Advanced search

to think that if you don't agree with a private members bill, you don't just talk for 93 minutes so the bill doesn't even get a vote?

(19 Posts)
Egosumquisum Sun 29-Nov-15 09:29:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

megletthesecond Sun 29-Nov-15 09:34:40


He should be ashamed of himself. Sadly he won't be.

Egosumquisum Sun 29-Nov-15 09:38:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meditrina Sun 29-Nov-15 09:39:04

It's a perfectly normal tactic, and and when you look to see the titles of most private member's bills, it's one I'm really rather glad exists.

Of course, people only want it to see happen to those bills they don't like.

Getting adequate support for a private member's bill to reach the later legislative stages is pretty rare.

If the sponsor really wants this to happen, he needs to get departmental backing.

Egosumquisum Sun 29-Nov-15 09:40:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Egosumquisum Sun 29-Nov-15 09:42:30

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fitzers Sun 29-Nov-15 09:43:11

Yes it's appalling and very undemocratic. Happens a lot in the U.S. too as far as I know. I think in Ireland they rarely pass but do at least get a vote which is something.

Theoretician Sun 29-Nov-15 11:08:55

It's a standard tactic that's been around forever, so there's no reason to be getting upset about it now. It is just one of many stupid and archaic aspects of how our democracy is set up.

I once reimagined how (my idea of) a perfect democracy would work, if set up from scratch in the internet age. In my solution, there was no physical parliament, no general elections and no political parties. (With hindsight I think the last was a mistake though, parties do serve a purpose.) The whole of politics could be conducted through a website that was little more than an online forum with a few bolt-ons to facilitate voting. General elections unnecessary because you could change your vote any time you like, 24 hours a day 365 days per year. A physical parliament and all the procedures associated with an assembly where people speak is hugely inferior to an online forum, if you think the purpose is purely legislating. I may be wrong about that being the only purpose of parliament though.

InTheBox Sun 29-Nov-15 11:12:10

I'd never even heard of the term. Thanks for link ego I agree it's absolutely disgraceful.

Fitzers Sun 29-Nov-15 11:30:32

It's a standard tactic that's been around forever, so there's no reason to be getting upset about it now. It is just one of many stupid and archaic aspects of how our democracy is set up.

I don't think anyone is crying into their cornflakes about it, just expressing their view that it's undemocratic and wrong. It's in the news at the moment, hence I assume the OP thought to post about it, but that doesn't mean no one was aware of it before now. I've certainly heard of a number of cases in the U.S. where it seems to be a frequently (ab)used tactic for dismissing bills the speaker disagrees with.

OddSocksHighHeels Sun 29-Nov-15 11:33:19

I didn't actually know this was a "thing" until I heard of Wendy Davis doing it in Texas a while back.

Does anybody know what the original basis for allowing it was?

Egosumquisum Sun 29-Nov-15 11:34:11

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fuckitfay Sun 29-Nov-15 11:45:32

It's an oddity that doesn't sit well in a democratic system but it was pretty damn cool when Wendy Davis spoke for 11 hours to block an anti abortion bill on the US

Vote if you feel strongly about it.

Junoandthepeacock Sun 29-Nov-15 11:53:41

I think it was started by the Irish actually. They would stand up and either say nothing or waffle on about nothing. Gladstone is a name in my head, but I would need to look it up.

Junoandthepeacock Sun 29-Nov-15 11:55:48

Just googled. Gladstone was a liberal british politician. Something to do with Irish home rule. Knew he was something to do with it. Anyway. misses point of thread

InTheBox Sun 29-Nov-15 12:11:42

Thanks for the link Fay What a woman!

Fitzers Sun 29-Nov-15 12:36:08

Yes having looked it up it was used in the UK Parliament by supporters of Irish independence to force the government to negotiate with them, successfully so it seems. It's a tactic that has a long history going back to Ancient Rome. The wiki article isn't very accurate though, it mentions a case recently in Ireland but that seems to be a case of a Minister taking questions at a committee and presumably taking up time to reduce the number of questions to answer, rather than stalling a vote on a debate. I've never heard of it being used in Ireland to prevent a vote.

Patapouf Sun 29-Nov-15 13:42:51

There's a video somewhere on YouTube of someone, in the senate I think, reading from a recipe book to fill the time. Filibustering is a big thing stateside. It has it's pros and cons but I do find it saddening that it's still allowed to happen here. Then again, there are many aspects of our government that are deeply undemocratic so I shouldn't be so surprised shit like this is allowed to happen.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: