem is NOT that you disagree with me. On the contrary, I welcome people disagreeing with me if they can put a logical case for what they are saying. I will then try to poke holes in the logic or I will accept that it is a good argument and call it a day.[/quote]
Again, that response suggests you’re not reading everything people are posting. I get childish, despite my years, because I like getting a rise out of people, not for sensible debate. Those who want to be taken seriously avoid responding at all. Imagine if this was at some public gathering and someone started shouting things like “mummy’s boy” in public, how would you then react? Treat a web forum as though it is that meeting because I guarantee if you bit during a public debate people would switch off from you. By all means poke holes in the logic but refrain from comments like “You’re so wrong on so many levels” etc… That’s maybe why you come across as arrogant and condescending. Look at the start of this paragraph, I disagreed with “that response suggests”. It’s saying I disagree and even suggesting you’re factually incorrect but without jumping down someone’s throat nor making myself look like a know-it-all. You don’t need to even say someone else is wrong if you have a valid counter-argument, just put your counter argument on the table.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]The way I see it though, whenever I start to pick apart someones argument on the site, they often respond with cries of arrogance or else abuse because they think I should just accept their flawed case and move on. [/quote]
See above. It’s not the picking apart that generates the cries of arrogance, it’s the tone and how you put it across, the way you address people. Simply putting a counter-argument across and leaving it for others to judge will suffice.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]Neither do I presume that if someone disagrees with me on one issue, they must disagree with me on everything. I just take people based on what they say and do. If you can find any occassion in which Tony John, yourself, Big Mac or others have ever AGREED with me on an issue of substance then fair enough.[/quote]
Not sure where Big Mac fits into this, if I’m right all he did was call you fat b*st*rd, apart from that there’s not bee any real debate between you. The reason I accuse you is because if you look back over this story you’ve effectively been lumping people who’ve come at different angles. Likewise, I’ve had strong disagreements with tonyjohnt but Warren thinks we have the same values.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]But I can’t think of any. I can only think of the times you’ve attacked me-often in a way that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. And of course I’m going to infer from that that you don’t have an actual argument on the issue.[/quote]
And you’ve both bitten, and ignored the very valid arguments that have been made. Making personal, and even childish comments doesn’t always mean the other person doesn’t have an argument. It can also be be used to unsettle the other party, either by making them lose focus or even bite back – can be a good weapon in a live debate provided it’s not so childish as to undermine the user. Watch how much it gets used at PMQs. It could also just be baser personal reasons.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]“I don’t think I’ve ever said this government doesn’t have a democratic mandate”
Yes you’re right I don’t think you have. But since both you and Tony John made broadly similar points above about the electoral system, I just took you both together. My question was really aimed more at Tony John however.[/quote]
Illustrating what I said about lumping people together.
[quote=Shaun Bennett]As you can see, when people are reasonable, I will be reasonable. Lets have more conversations like that and end the sillyness.[/quote]
I like sillyness, it livens things up. You, as a potential candidate should be reasonable at all times, and not stoop to lowering yourself to that level, as this site is in the public domain. Refrain from directly telling people they’re wrong and simply argue your case, if it’s valid and they’re reasonable, they’ll see they’re wrong themselves. Saying ” you’re wrong on so many…” is merely one step away from caveman Pond and his “you’re a f*ck*n idiot”. As this is a website there’ll always be an element of sillyness, the best thing to do is not to react. You see me dishing it out but have you ever seen me bite back?
I think the debate about recalling MPs is an important one and should be discussed seriously. But instead of a reasonable debate about an important issue, it seams all the socialist lefty’s have decided to attack Shaun Bennett just because he’s right wing. It is not arrogant to have an opinion that it is different from yours. That is the kind of talk that puts normal everyday people off politics. Instead of attacking Shaun I think you should start acting like adults.
It makes me weep when people who don’t have an argument that they can put forward and start attacking in this childish, pathetic and offensive way. If this is the kind of behaviour that the lefty’s on this site condone and engage in then I think there is little hope for this site ever becoming a place to discus anything of import.
I agree with a lot of what Shaun has said, I think it is about time somebody stud up to lefty socialist’s of this city. They are not the only ones whose opinion matters. other people have a right to express there own opinions with out being accused of being arrogant or being accused of being “a cock”.
[quote=The Real Alan B'Stard]… it seams all the socialist lefty’s have decided to attack Shaun Bennett just because he’s right wing.[/quote]
Given that his politics aren’t much different from mine why would I be calling him a cock it was his politics I had an issue with? If you disagree read, the post on this story where he practically agrees with everything I’m saying. It’s not his political views that wind people up, it’s his tone and perceived attitude.
In fact, read my response to him on this story: 07 Jul 2011 at about 14:58. It all makes sense!!
Indeed,I’m glad to have reached a level of broad agreement with David Perry at last. I don’t mind him (and if he says he’s not a socialist, I’m prepared to accept it in good faith) and others (who definately ARE socialists) thinknig that I’m a ‘cock’. Indeed, as someone who very much believes in confrontational politics as the best model for progress, I’m GLAD they dislike me so much-shows I’m saying the right things! I’d be more worried if they liked me because I’d clearly be saying something wrong.
But debate really must be based on policy and politics rather than personal abuse as some here do.
I’d just like to say that its so nice to at last see a genuine right-wing Conservative joining the debate on the site against this lefty majority that has until now dominated. And if indeed this IS the real Alan B’stard, I’m a HUGE fan of yours!!!
Shaun, the real Alan B’Stard crossed benches, or have you not come across the stage show?
I KNOW! I couldn’t believe they did that in the New Labour years. I suppose they wanted to update the character to keep it relevant to the modern political scene…and there is probably a lot of similarties between Thatcherism and Blairism.
I believe though that B’Stard has in fact now seen the light since the fall of Blair and returned to his Tory roots. Certainly he would never have supported Brown and I suspect he will have sensed the long-term shift to the right ahead of the 2010 election.
Of course, I suppose we’ll have to wait for the ‘real Alan B’Stard’ to confirm this
I found out something interesting. Apparently shadow ministers aren’t able to sign early day motions. I just wonder why this isn’t made more clear. For example the following
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/edms/
mentions ministers, from which I would not have interpreted shadow ministers to be included. It also includes the term “normally”.