Something To Look Forward To In Parliament Tomorrow (Monday)

[Hymie]

There is a debate on the seven MPs who maligned the House of Commons Privileges Committee investigation into Boris lying in parliament – calling it a kangaroo court/witch-hunt etc.

Apparently the Lib-Dems have tabled a motion for all seven to be investigated for contempt – and if found guilty, an appropriate punishment applied.

Let’s hope there is a vote on the motion that succeeds.
The fun is scheduled to start at 3:30pm (or soon after)

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/80908/Pdf?subType=Standard

[bobbinwales]

and Brexit.

[Ellipsis]

If you were watching the Parliament channel, you might have seen Laura Farris (Conservative, Newbury) who gave an excellent speech that encapsulates everything you need, at 18:37:35 today.

This URL might work, but for some reason for me it keeps stopping every 10 seconds at present ...

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e378f6b1-ef6e-4d6a-9719-9b2962ab5e86?in=18:37:35

[Hymie]

^^^^
Well worth a listen – runs smoothly for me.

[Hymie]

Apparently the Lib-Dems motion was not accepted, so there will be no investigation into the seven MP’s behaviour.

[bobbinwales]

Ah well...you enjoyed the day waiting and watching in hope. Shame it didn't end as you hoped

[New Judge]

Then let's hope that sees and end to the nonsense and the Commons can move on to something useful (such as getting the "Illegal Migration" bill enacted) before they turn it in for the three month summer/conference recessions.

[Stableford]

Lindsay Hoyle's not an idiot- why on earth would he select this party-political attempt at stifling free speech?

[THECORBYLOON]

HYMIE, "Looking at the parliament website, this motion was carried by 353 votes to 7."

That was the result of the debate after the publication of the Johnson report.

The motion regarding the latest Privileges report was passed without a division so there was no vote as such.

Regarding the selection of amendments to motions, I have heard or seen in the past that one of the Speaker's considerations is the number of MPs and the number of different parties supporting each proposed amendment.

If there is wide ranging support for a proposed amendment, it is more likely to be selected for debate.

[THECORBYLOON]

OG, "It was clearly going to be a stitch-up from the off, no point in beating about the bush."

If it was obvious from the start, why did no MP vote against the motion to make the referral to the Privileges Committee and why did no MP vote against the motion to appoint Harriet Harman as its Chair?