The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Filibustering is part of parliamentary procedure but I don't think you can ramble on incessantly as you can in the States. I don't think you can speak for any longer than about four hours in the UK and you risk an intervention from the speaker if you hesitate or deviate from the topic at hand too much.

 

[HertsWolf]

It happened last week in the debate over hospital car parking charges. It was run down by a Tory for 3 HOURS with a little help from 2 of his chums,this MP (Can't remember his name) claimed his hospital car parking charges on his expenses as well One rule for them and another for the serfs it seems.

The MP was Philip Davies. See newspaper article here. This isn't the first time he filibustered something important. The previous time, he talked out the Tenancies (Reform) Bill which would have prevented landlords from evicting tenants for requesting vital repairs. Chaps don't come much caring than Philip Davies MP.
The other MPs who derailed this particular hospital parking motion were:
David Nuttall
Alistair Burt
Christopher Chope.

I was utterly astonished to discover that ALL FOUR of them are from the Conservative Party.

There was a clue that Philip Davies might act to block something of benefit to carers in society here:

Although Mr Davies may not have been actually talking the moment the photograph was taken, you have all been warned before that the ONLY officially recognised way to be sure an MP is lying is when their lips move. Please do not use old-fashioned technology such as "believing what they say in elections or promotional shoots".

Although Mr Davies MP's email address and phone number are philip.davies.mp@parliament.uk and 01274 582 272, and Mr Davies MP's constituency office is First Floor, 3 Manor Lane, Shipley, BD18 3EA (Tel: 01274 592248, Email: deborah.davies@parliament.uk), you are urged not to contact him or his constituency association to declare him a duplicitous, disingenuous shit because he is a VERY BUSY MAN.

His Wikipedia page here shows more information on his caring side.

 

[Veggie Legs]

I am familiar with the idea of filibustering, my confusion is about why it's allowed to happen. Seems completely undemocratic and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

TBH the constituency is probably perfect for a Tory Lite MP. You look at the 90s modernisers: Hartlepool; Darlington; Sedgefield; Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath. It's not your Islington or Manchester Withington-type demographic. It's the working-class "I don't care who the bloke with the red rosette is as long as he beats the Tory scum" type characters. Often poorly educated, these people tend to stick to the (formerly accurate, now somewhat less clear) principle that the Conservative Party doesn't act on their behalf and the Labour Party, in whatever guise, is a better bet.

As an aside, I thought Hunt was generally held to be more liberal and left-wing than the PLP 'mainstream' when he first arrived on the scene? Pretty sure he had to row back on his opposition to academies and free schools when he took up his post in the Shadow Cabinet, for example.

Yeah, we're encouraged to think of the constituency link as a good thing and one of the strengths of FPTP but I don't think it works fantastically well in practice. It seems all to easy to parachute some nobody (or indeed a somebody - such as a relative of a former party bigwig) into a safe seat. He or she may have no connection to the local area, may not be representative of the people who live there and may not share the values and concerns of the electorate, but they can expect to be re-elected time and time again and don't have to work awfully hard in order to do so. I'm sure it's by no means universally true but I'd imagine that people who live in marginals often ended up with a rather more visible and effective MP.

 

[HertsWolf]

I am familiar with the idea of filibustering, my confusion is about why it's allowed to happen. Seems completely undemocratic and a waste of everyone's time.

I read that Davies was reprimanded by the Speaker for his previous filibustering display. I don't understand why the Speaker can't stop it.

 

[silkyman]

And they're at it again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rugs-whose-patents-have-expired-a6724526.html

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

what an absolute c***. deserves a smack to the balls

 

[mowgli]

what an absolute c***. deserves a smack to the balls

Fucking hard as well.

 

[silkyman]

After the letter to the council, we have lobbying the police about his own fucking cuts.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34815792

'Cuts need to be made, but not in my back yard.'

So what is he?

A hypocrite? An idiot?

Out of touch or overly entitled?

 

[Dave-Vale]

Fuck off, Cameron.

 

[mowgli]

After the letter to the council, we have lobbying the police about his own fucking cuts.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34815792

'Cuts need to be made, but not in my back yard.'

So what is he?

A hypocrite? An idiot?

Out of touch or overly entitled?

He's all of those. His interference is against parliamentary rules so he could be in serious shit. Also his actions have shown the electorate that he cares about his constituency but the rest of us can get fucked.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

So DC is sharing in the nation's austerity by using tax payer's money to buy a private jet for himself. What a fucking scumbag.

 

[Gladders]

So DC is sharing in the nation's austerity by using tax payer's money to buy a private jet for himself. What a fucking scumbag.

Do you mean refitting an RAF plane to transport ministers, so they don't use chartered civvy flights or Royal flights saving 3/4 million a year?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

At an upfront cost of £10m (I heard, apologies if that's wrong). That means it's 13 years before it starts saving money. Not quite the right message to give out when you're taking money away from the poorest, in my opinion.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

£10m Capital expenditure to then save money year on year is just the sort of task the government are encouraging all sorts of public sector areas to undertake. Seems logical that they follow suit themselves. And when the government isn't using the plane it'll be back working for the RAF anyway.

