Labour MP Chris Bryant denies telling Commons speaker to ‘f*** off’ | Daily Mail Online

This from a, so called, Senior MP, is totally unacceptable, so, Chris Bryant MP should be formerly suspended from the House.

Also, where is Keir Starmer and his comments on this, as he should be rebuking Bryant for his behaviour and taking other actions.

If a Tory MP had done this then Starmer and all the opposition MPs would be clamouring for the abusive MP to be suspended from the Chamber and quite rightly so.


Source: Labour MP Chris Bryant denies telling Commons speaker to ‘f*** off’ | Daily Mail Online

John Bercow defies Eurosceptics with vow to stay on as Speaker | Politics | The Guardian

John Bercow has said he plans to stay in his post as Speaker of the House of Commons despite previous expectations he was about to leave, risking the fury of hardline Eurosceptics who believe he wants to thwart a no-deal Brexit.

The Speaker told the Guardian it was not “sensible to vacate the chair” while there were major issues before parliament. And, amid growing indications that frontrunners for the Conservative leadership are willing to depart the EU without a deal, he warned candidates not to try to force such an outcome without the permission of MPs.

Bercow had told friends he intended to stand down as Speaker this summer, possibly in July, after concluding 10 years in the post. But his remarks on Tuesday appear to confirm reports he was reconsidering after the UK did not leave the EU at the end of March.

Speaking to the Guardian after a speech in Washington, Bercow said: “I’ve never said anything about going in July of this year. Secondly, I do feel that now is a time in which momentous events are taking place and there are great issues to be resolved and in those circumstances, it doesn’t seem to me sensible to vacate the chair.”


Source: John Bercow defies Eurosceptics with vow to stay on as Speaker | Politics | The Guardian

Euro Parliament poll shows Labour must still honour Brexit referendum to win power

This poll shows clearly that support for Brexit has not waned, but this is not reflected in Parliament and certainly not in the Lords, so who will win the People or Parliament/Lords.

Unfortunately in both Houses they have their own agendas and Brexit is not in them.

For Brexit not to occur what will the outcome be for the Country and Parliament/Lords, perhaps the abolishment of at least one and maybe more.


View original post

Unelected Lords guzzle champagne while hundreds of thousands are forced to turn to foodbanks

It is way gone the time when these antiquated privileges for the Lords and also the Commons should be removed.

Why should a persons place of employment or volunteer have a facility where these can consume liquor at very subsidised costs. At least make them pay the full costs, which should not be claimed on expenses, in fact expenses should also be withdrawn and the privilege of the bar withdrawn and maybe the restaurant as well.

Lords approves DoLS replacement bill following significant changes to boost safeguards for those detained | Community Care

The bill to replace the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) has been approved by the House of Lords after peers made significant changes to the government’s original proposals.

The majority of changes made to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act were designed to address concerns that the original bill failed to provide sufficient safeguards for people deprived of their liberty or sufficiently consider the wishes and feelings of people and their families.

With the bill due to have its first debate in the House of Commons tomorrow (18 December), we review the major changes agreed by the Lords.

Reducing role of care home managers

One of the main sticking points of the original proposals was the significant role given to care home managers under LPS in cases in their homes

It was originally proposed that care home managers would be responsible for arranging assessments to decide whether the three conditions for a deprivation of liberty authorisation had been met: that the person lacked capacity to consent to their care arrangements and had a mental disorder, and that the arrangements were necessary and proportionate.

Managers were also tasked with confirming with the responsible body – which in the case of care homes would be the local authority – if the authorisation conditions had been met, if an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) should be appointed and if the person were objecting to their care arrangements. This is significant because anyone who objected would be entitled to have their case reviewed by an approved mental capacity professional (AMCP), a practitioner with specialist training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) similar to the best interests assessor (BIA) under DoLS.

