Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MikeThePlayer

Tories have changed tack over strict liability: there's still hope

6 posts in this topic

Having oppened the previous thread on this subject some time ago (http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=238541#post238541), I thought it would be worthwhile to highlight the change in Tories' position on strict liability, which could be quite significant in the Lords.

This was emphasized both by comments during the report stage, but especially, when it came to voting for the New Clause 25, which was proposed by a 3-party group (led by Dr Evan Harris) and would have removed strict liability (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/066/amend/pbc0661905m.918-921.html.)

The new clause was defeated by a relatively close vote (285-211); see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090519/debtext/90519-0020.htm for the full list of voters.

As the House of Lords is not dominated by Labour, IMHO there is still hope that things may drag out at least until the summer recess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god! Thatcher will turn in her grave. Hold a second she nots dead and neither is this legislation. The Tories are Tory only in name not in policy.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notice that louise ellman was amongst the noes,one of her friends is a convicted rapist-owen oyston who previously had punted with 17 year old wgs(then legal) i understand that oyston heped fund ellmans campaign to be an m.p.

what a hypocrite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

This was emphasized both by comments during the report stage, but especially, when it came to voting for the New Clause 25, which was proposed by a 3-party group (led by Dr Evan Harris) and would have removed strict liability (see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/066/amend/pbc0661905m.918-921.html.)

The new clause was defeated by a relatively close vote (285-211); see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090519/debtext/90519-0020.htm for the full list of voters.

.

Can anyone offer insight into Andrew Dismore MP (Hendon, Labour) who is among the sponsors of this amendment but who (unlike the other sponsors, Harris, Jones, McDonnell, Steen & Holmes) then voted with the Noes? I find myself perplexed. He Chairs the Human Rights Commmittee, which earlier criticised the Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can anyone offer insight into Andrew Dismore MP (Hendon, Labour) who is among the sponsors of this amendment but who (unlike the other sponsors, Harris, Jones, McDonnell, Steen & Holmes) then voted with the Noes? I find myself perplexed. He Chairs the Human Rights Commmittee, which earlier criticised the Bill.

Has to vote with the whip.

As I already said, my Conservative MP, Bercow from Buckinghamshire, who has also switched his residence several times also voted with the Nos.

Hopefully he will become speaker, or will be thrown out because of his switching. He is finding out if he made money on the sale of his Buckinghamshire house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has to vote with the whip..

I take your point, though I still find it odd to sponsor an amendment and then not to vote for it. Perhaps the truth lies as Boris Johnson writes in today's Telegraph:

The real crime is not the expenses system; it takes place at 10pm on weekday evenings, when MPs arrive in the lobbies, taxi receipts in their pockets, lipstick on their collars, purple claret stains on their teeth.

They file through the lobbies to vote - and what are they voting on? Nine times out of 10, they haven't a clue. All they know, because their BlackBerrys tell them, is whether the whips want them to vote Aye or Nay; and so they shuffle obediently on and then, with a fatuous sense of a job done and a public served, they return to their dinners or the yielding arms of their companions of the evening; and yet another unnecessary and ill-drafted law prepares to enter the statute book; and the put-upon people of this country will be chivvied or taxed or cajoled or coerced in some new way by MPs who have only the vaguest understanding of what they have done.

This fits with 400-odd MPs having voted yet the chamber being 9/10th empty when I saw a bit of the debate....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0