So as long as the plane isn't unnecessarily expensive / fitted out overly plush then it seems a sound idea.

If however they end up kitting it out with gold fittings and a revolving bed like something out of Austin Powers, then I would be rather concerned.

 

[Aber gas]

I'm reckon they'll go for something understated and timeless.

But in jet form obvs.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

£10m Capital expenditure to then save money year on year is just the sort of task the government are encouraging all sorts of public sector areas to undertake. Seems logical that they follow suit themselves. And when the government isn't using the plane it'll be back working for the RAF anyway.

According to the numbers in this thread, it takes thirteen years to pay back. Longer if you account for the time value of money (which they will). What's the expected life of the refurbishments?

 

[smat]

£10m Capital expenditure to then save money year on year is just the sort of task the government are encouraging all sorts of public sector areas to undertake. Seems logical that they follow suit themselves. And when the government isn't using the plane it'll be back working for the RAF anyway.

So as long as the plane isn't unnecessarily expensive / fitted out overly plush then it seems a sound idea.

If however they end up kitting it out with gold fittings and a revolving bed like something out of Austin Powers, then I would be rather concerned.

Weird how you describe investment and efficiency. My experience of the government's economic policy is totally different. Early intervention services and Children's Centres all over the country are being forced to close as a result of huge cuts to council budgets. This will, naturally, result in absolutely massive costs in about 10-15 years (when we have to lock up or prop up with welfare all the people we failed when they were children). I don't know anything at all about this plane thing, but this theory of spending to save doesn't ring true at all. Their thinking isn't that joined up.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

According to the numbers in this thread, it takes thirteen years to pay back. Longer if you account for the time value of money (which they will). What's the expected life of the refurbishments?

The given yearly saving V chatering is 750k odd per year, give or take depending on use, which would be about right for 13 years to bring back 10m.

The US government planes last 25 years - 30 years. Granted this will already be second hand with some milage on the clock, rather than purpose built for $200m, so not directly comparable. But it would seem fair to expect a resonable saving for our taxpayer buck.

Smat - talking rather apples and oranges there, but I understand your point. I would fully agree that cuts to council budgets have gone OTT. Although if we want to head down that road, my local council can seemingly still find numerous buffooning ways to waste money with contractors, duplicated works, and swanky office building sadly, when they could be choosing to keep libraries open instead.

 

[Gladders]

Whatever way you look at it, its still better than buying a private jet that the sensationalist headlines would have you believe and what New labour tried to do for a cost of 100m

 

[mnb089mnb]

Smat - talking rather apples and oranges there, but I understand your point. I would fully agree that cuts to council budgets have gone OTT. Although if we want to head down that road, my local council can seemingly still find numerous buffooning ways to waste money with contractors, duplicated works, and swanky office building sadly, when they could be choosing to keep libraries open instead.

My local council has enough money to place 6ft tall giant poppies on every roundabout in the town for a week in November.

Obviously cutting everything else.

 

[silkyman]

Better that than Britain First getting all cross at you for not adhering to full on Mailite Poppy Porn

Anyway.. Here's the Tories telling Democracy to go and suck a dick again.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-by-talking-until-time-runs-out-a6742251.html

The message is clear from this group. 'We won. You lost, now fuck off, and be good little subservients'

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

Whatever way you look at it, its still better than buying a private jet that the sensationalist headlines would have you believe

So it's a good idea, because you can think of a worse idea?

 

[silkyman]

I'm off to take a cheesegrater to my leg..

Hey.. Better than my balls!

 

[Dave-Vale]

Phillip Davies is a real tosspot.

 

[Gladders]

So it's a good idea, because you can think of a worse idea?

You will have to tell me where I said it was a good idea

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

You will have to tell me where I said it was a good idea

Actually, I asked you a question. The clue is right there at the end of my post. Otherwise, I'd just have been repeating what I thought you said, which is no way to conduct yourself on a message board.

Do you think it's a good idea?

 

[Gladders]

I ain't bothered to be honest, keeps more of us RAF in work I suppose, lets see what the SDSR comes up with tomorrow.

 

[Conker]

At an upfront cost of £10m (I heard, apologies if that's wrong). That means it's 13 years before it starts saving money. Not quite the right message to give out when you're taking money away from the poorest, in my opinion.

I understand your point, but I think it's ridiculous we don't have a dedicated plane for the Prime Minister and other government figures purely for communication reasons when travelling long distance.

 

[Dave-Vale]

So, Gideons plan is now to attack those claiming housing benefit instead of those claiming tax credits.

You know, those people who have to have their sky high rent subsidised by the government so that greedy landlords can make more money.

Build more council houses, for fucks sake!