8 Comments

• tpfk 17th Jul '18 - 10:41pm

  I hope that the Lords might decide there’s enough doubt about the vote to send it back. We’ll see.

  Proxy votes / maternity cover is surely an idea whose time has long come. Personally I prefer a named maternity cover who covers the whole role; this reflects real life better and means there is an individual accountable for all of the MP’s work. But if we can get proxy voting through then great.

• Steve Trevethan 18th Jul '18 - 9:58am

  To describe a mistake as honest is a contradiction in terms.
  A genuine mistake is just that and so has no need of further qualification or description. To state otherwise is to indicate that it was not a mistake.
  The phrase “honest mistake” is put forward by the perpetrator(s) to avoid or obscure responsibility for ation(s).
  A more accurate phrase is “self-serving mistake”.

• Richard O'Neill 18th Jul '18 - 1:52pm

  Hope this was a genuine mistake. Whips do get things wrong (as Charmichael did the day before). Fortunately in both cases it didn’t materially effect the outcome of the vote. I can’t believe the govt would cheat because of the obvious adverse publicity that would follow.

  I understand why Jo feels aggreived as it will now make her second guess every vote she is paired off for now.

• expats 18th Jul '18 - 3:53pm

  Richard O’Neill 18th Jul ’18 – 1:52pm………………. Fortunately in both cases it didn’t materially effect the outcome of the vote. I can’t believe the govt would cheat because of the obvious adverse publicity that would follow………………

  I can’t understand your reasoning. Is drink driving excusable if there is no accident?

  I feel JS is absolutely right in believing this was the government’s deliberate flouting of parliamentary convention when faced with a vote that they looked like losing.

  As for this government caring one jot about adverse publicity???? As, with so many other cases, they apologise and move on.

• Richard Underhill 18th Jul '18 - 4:09pm

  Although the PM was appearing before the Liaison Committee (much better than PMQ) at the same time the Parliament Channel (201) was unable to follow the live debates in the House of Commons at the same time, such as the resignation statement by Boris Johnson. They did recognise their problem by the use of a split screen, but without sound.
  Unlike Wimbledon, there was no use of alternative Channels with sound. Speaker Bercow has been generous with urgent notice questions and issues around proxy voting and maternity leave were debated. Labour called for a ‘baby emoji’ in Hansard if possible. (Of course it is possible in any pixelated or dot matrix display). Changing a baby on a copy of the Daily Record was admitted, although the baby was not (of course) a Member of Parliament (at the time). Other MPs are having babies, so there is urgency. Angela Leadsom MP has promised a debate in September (2018?) before the party conferences. The SNP spokesman was invited to talk to Ministers in the (government) lobby as an alternative to electronic voting. It should be possible for an MP to listen to debates remotely and consider constituency interests and vote or abstain accordingly. Some issues currently require presence in the chamber so as to ensure that the MP has listened to the debate, for which multiple broadcast channels would be helpful.
  There is a short window of opportunity between the end o the summer recess and the start of the conference season, during which debate has been promised and decisions are needed.

• Richard O'Neill 18th Jul '18 - 5:16pm

  @Expats
  I am still relatively glad little harm was done. And I stand by my point that I believed both incidents were accidental misjudgements unless proved otherwise. The govt will have people who are ill/pregnant in the future and the reciprocal arrangement benefits thenm. Like I say I hope this was a genuine mistake.

  In both cases it doesn’t make any material difference anyway as the party is pursuing the goal of completely reversing Brexit rather than pushing for a Soft Brexit. If we are going to be having a people’s vote then this doesn’t matter a bit. I am just sad that it will undermine trust in the pairing system which will upset people’s peace of mind.

• Ruth Bright 19th Jul '18 - 9:07am

  Heartening the strength of public support Jo Swinson has received about this from within the Lib Dems and from Labour MPs like Tulip Siddiq (who, disgracefully, felt she had to return to the Commons just 6 weeks after an emergency C-section because there were no formal maternity leave arrangements).

  This support hopefully shows that the general climate around maternity leave is improving. A happy contrast with the comments from a Lib Dem Lord on LDV a few weeks ago that advocates of maternity leave for parliamentary candidates should “get real”.

• expats 19th Jul '18 - 2:36pm

  Richard O’Neill 18th Jul ’18 – 5:16pm………..@Expats
  I am still relatively glad little harm was done. And I stand by my point that I believed both incidents were accidental misjudgements unless proved otherwise. The govt will have people who are ill/pregnant in the future and the reciprocal arrangement benefits thenm. Like I say I hope this was a genuine mistake………………………..

  The ‘accidental’ bit is becoming less and less feasible by the hour. When a Tory MP says he was instructed by their chief whip to ‘break the pairing’ and even
  Laura Kuenssberg pours scorn on the latest excuse that the chief whip ‘accidently’ told paired MPs to vote, you know it was no accident….
  ✔
  @bbclaurak
  1. Ready for this explanation? Tory sources say chief whip considered but did not go through with telling any MPs on short term pairs to vote even though they weren’t meant to
  1:53 PM – Jul 19, 2018
  2. But Julian Smith did, by accident, they say, tell Brandon Lewis to vote, breaking the long term pair of Jo Swinson.