House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

[Delvoir]

It is her majesty's government.

Which would imply she has a position of actual legitimate power.

That's irrelevant.

[Ostroeuropa]

Again? What did they just vote on and what are they voting on now?

No one knows?

All the mp's are like
"Oh fuck I didn't hear what he said, i'll just follow where the people I like go."
and some of them are probably like "If I just vote yes to everything it will all turn out ok."

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

because tories are pricks and cameron is a prick and people are shocked at the idea cameron might be doing something good for non-prickish reasons

extend this to all politicians as necessary

if anything, they have historical precedent and you're damn idealistic

Firstly, the shift key - use it.

You can't just call the Tories and Cameron a "prick." You may disagree with somebody, but no need to be rude.

Why can't he? It's not her fault that the Tory government has a composition that disproportionately favours people who are pricks, nor is it her fault that said government has spent the past almost-3 years demonstrating its prickishness to the British public and the world.

This is just a brief respite, and yet still we've seen at least half of the Tories in the Commons be very, very narrow-minded and vote against this.

[Divair]

No one knows?

All the mp's are like
"Oh fuck I didn't hear what he said, i'll just follow where the people I like go."
and some of them are probably like "If I just vote yes to everything it will all turn out ok."

Best. Government. Ever.

[Jormengand]

All the mp's are like
"Oh fuck I didn't hear what he said, i'll just follow where the people I like go."
and some of them are probably like "If I just vote yes to everything it will all turn out ok."

Best. Government. Ever.

We rule *Nods*

[Oneracon]

It is her majesty's government.

Which would imply she has a position of actual legitimate power.

Which she still does possess. HM Government sits at Her Majesty's pleasure, and only she holds the power to dissolve it and pass a bill into law.

They are usually used on the advice of the Prime Minister, but she still has the right to use them in other ways if she sees fit.

[Olde Engelond]

This is just a brief respite, and yet still we've seen at least half of the Tories in the Commons be very, very narrow-minded and vote against this.

How is it narrow-minded for MPs to voice the concerns of their constituents?

[Souseiseki]

because tories are pricks and cameron is a prick and people are shocked at the idea cameron might be doing something good for non-prickish reasons

extend this to all politicians as necessary

if anything, they have historical precedent and you're damn idealistic

Firstly, the shift key - use it.

You can't just call the Tories and Cameron a "prick." You may disagree with somebody, but no need to be rude.

I'm not going to take the time to explain the glory of the People's Grammar, but the short answer is "no".

Why can't I call them pricks? Of The Free Socialist Territories probably put it better, but they have demonstrated themselves to be pricks on a consistent basis. Being all nice and friendly went out the window they minute their hateful bile started killing people and/or driving them to suicide. And why can't I call a very specific individual a prick?

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

This is just a brief respite, and yet still we've seen at least half of the Tories in the Commons be very, very narrow-minded and vote against this.

How is it narrow-minded for MPs to voice the concerns of their constituents?

You mean, how is it narrow-minded for Tory MPs to vote against a bill that doesn't affect them personally in any way, shape or form, nor harm anyone else in any way, shape or form, simply because they have an aversion to legal equality based upon an outdated and non-exclusive definition of marriage?

The question answers itself.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

They take a quick vote on something through shouting aye or no. If both sides are equally loud, or close enough the mediator person thingy can't tell, a division is ordered and they vote properly, through filing out and all.

They should just hook up computers to the seats and let people vote instantly electronically.

That would be far to untraditional for gentleme-
Oh.

Uhh...

No?

Which would imply she has a position of actual legitimate power.

That's irrelevant.

Royal Veto hasn't been invoked in 305 years. I'd say it was relevant that her opinion didn't really matter and that she has no control over government.

[Great Nepal]

It is her majesty's government.

Which would imply she has a position of actual legitimate power.

Not relevant. De jure, government draws executive power from the crown and by extension the queen.

What is that?

They were voting on something about the bill, but not it itself. They all shout aye/nay, and if it's not immediately clear there is a division and they must vote.

They dont have laptops in commons to vote on? That is news..

[Wisconsin9]

Have they had the vote yet?

[Delvoir]

No?

That's irrelevant.

Royal Veto hasn't been invoked in 305 years. I'd say it was relevant that her opinion didn't really matter and that she has no control over government.

That does not mean she is not head of it. I doubt the personally governs the Church of England, either.

[Divair]

That would be far to untraditional for gentleme-
Oh.

Uhh...

No?

Imagine the increase in productivity.

[Ceannairceach]

Have they had the vote yet?

I think so. Passes four hundred something to fifty something.

[Ostroeuropa]

Have they had the vote yet?

We're about to enter the stage where they select which MP shall face the dragon.
If the dragon is slain, we proceed to the summoning ritual. If that is successful, we have a vote with the fae mediating.

[San Leggera]

Have they had the vote yet?

I think so. Passes four hundred something to fifty something.

499-55.

[Great Nepal]

Have they had the vote yet?

Yes, it passed by margin of 444.

[Nemezree]

@Wisconsin
Yes, it passed by 400 to 225
Then the vote to get it into the third reading passed 499 to 55

[Ostroeuropa]

Have they had the vote yet?

Yes, it passed by margin of 444.

It's going to the lords?

[Jormengand]

Have they had the vote yet?

I think so. Passes four hundred something to fifty something.

No, that's not the real vote. It's a vote to do admin stuff.

[Olde Engelond]

How is it narrow-minded for MPs to voice the concerns of their constituents?

You mean, how is it narrow-minded for Tory MPs to vote against a bill that doesn't affect them personally in any way, shape or form, nor harm anyone else in any way, shape or form, simply because they have an aversion to legal equality based upon an outdated and non-exclusive definition of marriage?

The question answers itself.

The role of a Member of Parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents in the legislative chamber of this land. MPs should not vote on bills whilst relying merely on their personal whims and self-interests. So if a significant number of constituents write to their representative calling for him to vote against a bill they feel strongly about, what else can he do?


I'm glad to say that the MPs who I share alumnus with voted against the bill.

[Ceannairceach]

I think so. Passes four hundred something to fifty something.

No, that's not the real vote. It's a vote to do admin stuff.

Fucking--

Oh, sorry. Feckin' british pol'tics is dunwroight confussing, laddie!

[San Leggera]

@Wisconsin
Yes, it passed by 400 to 225
Then the vote to get it into the third reading passed 499 to 55

The first vote was 400-175...

[Nemezree]

Each bill has 3 readings
They approved it on the second reading now 400 to 175
They voted to get it into the third reading 499 to 55
The reason the margins are higher is because the Tories are whipped to vote it through to the 3rd reading
After 3rd reading it goes to the Lords and then the Queen