Wudang
BOFH
Please see post #2757 in this thread.
ETA: linking to a previous post appears to impossible on a tablet after the update. Boo!
No it's not
I clicked the share icon and copied the URL then put that in a URL tag
Please see post #2757 in this thread.
ETA: linking to a previous post appears to impossible on a tablet after the update. Boo!
That's what I tried to do. I think the problem may be my ancient tablet: it keeps doing weird things / refusing to do normal things.
Whipping was invented (by Parnell's IPP) because it was too easy to bribe MPs to go against party lines, often with positions nominally in Ireland which were avenues for graft.It's a shock to see it happening though. Perhaps whipping (in the parliamentary sense) should be banned?
He's talking about a country that had zero problems purloining and dressing up a dead body and floated it ashore in a foreign country in order to fool a foreign power. Elon better be careful. He might become the next "volunteer" for such a dangerous mission.Elon says he has the "blueprint to a Reform government in 2029."
Plans are being made to save Britain.
He's talking about a country that had zero problems purloining and dressing up a dead body and floated it ashore in a foreign country in order to fool a foreign power.
A piece in the Times speculating that Elon could bung Reform a £100 million and focus his X fanboys on the UK.
Now he has the US government he will be after a new acquisition and he's already said he is going to 'save' the UK.
Parnell did not invent the parliamentary 'whipper in', it predates him by at least a century. Burke mentions the practice.Whipping was invented (by Parnell's IPP) because it was too easy to bribe MPs to go against party lines, often with positions nominally in Ireland which were avenues for graft.
A bit of dark art (in more than one sense) https://www.theguardian.com/politic...what-are-the-limits-for-parliaments-enforcersCould somebody explain what this whipping strategy really is? I have never understood what penalties could be imposed MPs that vote against their party - except kicking them out from the next election.
In a 1995 BBC documentary, Westminster’s Secret Service, Tim Fortescue, a whip under Ted Heath between 1970 and 1973, explained: “Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be … a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal.
“And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points … and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then he will do as we ask forever more.”
Could somebody explain what this whipping strategy really is? I have never understood what penalties could be imposed MPs that vote against their party - except kicking them out from the next election.
Auditors have refused to sign off two years of accounts at Lord Ben Houchen’s Teesside regeneration body, while also pointing to “significant weaknesses” in its value for money arrangements.
As part of the audit process, Mazars was required to provide a view on whether the body was delivering value for money during the period.
It relied on the findings of an independent Tees Valley review into the STDC published earlier this year, and concluded there were “significant weaknesses in the corporation’s arrangements for financial sustainability, governance and improving efficiency, economy and effectiveness”.
Labour has pledged to renationalise rail services as operator franchises come to an end, and South Western's contract finishes in May 2025.
The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, which passed last week, allows the government to take rail contracts back into public ownership.
The government plans to set up a new arms length body, Great British Railways (GBR), which will take over service contracts currently held by private firms as they expire in the coming years.
Accountants Mazars acting as auditors refuse to sign off Tees Valley regeneration project’s accounts
Time for the NAO investigation.
First he gave away the Chagos Islands, now he’s eyeing up the Elgin Marbles.
Keir Starmer loves giving away British assets.
That's not smashing it up. It might be making it worse but "smashing up" implies wholesale destructionThat may be your definition of "smashing it up". Mine would be PFI contracts and ever more outsourcing to the private sector. Also, see my last post in this thread re: Alan Milburn.
A combination of blackmail - per Wudang's post - threats of being over-looked for advancement, promises of possible advancement, sometimes physical intimidation (some of The Thick of It is not far from reality), threats of de-selection, promises of a move to a safer seat.
Really, you name it - anything to give the whips an edge or a lever to enforce "party discipline".
This is why we mockingly call our MPs "lobby fodder".
