Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sergeant-at-Arms is biased against the Opposition

In British parliamentary custom, one member directly accusing another of lying (even if this is a true accusation) within the house is not on. If said member does not withdraw the statement, the Speaker can have them suspended from the house for 24 hours for breaking parliamentary procedure - effectively the member is put on the naughty step.

Traditionally, though, this is called "Naming" the member of parliament. MPs are never referred to by their name in normal circumstances - they are the "Member for XYZ", the "Minister for ABC", "My (right) honourable friend", the "(right) honourable member" etc. In Westminster, if the MP is named, either they leave the house of their own volition, or there is a vote on whether to do so.

Obviously, procedure in New England is a bit different.
 
In British parliamentary custom, one member directly accusing another of lying (even if this is a true accusation) within the house is not on. If said member does not withdraw the statement, the Speaker can have them suspended from the house for 24 hours for breaking parliamentary procedure - effectively the member is put on the naughty step.

Traditionally, though, this is called "Naming" the member of parliament. MPs are never referred to by their name in normal circumstances - they are the "Member for XYZ", the "Minister for ABC", "My (right) honourable friend", the "(right) honourable member" etc. In Westminster, if the MP is named, either they leave the house of their own volition, or there is a vote on whether to do so.

Obviously, procedure in New England is a bit different.
That sounds like something a Carbone supporter would say
 

Deleted member 107125

Some questions-
  • Does Labour have any members who believe in the ‘Third way’
  • Is Hillary one of the more moderate members of Social Labor or has Social Labor become a centre-left or liberalistic party?
Finally, expect a surprise!
 
BBC Politics Tweet: 18/11/2019
yYLCf5d.png
 
What a surprise, was not expecting the Tories to again be in the lead, the situation seems so negative at the moment, where's the protests?
 
In British parliamentary custom, one member directly accusing another of lying (even if this is a true accusation) within the house is not on. If said member does not withdraw the statement, the Speaker can have them suspended from the house for 24 hours for breaking parliamentary procedure - effectively the member is put on the naughty step.

Traditionally, though, this is called "Naming" the member of parliament. MPs are never referred to by their name in normal circumstances - they are the "Member for XYZ", the "Minister for ABC", "My (right) honourable friend", the "(right) honourable member" etc. In Westminster, if the MP is named, either they leave the house of their own volition, or there is a vote on whether to do so.

Obviously, procedure in New England is a bit different.

In New England, using an MPs name is completely disallowed by the Parliamentary rules. You must use their highest office, eg. "Prime Minister," or "Leader of the Opposition." Third (and fourth, ect.) parties do not have official offices so they are stilled called by their riding name. Using someone's name, along with some other grievous behaviour (accusations of lying, unparliamentary language, unruly conduct, ect.) gives the Speaker the sole discretion to eject the member from the sitting, no voting required.

Some questions-
  • Does Labour have any members who believe in the ‘Third way’
  • Is Hillary one of the more moderate members of Social Labor or has Social Labor become a centre-left or liberalistic party?
Finally, expect a surprise!

A) Third way politics don't really exist. Labour today would be more akin to the centre-left/left elements of irl U.S. Democrats or U.K. Labour party, Pre-Blair but not as left as say, Corbyn.
B) Hillary is considered a moderate or a right-wing member of Social Labor.

What a surprise, was not expecting the Tories to again be in the lead, the situation seems so negative at the moment, where's the protests?

The situation isn't as negative as you'd expect. The economy is growing, taxes are down, wages are up. The threat of a recession seems to have waned, the Prime Minister has stabilised her government, The Independence Group is sulking in the background after their failed leadership challenge, the Social Democrats are missing their leader (Bernie remains inactive in politics, and has been resting in Vermont), Labour is seen as faltering after trying to poach Social Democrats and Independent Conservatives, while the Prime Minister did just unveil a highly popular plan to bring democracy to the upper House, and people are generally open to expanding the House of Commons.
 

Deleted member 107125

A) Third way politics don't really exist. Labour today would be more akin to the centre-left/left elements of irl U.S. Democrats or U.K. Labour party, Pre-Blair but not as left as say, Corbyn.
I was asking about NE Labour
 
A competent Labour party (and a move back to being a social democratic party it would seem) along with the SDP's pretty poor record in opposition doesn't surprise me, what does is that the tories are still in the lead and the greens not getting a bigger bump.
 
rUdBhW0.png


I finally got around to finishing a map of what would have been Europe in my Our Fair Summer contest submission. The premise is that New England is ISOTed to 1066 A.D. and things get strange as New England and New Englanders try to exert influence on a world they have several centuries of technological advantage over. Some of the main features of the map are that Britain fractures as New Englanders rush in, an eccentric group of New Englanders migrate to Crimea and meld with the existing population there to create a potent regional power, and the Crusader states end up having some staying power backed by technology from some New England groups.
 

Deleted member 107125

rUdBhW0.png


I finally got around to finishing a map of what would have been Europe in my Our Fair Summer contest submission. The premise is that New England is ISOTed to 1066 A.D. and things get strange as New England and New Englanders try to exert influence on a world they have several centuries of technological advantage over. Some of the main features of the map are that Britain fractures as New Englanders rush in, an eccentric group of New Englanders migrate to Crimea and meld with the existing population there to create a potent regional power, and the Crusader states end up having some staying power backed by technology from some New England groups.
What is this....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top