Concerns over managers’ skills and knowledge  

Peers challenged the initial proposals, questioning whether care home managers would have the required skills and knowledge to carry out what would be, in effect, the responsibilities performed under DoLS by BIAs, who have specialist training in the MCA.

They also questioned why these responsibilities would not be carried out by local authorities in their responsible body capacity, as proposed by the Law Commission in its 2017 report on reforming deprivation of liberty law that forms the blueprint for the government’s proposals.   

Professionals also expressed significant concern about this aspect of the bill. A survey of over 900 people conducted by Edge Training and Community Care found that 86% of respondents disagreed with proposals to make care home managers responsible for conducting or delegating assessments.

In addition, giving managers the responsibility to alert local authorities if they judged an IMCA was required also worried peers, who warned that care home managers would act as gatekeepers and people entitled to advocates would not have access to them.

Local authorities given a choice

In response to these concerns, the government brought forward amendments to give local authorities the option of giving these responsibilities to the care home manager or undertaking the responsibilities themselves. This would act as a check to ensure that the care home was suitable to oversee the process.

The bill was also changed so that managers would no longer be responsible for notifying a local authority if an IMCA should be appointed.

Instead, the amended bill specifies IMCAs would be automatically appointed where there was no appropriate person – an informal advocate who would represent and support the cared-for person but would not be involved in their care, such as a family member – unless it would not be in the person’s best interest to appoint an IMCA.

Conflict of interest

Another government a


Source: Lords approves DoLS replacement bill following significant changes to boost safeguards for those detained | Community Care

What happens after Brexit vote? Four possible scenarios explained : The Conversation

MPs have started to debate the final Brexit withdrawal agreement ahead of a “meaningful vote” at the end of the day on December 11. That is about the only part of the current situation about which we can be sure. There are various possible scenarios that might play out after that vote, some of which are outlined below.

1. MPs vote in favour of the deal

This is possibly the easiest outcome in terms of pushing forward with Brexit, but the hardest to obtain, given the sheer number of Conservative MPs who have said they will vote against the deal. A vote in favour would give the prime minister the power to tell the EU that the deal has been ratified by parliament.

But the government would still need to pass a hefty amount of legislation as the Brexit process continues. This would begin with the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill – a piece of legislation which the House of Commons Library thinks could happen before Christmas.

In the event that this first option doesn’t happen (which seems increasingly likely), the future is all a bid muddled. This is partly because it depends if MPs vote in favour of any amendments to the motion on December 11. Here, the possible outcomes would be:

2. MPs vote against the deal but in favour of an amendment

The House of Commons speaker, John Bercow, can select up to six amendments to a proposed bill to also be debated and voted on by the house. In this case, the proposed amendments include one by Labour MP Hilary Benn to reject both the Brexit deal and a no-deal scenario in an attempt to enhance the power for MPs to find an alternative. Labour and the SNP have said they will support the amendment. Other amendments include extending the Article 50 deadline to give more time to decide how to proceed.

If MPs vote against the main motion on the deal, the government would give a statement to the House of Commons within 21 days setting out how it plans to proceed, as specified in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018. This would bring us to January 1, 2019. Parliament would be given a week to debate the contents of this statement, before a further round of ministerial statements reporting on progress by January 21.


Source: What happens after Brexit vote? Four possible scenarios explained : The Conversation

Conservatives accused of trying to rig the election system as proposed boundary changes hit Labour | The Independent

The Conservatives have been accused of trying to rig the UK’s electoral system after a Tory-commissioned review threatened to strip an estimated 23 seats from Labour. Jeremy Corbyn’s party branded the proposals “unfair, undemocratic and unacceptable”, while campaigners claimed they were based on flawed data and would “skew” democracy. The Labour Leader’s own North London seat is set to be axed, while leading moderates such as Yvette Cooper and Chuka Umunna faced changes that could leave them vulnerable to de-selection.

Source: Conservatives accused of trying to rig the election system as proposed boundary changes hit Labour | The Independent