I have previously commented on the sheer growth in recent years in the number of all-party parliamentary groups in Parliament. There is a group for virtually every topic you can think of, political and non-political. An all-party group can serve a valuable purpose, bringing together members from all parties with a particular interest in a subject (such as disability, breast cancer, sustainable development) and working to raise awareness of the subject and discuss it with ministers. However, they have also attracted criticism because some are administered by outside interest groups and because of the pressure on resources, not least members’ time: it is difficult to attract more than four or five members to a meeting.
The Speaker and Lord Speaker have now set up a bicameral working group to consider the current operation and funding of the groups. It will examine the implications of the growing number of such groups, their funding, the risk of confusion with formally constituted select committees, and whether they should be required to publish minutes and accounts. It is being chaired by Jack Straw and is expected to report in the spring.
also attracted criticism because some are administered by outside interest groups
The number of people queueing recently to get in to PortCullis at about 1730 made me wonder about the current use of the building, but I was advised by Fiona of the Hansard, that such meetings are positively encouraged, to make full use of the splendid building, which re-establishes the reputation of the buildings of Parliament as a Palace in every sense of the word.
It did make me wonder whether the Older select/bill committee chambers are used as intensively as they used to be, the dark old corridors giving the distinct, and accurate, impression of intrigue. No such thing in the
new building!
The more cricketing, and tiddley winks groups there are, the better the place will be used surely, whether administered from the Yorkshire moors or not.
My own opinion ,(I rarely give my own opinion!) my own opinion, is that the House of lords should be run from somewhere else as well, with e-chambers (electronic chambers) for all select committee meetings, with quor-ums determined by the number known to be logged in at the moment of decision. It would require video links for all peers at their desks in their offices at home, or wherever.
Voting, where voting is done, in such committees, would also be online.
It would also be done in fulness of time for
the main chamber, the “Ayes having it” being conducted by online vote.
One of my cousin compatriots, who works in the city of London, and doubtless has ample experience of the “Open Outcry” markets worldwide, which have been conducted thus, for some years now, suggested this, at the
Forum meeting, at which the noble Lord Norton varied his stance of leaving early for an important meeting, by arriving late! Some people make me laugh at their antics, and I should have laughed out loud and alone, when he did arrive thus!!!
That latter is an amusing aside, but if the open outcry markets of the city can work online, dealing in billions of pounds per year,then there is absolutely no reason why, what amount to non shareholder, democracy outcry markets of parliament,(the market of the trade of wordsmith and law maker ) should not be conducted in the same way, remotely, and at a distance, on the internet and in e-chambers.
To extend the brief of the Hon Jack Straw, I would be glad to attend to give evidence, to help crystallize such a prospect, but I fear it is light years beyond the selfish ambitions of parliament to invite us.
I shall think of the name of a committee for the purpose…… !!
That is quite enough CED(Campaign for Electronic and Digital Democracy)! I have CED quite enough.
The reply to my kinsman was about six words.
“It will be a long time coming” and was disposed of without another.
Everything to do with politics and groups, of one sort or another, appears to have completely gone awry. Too many agencies of one kind or another, claiming their right to what ‘they think’ is best. Without one word of majority acceptance.
Example, I heard the maniac Blair on the radio this morning, plugging his existence. He mentioned himself, along with the Gates peope, and threw in China as a well wisher, all with their eye on Africa. All begging for funds, and all wanting additional charity from the public. To do what we ask? Does anyone really know what they are up to and who will scrutinize this action?
And note that not one of them is up for election or is asking the world if they are suitable candidates for what they are selling.
How interesting it is, that those who ‘lobby’ on our behalf, or, the behalf of whomever they centre on, never ever feel they should get some kind of provable mandate from those whose needs they claim to represent.
If you follow the money, you always find there is the rainbows end.
How do these people get air time, is what puzzles me.
I can understand the need for such groups, and have been to a couple of meetings of one. When you can get sufficient MPs and peers to turn up along with a group of non-Westminster people, then it’s a chance to have semi-formal discussions and presentations from the people to their representatives, and hear explanations of why something can’t be done (or that it can, but only very slowly). The Parliamentarians get to learn more about the subject, admittedly normally from people with a particular interest. It’s potentially a lot more transparent than some of the lobbying that goes on, simply because anyone can turn up (assuming one knows when and where) and listen. Taking formal minutes for publication is only useful to a point – if the formal business finishes, much else can be discussed in ad hoc groups in the time available.
Blair still seems to have an ambition in the
EU. He is certainly young enough and healthy enough to take a lead again.
I support him.
All one can say, as a ‘minority-of-one’, is
“Why on Earth does Parliament not constitutionally-establish a Method III Win-Win-Win Permanent Section and Committee in its own Right ?
I see no other way of lighting-up those selfish-interested “All-Party-Groups” for what they are – abusers of both The Peoples’ and the Earth’s-Lifesupports’ Needs & Hows.
What an odd position to take. People are so ludicrously blind when it comes to politicians. Now why is that?
We have a person, and I say a person, as in the last 6 years minimum, I have yet to hear from another, who supports Blair.
This morning we hear Lauren Gbagbo has been taken to the Hague so he can be tried for war crimes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/cotedivoire/8925053/Former-Ivory-Coast-president-Laurent-Gbagbo-on-crimes-against-humanity-charges-at-The-Hague.html
Yet, in the same breath, the war crimes of T.Blair can be overlooked here in this place called the United Kingdom. How peculiar that is. And why?
What real difference is there between one man who turns a blind eye to torture and rape, and another? Or, one man who refuses to give up power and another? The line here is so thin, I wonder where the cut off point is?
One man leaves office after having been pushed out and more, refusing to go for an election in order to keep his party in office. He hands the reigns to his compliant mammal colleague. This being after he lied to his country on the issue of reason to go to same war, and leading the people into it, knowing it was treason to do so. During this war, he reigned over known torture and rendition, hiding it as best he could, telling the people the war was, in effect, self defence.
On top of this horror, when leaving office, he gets paid a fortune for doing what he did by the country that he was in cahoots with. And on top of which, he was made a peace envoy for the world to revere.
Another man, who is from an entirely different part of the world, does a similar act of macabre behaviour, but he is later sent to Europe. Far from his people and his country, where these crimes against humanity were committed by him, to be tried for what he did there.
Yet here we have a person who would ‘approve’ of one of them as a ‘European’ leader, to once again rule over us, in that civilized place where they spout about Human Rights for all. The European Union.
If it wasn’t so serious it would be very funny indeed. So funny as to lean toward the totally absurd. Or, more than that, monstrously absurd.
Blair should be in the Hague right behind Gbagbo. They are one and the same people.
How is it so many are blind to it?