Absurdity update 2

Lord Tyler

With only about thirty minutes to go, we were given a reprieve last night and allowed to speak for three minutes on World War 1.  Big deal!  This came about because the previous business accelerated and the so-called “dinner hour debate” became the final business of the evening, and the hour was elongated to ninety minutes.

The extra thirty minutes enabled each of us backbenchers – 21 in all – to have two minutes extra.  How do you work that out?

I don’t think this in any way undermines the case for taking these decisions away from the establishment, and giving them to a group of backbenchers!

8 comments for “Absurdity update 2

  1. Old Albion
    05/03/2013 at 11:07 am

    I asked you yesterday. Was this debate about using the START of WW1 a feeble attempt to convince Scots that our shared history should prevent them voting for secession?

  2. Senex
    05/03/2013 at 3:18 pm

    An essay of would.

    I was thinking about WW1 but for entirely different reasons: Chinny and a nervous Mekon, together at their podiums; stars sparkling on his shiny top whilst the stripes fluttered in the vacuum that separates them.

    Why was Chinny’s podium higher? Was it that he was finding it hard to fill certain shoes and was wearing high heels to compensate for a president’s gay marriage ambitions?

    Political ambition of the United States in those teen years was to be a friend of all nations but then it joined the fracas in Europe. Is this how a proud people’s noble ambition was undermined?

    If the US had not intervened can we say that the Kaiser’s Corporal would never have risen to power? Would a Weimar constitution that never acknowledged ‘Equality before the Law’ still have allowed the persecution of so many Semites and minorities?

    Would the war against oil blockaded Imperial Japan have come to an early conclusion because more resources would have available to fight a Pacific war? Would the atom bomb never have been tested never have left dark silhouette on walls that remained standing?

    Would the Holy Land still be a British Protectorate? Would Arabs and Jews together still pick oranges in the Jaffa groves?

    Ref: The Federal Republic of Germany Basic Law, 1949.
    I. BASIC RIGHTS: Article 3 (Equality before the law).
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/CONST-DE.asp

  3. MilesJSD
    05/03/2013 at 3:42 pm

    The participative-democratic Public, brazenly blatantly censored and ignored by politicians and MPs at public meetings, BBC forums and question-times, is increasingly having to cry out
    “Answer the question !”.

    MPs have no duty to respond to any serious matter submitted by a constituent.

    Baroness Deech (‘How not To make friends and influence people’ below) says that she is “not bound to vote in any particular way” except as her “conscience dictates”.

    How much less therefore should we expect any peer on Lords of the Blog to answer any question raised by a participant ?
    Nonetheless, and since there are no ‘proper’ channels through which to so quickly, and near viva-voce raise an issue or democratic factor, we do find ourselves having to put questions to posting peers.

    Let me put a real-issue, in a possibly rhetorical guise, to the noble Lord Tyler:

    “Given the suppression of so many seriously participatorily democratic attendees, how on Earth can the House of Lords justify so many basic minutes of “debating speeches” focused exclusively upon the outbreak of WW1, ‘off-the-cuff’ suddenly extended for a whole thirty minutes ?”

    • GaretHugHowell
      10/03/2013 at 10:38 am

      MPs have no duty to respond to any serious matter submitted by a constituent.

      They do. Peers don’t, which is probably what MJSD was thinking of.

  4. Dave H
    05/03/2013 at 5:57 pm

    If the Lords is truly self-regulating, it should be possible for a motion to be proposed extending the time available for debate by some amount, and if carried, it should override any agreements between whips. If that means that other business is delayed as a result, it only goes to show that the government needs to improve its time management and be a bit more realistic about timetabling. Who knows, the concept of proper debate might even spread to the other place instead of the careful stage-management we currently get. If that means that 10% or 10% less legislation gets passed, then that’s probably a good thing, because the last thing we need is yet more laws.

  5. GaretHugHowell
    05/03/2013 at 6:39 pm

    I think it is Anneka Rice in the morning on radio 2 who has to speak as fast as she can to keep here clientel awake,possibly by annoying them sufficiently to get them out of bed.

    It is surprising what she, or whoever it is, can pack in verbally to the space of three minutes and still be understood. Ed Milliband would find it difficult.

  6. maude elwes
    07/03/2013 at 1:21 pm

    Funny how politics change so rapidly.

    Anti nationalism, yet, in both WW1 and WW11 it was our fervent nationalism they relied on. Wasn’t it?

    Now we mustn’t be nationalistic as that is racist…. We are being run by ‘Alice in Wonderland’ or ‘Through the Looking Glass survivors.’

    They don’t know what they want, where they are leading us, or, what will be the horrendous outcome of all this absolete nursery talk. And when you listen to the silly nonsensical squeaky voices of those who think they are sutable for this job, all you can do is put your head in your hands and pray hard for the hope of there being a higher power. For should one of these clowns bring us into an equivalent of WW1 or WW11 we will see ourselves extinct.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-07/yvette-cooper-the-pace-of-immigration-was-too-fast/

    This is being thrown out as a contender. ‘She cannot be serious?’

Comments are closed.