Andrew voted both ways
I have to confess this is a new one on me - Andrew George voted in both lobbies last night, both for and against the Devonwall Bill. Apparently this is the only way MPs can record a "principled abstention" and should not be taken as evidence of confusion.
Comment number 1.
At 3rd Nov 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:I think I would have more respect for him had he gone one way and took the consequences like a man.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 3rd Nov 2010, Tynegod wrote:Typical politician, in my opinion.
They leave a slimey trail whatever Lobby they leave by.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 3rd Nov 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:I think Andrew thought he could claim double travel expenses if he had to visit two lobbies
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 4th Nov 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Actually, Mr Smith, when set in the context of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Party's three line whips there was, in fact, a very significant rebellion of 18 Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government MPs. Here are all those significant Conservative Party and Liberal Democrat Party rebels :
(It would be surprising if the ´óÏó´«Ã½ moderators disallow that parliamentary link)
Could it be that members of the House of Lords will display yet greater independence of thought and more democratic action to protect the public interest and display greater respect for the integrity of British democracy by significantly altering this badly constructed Bill in ways that may surprise?
Your presumptions of 'defeat' and quickness to presume English parliamentary constituencies encroaching into the Duchy are premature in the context of UK parliamentary procedures and, it seems, are more to do with your personal wishful thinking than anything else as, judging by your relentlessly anti-Cornish titles when it comes to 'blogging' on Cornish matters, you appear to be determinedly exploiting your privileged access to a publicly funded ´óÏó´«Ã½ presence to pursue a very personal and politically motivated anglo-centric and kernowphobic agenda.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 5th Nov 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 5th Nov 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:In truth AccurateChronometer you are anti-Cornish, you are the one fighting cornish people, you are the one imposing your opinions on the Cornish, you are the one claiming we are not allowed to be English or Cornish, you are the one stating we have to live in a Duchy or Kernow. It is you that is ANti-Cornish FACT
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 5th Nov 2010, P_Trembath wrote:"We are NOT allowed to be English OR Cornish"
"We have to live in a Duchy OR Kernow?
I have to admit that the writing of the word "fact" in upper case letters at the end of your post does tend to give it an air of desperation.
AC is not "Anti-Cornish", nor are, I believe, you Mr. Jacks, (nor is Graham Smith for that matter).
You are 2 different people, who hold 2 different opinions. FACT x 2·5².
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 5th Nov 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:Well said Andy, AccurateChronometer shouldnt use some comments as anglo-centric and kernowphobic agenda without providing evidence of such an invented crime
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 5th Nov 2010, Saltashgaz wrote:Odd moderation and what remains is on topics?
This "further consideration" seems to be very biased towards the nutters in society
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)