Nothing much.
It almost never refuses Second Reading to anything that the Commons has passed. But an amendment to that effect is not a "wrecking amendment". Such is very rarely tabled and even more rarely adopted, but that is all. It is an integral part of the procedures of the House.
Yet if this vote had been on Monday evening, as originally expected and intended, then Second Reading would have been denied. They have literally had to give themselves an extra day in order to bus people in. But they cannot do that at every stage of the scrutiny process. And having pulled off that trick at Second Reading, they have shown the other side how to do it at Third Reading.
There was a very high abstention rate, and the bishops, especially, are already the feeling the backlash for mostly having stayed away. They had thought that it would have been if they had turned up. They were wrong. They will not be wrong again. But next time, they are the ones who are going to be bringing a crowd with them.
Yet if this vote had been on Monday evening, as originally expected and intended, then Second Reading would have been denied. They have literally had to give themselves an extra day in order to bus people in. But they cannot do that at every stage of the scrutiny process. And having pulled off that trick at Second Reading, they have shown the other side how to do it at Third Reading.
There was a very high abstention rate, and the bishops, especially, are already the feeling the backlash for mostly having stayed away. They had thought that it would have been if they had turned up. They were wrong. They will not be wrong again. But next time, they are the ones who are going to be bringing a crowd with them.
In the Commons, organised neo-Blairism at both national and local levels has been using this issue as an excuse to try and purge MPs of whom it had in any case wanted rid. As much as anything else, that serves to remind us that the Labour disaffection with this Bill is mostly on the Left of the party: just look at the Commons division lists, although, as ever, those do not tell the whole story.
Whereas the strongest Labour support for it (indeed, the only really strong Labour support for it, most Labour MPs being indifferent, and ever-more so the higher up the party we look) is among the remaining but dwindling proponents of PFIs and of neocon wars. But those do not have in the Lords even such leverage as they retain in the Commons.
This Bill is still doomed. It always has been. Even before its proponents so amateurishly overplayed their hand in the first round.
Overwhelming support in the Commons, now in the Lords.
ReplyDeleteAfraid the constitutional settlement suggests that you are entirely wrong.
When it enters into law, I trust you will admit it.....
Oh, and the left of the Labour party largely support change. Those who don't are largely old-style religionist right-wing dinosaurs
You still haven't acknowledged your own MP voted in favour - as she always said she would, but was committed elsewhere on the night of the first vote.
Some interesting bits of news
ReplyDeletetoday.
Karl Lagerfeld has said he would marry his cat if he could because he never thought it possible to love his 22-month old pet as much as he does. How opportune. If he is 'in love' then why not allow him to, and slip this into the bill? Being 'in love' seems to be the only criterion for this scandalous piece of legislation so why not accommodate Mr Lagerfeld's desires.
And then we have this supposed Labour internal revolt over an in-out referendum on EU membership. Ed Balls has said that they "cannot afford to give the impression that we know better than the voting public." It's a bit late for this. Mr Cruddas said that failure to trust people would lead public anger to fester. In the debate on 'Gay' marriage this is precisely what most MP's have done - and this is why the public is so angry. MPs do not trust the public to agree with them so the public is shamefully sidelined. No party is worth supporting: they have all abandoned whatever principles they may have had and treated the electorate with contempt. This contempt is reciprocated tenfold.
I do not share your opinion that this bill is doomed. It seems to be moving inexorably into law. It will be the second most shameful day in its history: the first being the passing of the abortion laws. The lies that were spread at the time about that law are being repeated again today.
Are you seriously suggesting that the bill is going to be voted down at Third Reading?
ReplyDeleteIt is a distinct possibility, yes. Depends what it looks like, or doesn't, by then.
ReplyDeleteMerseymike, that is not what she said 300 miles from London. Blairite pressure, and all that. There is profound local disappointment. Just as well that she will certainly hold the line the next time that abortion reaches the floor of the House. But I do not propose to go into all of that here.
Check the votes against, and the abstainers at Third Reading especially, against the lists of those who, for example, voted against the war in Libya, or voted against the retrospective legalisation of workfare, or voted against the suspension of parliamentary business for Thatcher's funeral, or have signed EDM 1334. Well to the Left.
David: she made it clear in a letter to a constituent how she would be voting. And she did what she said she would
ReplyDeleteThere won't be a vote on abortion - the current government doesn't want one and the PLP is overwhelmingly against change
Gay marriage has precisely nothing to do with Blairism, because its not a Blairite measure. Indeed, it is supported by the vast majority of Labour MP's and Peers, left, right, and centre of the party. Its success in winning huge majorities in both sides of the House says it all.
Virtually all MP's have now voted - and voted the same way . Indeed, a couple of Labour MP's shifted their vote to vote in favour at Third Reading after meting constituents - Mike Wood MP from the Left of the party being one of them. Nearly all of the MP's who supposedly abstained the first time round turned up and voted with the majority in favour.
What the no votes have in common is not politics, but religionism. As an atheist I welcome any loss of influence of religion.
"Meeting constituents" is one way of putting it.
ReplyDeleteOrganised Blairite bulling, threatening deselection of Left MPs of whom they had in any case wanted rid, is what it has in fact been. In several constituencies...
This is the ultimate Blairite measure. So far, anyway.
There will be a vote on abortion at some point, because they happen quite frequently. It is just that the right side never wins, so nothing ever changes, so they are barely reported.