cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/[email protected]/t/225212
More than half of people believe MP’s absence is significantly damaging parliament’s reputation, poll shows
“Dorries last made a written contribution in parliament when she laid a ministerial statement in early September 2022, as Boris Johnson handed over the reins to Liz Truss. She last voted in the House of Commons in April and has been absent for most votes since last September.”
In any other job or workplace…
No-Show Nadine needs to be booted out and fined a year’s pay seeing as how she hasn’t done any damn work since last year
If Starmer wanted a laugh he’d propose an ammendment to one of the bills going through Parliament demanding that MPs that abandon their constituents in such a way would have their excessively high MPs salary clawed back from them. He’d get all of the opposition parties to support him and it would look like the Tories condone No-show Nadine if they don’t vote to accept the ammendment.
It’s literally win win for him. Stick the boot in and show what a failure this has been. Of course… He won’t. 🙄 no bants.
Starmer did this with second jobs and the Tories made a mockery of it by submitting their own proposal. MP are not supposed to submit a proposal that is either subject to review or has been recently voted down in the commons. The Tory draft as ever had cop out clauses that made the bill a farce. The Tories voted en masse to reject the Labour motion, and then voted in the Tory motion that very same day. There is nothing an opposition can do when a government has a such a large majority.
You should also remember, there are plenty of Labour MPs who do absolutely nothing in the same light. Their role is a tick box only. Try doing a Hansard search for the activity of your MP in parliament. OFC this does not factor in the efforts that are done locally. MP’s activity in Parliament is very hit and miss while being dependent on the projects they have current involvement in. All parties are happy to bring in the odd idiot now and again. So long as they vote in the right direction.
Starmer did this with second jobs and the Tories made a mockery of it by submitting their own proposal. MP are not supposed to submit a proposal that is either subject to review or has been recently voted down in the commons. The Tory draft as ever had cop out clauses that made the bill a farce. The Tories voted en masse to reject the Labour motion, and then voted in the Tory motion that very same day. There is nothing an opposition can do when a government has a such a large majority.
Sneaky cunts. However I still think it’s a net win for Starmer as he can tour the country and the TV and radio stations with the message that “The Tories are so corrupt they even voted in dodgy laws to protect No Show Nadine”. They could literally run an election on it. The messaging would be super simple: Tory MP is ripping off the tax payer and Rishi wants to protect her. It’s so daft it’s genius!
Pretty hard to do with such a predominant right wing bias in the media. This was posted as something good that the Tories are responsible for. All facts regarding how weak the legislation or that the stronger legislation was voted was kindly omitted from any publications except the left wing media. This was under Johnson’s watch, but the group of people calling the shots has not changed.
I suppose Starmer doesn’t have a platform of his own? He doesn’t have a voice, a website, an impeccable PR team that runs Twitter and Facebook, six open questions every week on PMQs, a whole shadow front bench that do media rounds every day, and hasn’t been having secret meetings with Rupert Murdoch.
Yeah you’re right, there’s absolutely nothing Labour could possibly do 😉.
Starmer is not pushing himself as NEWS though. The channel is literally called GB news. That infers it is giving factual evidence when clearly it is nothing more than a culture wars platform designed to push their own agenda.
Dorries is an idiot sycophant with an aim for her own monetary development and nothing else. Her attacks on Channel 4 were very indicative of how she will follow any path she is instructed to pursue. Her downfall is the abject lack of intelligence. She is the perfect lapdog come scapegoat for items leaders do not want to be associated with.
But even stating this, There are plenty grifters who have MP status. We shouldn’t fall into a method of disavowing MPs just because of media popularity. I agree MPs should have a minimum standard of service. How we go about stopping MPs of this ilk should not be based on the media circus, but rather on actual merit and failures. There is no defined role for an MP, maybe we need one. There is no obligation to be available to the community she serves, Geoffrey Cox is testament to that fact. The only reason she would be removed is because of media attention. This is a dangerous route to follow.
I do believe she and other MPs should be removed from office for their participation in GB news. Ofcom needs their backsides kicking for allowing this. The electoral commission will have to justify how MPs can be allowed to run a media platform like this and not have it listed as campaign spending. Anderson has said he will be standing again. For all he has zero chance at success according to polling in his area, how can anyone say this is a fair platform to fight against?
That’s a point I never considered. How can these shows presented by MPs run during during the election campaign? Surely they’d be deemed PPBs?
If Dorries turned up to parliament it would also damage its reputation, to be fair.
Those poor constituents. They voted for the Tories but all they got was some selfish, hateful, avaricious piece of shit. How could they have known?!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A campaign group has written to the standards watchdog asking for an investigation into Nadine Dorries after its poll suggested more than half of people believe her absence as an MP and failure to quit has significantly damaged parliament’s reputation.
Tom Brake, the director of Unlock Democracy, called for an inquiry after the group commissioned an Opinium survey that found 55% of people thought Dorries had caused significant damage by failing to speak in parliament and delaying her decision to quit.
Daniel Greenberg, the standards commissioner, had previously written to the group saying it was an extremely high bar for an investigation into an MP on these grounds and it had not been proven that Dorries’ actions had caused significant damage to the reputation of parliament.
Dorries last made a written contribution in parliament when she laid a ministerial statement in early September 2022, as Boris Johnson handed over the reins to Liz Truss.
Asked if that meant Dorries was failing her constituents, Sunak said: “Well, at the moment people aren’t being properly represented.”
A diehard Johnson loyalist, Dorries said she was quitting parliament to trigger a byelection when the former prime minister stood down as an MP in early June.
The original article contains 532 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
