goldfinger
- 09 Jun 2005 12:25
Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).
Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.
cheers GF.
Haystack
- 15 Sep 2015 12:55
- 62873 of 81564
Already done.
The second reading of the Trades Union Bill passed last night with a vote of 317 vote to 284, a majority of 33, following more than six hours of debate. I watched the vote last night on the Parliament channel. Labour looked a bit muffed when the result came in. Committee stage next.
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:01
- 62874 of 81564
or national strike
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:03
- 62875 of 81564
hungry the only leaders with common sense and balls well done 3 cheers for a great leader
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:05
- 62876 of 81564
Poland will not take forced migrants they do not want them
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:07
- 62877 of 81564
breaking news on bbc Germany giving 5b euros Italy 3b the rest nothing
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:08
- 62878 of 81564
france spain Poland have said they will not donate any money
cynic
- 15 Sep 2015 13:09
- 62879 of 81564
it's the committee stage that i hope will modify some of the more silly clauses, notwithstanding that the gov't will have the most members therein
i think much good and hard work gets accomplished at this stage
Haystack
- 15 Sep 2015 13:19
- 62880 of 81564
Following second reading the House of Commons agreed a programme motion which schedules the public bill committee to conclude by Tuesday 27 October 2015, but could finish earlier.
Fred1new
- 15 Sep 2015 13:31
- 62881 of 81564
I think the real stumbling block will be the HL.
Victim,
You posted, "Sorry if this is basic.".
Did you mean "biased"?
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:32
- 62882 of 81564
migrants will fight for benefits but cowards who will not fight for freedom and their country yes bloody cowards thank the brittish they did not run away from the Nazis
cynic
- 15 Sep 2015 13:33
- 62883 of 81564
am i not correct in thinking that HL can also and often does suggest amendments?
cynic
- 15 Sep 2015 13:36
- 62884 of 81564
62885 - ah yes; squadron 303 which was famed throughout the raf and scored the most kills - 126 in 42 days :-)
Haystack
- 15 Sep 2015 13:42
- 62885 of 81564
The Lords by convention do not vote down legislation that is in the Queen's speech. It was introduced after the 1945 when Labour had a majority in the Commons and almost no Lords. That would have meant no Labour legislation being passed. The Conservatives agreed to accept legislation that was in the Labour manifesto and Queen's speech.
TANKER
- 15 Sep 2015 13:42
- 62886 of 81564
why are the migrants not going to Bulgaria or Romania right in front of them .
answer is simple NO BENEFITS
WELL DONE HUNGRY
Haystack
- 15 Sep 2015 13:43
- 62887 of 81564
The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine,[1] the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords will not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto.[2]
Following a landslide Labour general election victory in 1945, there were only 16 Labour peers in the House of Lords, led by Lord Addison. Throughout the 20th century, the second chamber had an in-built Conservative majority. However, it was believed that because Clement Attlee's Labour government had a clear mandate to deliver the policies of nationalisation and welfare state measures, the House of Lords should not oppose such legislation at second reading.
Lord Addison and Lord Salisbury (then Lord Cranborne), the Conservative leader in the House of Lords from 1942 to 1957, both with memories of the troubles leading to the passing of the Parliament Act 1911, agreed that anything promised in a party's manifesto would eventually pass; anything else would be subject to full debate. In its modern form, the convention still permits the offering of reasoned amendments to a motion for second reading of a Government bill, provided such amendments are not wrecking amendments designed to destroy the bill.
cynic
- 15 Sep 2015 13:56
- 62888 of 81564
hays - there's surely a difference from voting down and sending a bill back to HC with suggested amendments for reconsideration?
Haystack
- 15 Sep 2015 14:15
- 62889 of 81564
Of course. What will happen in practice is that the Commons will generally vote out the Lords amendments if they don't like them. The Lords is supposed to be a revising chamber. The revisions being suggested amendments.
VICTIM
- 15 Sep 2015 15:07
- 62890 of 81564
I'm only 11 yrs old Fred ,
Fred1new
- 15 Sep 2015 15:09
- 62891 of 81564
Gosh,
You are a big boy!
You may improve yet!
8-)
VICTIM
- 15 Sep 2015 15:20
- 62892 of 81564
Anyway Fred as you seem to spend so much time and energy knocking the Cons , what did you do when Labour were in , you must have been over the moon when Blair decided to murder all those poor Iraqi's . Do these current problems pale into insignifigance compared to Blairs time .and do you sleep at night . A basic answer will do .