Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

hilltop

1922 Committee

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8693078.stm

Camoron has whipped the 1922 Committee into line. A majority of fifty were in favour.

However, there must be a lot of very unhappy Tory MPs in there, waiting their moment.

The MPs with expectation of office before the New Deal are influential and the core of the Party, how unhappy are they?

A Coalition is as strong as its most fractious element, we will have to wait and see when and why the excluded kick back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/8693078.stm

Camoron has whipped the 1922 Committee into line. A majority of fifty were in favour.

However, there must be a lot of very unhappy Tory MPs in there, waiting their moment.

The MPs with expectation of office before the New Deal are influential and the core of the Party, how unhappy are they?

A Coalition is as strong as its most fractious element, we will have to wait and see when and why the excluded kick back

They're obviously bright, shiny, and keen. But after a couple of terms fagging for Wee Georgie there may be whispers of insurrection in the dorms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, they sound over the moon :rolleyes:

The prime minister ‘ambushed’ the 1922 Committee ahead of a meeting on Wednesday night, saying he wanted major changes to how it operated.

Key among them would be allowing frontbenchers to join the committee, which would shift power from the rank-and-file MPs.

It would mean Mr Cameron’s frontbenchers would be able to vote in the election of the 1922’s new chairman on May 26 – possibly installing a stooge who would not rock the boat.

Storming out of the meeting, one backbench MP told Metro: ‘There is a lot of anger in there tonight.

‘Being under the rule of David Cameron is like being in an abusive relationship: one minute it’s all kisses and cuddles and the next you are cowering in the corner.’

Another, Douglas Carswell, ignoring a party whip within earshot, said: ‘This is wrong, wrong, wrong and I don’t care who knows I said that. This is not new politics, it is taking power away. We all want this new government to work but this effectively destroys the 1922 Committee and with it the safety valve which allows us to speak out against the government.’

The 1922 Committee, which takes its name from the year it was founded, is separate from the Tory leadership, and keeps it informed about the mood on the backbenches. The committee meets each week to discuss parliamentary business and take grievances to the party leadership.

A ballot on the proposed changes runs until 11am today. It is a secret vote, so party whips have no way of knowing which way MPs voted and no power to punish dissenters.

MP Bill Cash told the BBC: ‘There’s going to be a ballot but there was no discussion, no previous consultation. I heard about it, candidates for the chairman of the committee only heard about it ten minutes before the meeting.’

He said the move, along with a ‘tsunami of changes taking place’ – a reference to concessions to the Liberal Democrats in the coalition deal – could ‘create a great deal of uncertainty and tension’.

Those tensions surfaced as Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg used his first major speech to warn off trying to water down Britain’s commitment to the Human Rights Act.

The Tory manifesto pledged to replace it with a Bill of Rights. But Mr Clegg insisted backbenchers tampered with the act ‘at their peril’.

He said the coalition would ‘ask you which laws you think should go’. But, when pressed if that meant the Human Rights Act would be scrapped if the public wanted it, he ducked the question.

Mr Clegg defended the new plan for a 55 per cent majority of MPs to agree to an early dissolution of parliament, insisting it was necessary to ensure stable government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Yup, they sound over the moon :rolleyes:

They need to get over themselves. Maybe if they'd get more votes things would've been easier for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you get the feeling that Cameron/Clegg are getting a little carried away with their own cleverness?

Do you think that Cameron is so taken with his new power that he is looking to ditch the Tory Right to form a permanent 1,000 Year Coalition with Clegg?

Tears before bedtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, they sound over the moon :rolleyes:

this is a bit of a concern.

having too much prime ministerial/cabinet interference in EITHER the backbench committes OR the selecction process for the lords could become a problem.

we have had far too much "politicisation" of many of our previously civic bodies,and that really needs to be remedied...full stop.

not games of "get your own back"

as far as the lords is concerned,I AM NOT in favour of an elected chamber.

...the political quangoes are the problem,but there is a case for heredity also being a problem.

...we could have nominations,but we could really do with something like a "crown inspectorate" to do the final endorsement...those officers of the crown themselves being above politics.

it should serve as an A-political revision chamber,to curb the idealogical excesses of majority governments.

and the people that get there should enter on the basis of merit,not backslapping.......and only for life.

if a lord has proved his worth,that is no guarantee his offspring will be similarly inclined.

they will have to pass the test too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as the lords is concerned,I AM NOT in favour of an elected chamber.

why not out of interest?

if a lord has proved his worth,that is no guarantee his offspring will be similarly inclined.

they will have to pass the test too.

Not sure why a mere accident of birth should give them the opportunity to take this test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favour of an elected second chamber.

At the moment the Government is about to create 100 new peers so that they can ram through legislation that would be opposed by all the Labour peers.

Where does this lead? The next government creates 200 peers, the one after 400 etc etc

The Lords has become party political. Bad.

If we have a fully elected chamber it will be even more party political and we will end up like the US where the opposition control the senate and can effectively shut the government down. (As the democrats did to Bush for the last year of his presidency)

I would rather see it made up of a mixture of academics elected by profs, charity/liberty types, entrepreneurs & philanthropists and ex MP's only allowed in after spending 5 years out in the wilderness.

Break up the selection so it can't be controlled by any single group or interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I do not want the Lords selected by anyone.

We should be radical and have them chosen by the same system as for Jury Service.

Random, representative and beholden to no-one.

We would have a few nutters to enliven matters, but generally such Lords would take their responsibilities very seriously.

Not the entire answer in fairness. but we could retain some appointed Lords and elect a few to do the donkey work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.