This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

And still I don't know what exactly was the objection to the FGM clause being introduced into the Children Act, which iam64 mentioned up thread. For all we know, Zac Goldsmith's amendment (or whatever it's called) is badly phrased and contains space for loopholes.

And then there's this: why wasn't opposition to FGM in the Children Act already? Seems to me Chope isn't the only guilty party here. It looks from where I am like bad government.

This paragraph is from the Wiki page about Chope. I agree with the principle that is stated in it. If Chope is not applying the principle of slowing down or preventing bills of his friends that "have not received sufficient scrutiny" (as people are saying up thread), then he is clearly yet another flawed individual. The principle is a good one though, which is probably why the blocking system was invented. I'm not against it in principle based on the information I have at the moment.

Chope is a member of a group of backbench Conservative MPs who regularly object to private members bills which, in their view, have not received sufficient scrutiny. These have included a number which were previously believed to have widespread public and parliamentary support.[28] The BBC's parliamentary correspondent, Mark D'Arcy, said the group "make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting."[29] Chope said that he objects on principle to legislation being introduced to the statute books without debate: "[T]his is something I have fought for in most of my time as an MP and it goes to the very heart of the power balance between the government and Parliament. The government is abusing parliamentary time for its own ends and in a democracy this is not acceptable. The government cannot just bring in what it wants on the nod."

Dear, dear me!

Sir Christopher Robert Chope OBE MP: was criticised in January 2013 for referring to House of Commons dining room staff as "servants" in a speech.
He claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses in 2007-8. This included claiming £881 to repair a sofa.
In June 2013, Chope was one of four MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on an 'Alternative Queen’s Speech' – an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver. 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, the privatisation of the BBC, banning the burka in public places, holding a referendum on same sex marriage and preparing to leave the European Union
And yet, after all that, Chope was appointed a Knight Bachelor in the 2018 New Year Honours for political and public service.
And yet, the good people of Christchurch voted for him, now he is a 'right honorable' member of Parliament and blocks laws against 'up-skirting' and FGM.

Iam64 agreed!

The fact he has acknowledged he doesn't block his friends and the blocks I've read about are bills that most ordinary folk would want to see progress through - that's what makes me cross about this man.
It isn't a lack of understanding about the need for proper consideration on my part, its simply righteous indignation that this pompous individual seems to have no moral compass yet he says that's what guides him.

Baggs I agree I would also like to know the purpose of the system! I don't think he does it for attention seeking! He says he does it to make a point about the need for all bills to be properly debated. That is probably a valid point. But his noble point somewhat fails, as he is not averse to using PMBs for himself under the present system, without debate; nor is he averse to not blocking his friends PMBs when it suits!! He has admitted both of those in interviews I have read but cant do a link here as I am on my phone and it doesn't work with links in GN!

There is a description here about the stages of private members' bills. It seems they can be blocked indefinitely (i.e. repeatedly). If Chope is doing this then all the criticism of his blocking would seem to be justified, but if he is just doing it to make people sit up and really think about the details of the new law, then... well... shrug. Maybe that Abdi fellow is right and it's not just bloody-mindedness.

I do wonder if our Parliamentary system is fit for purpose. Witness the whole Brexit juggernaut, and on a different scale, self serving old fools like this being able to throw spanners in the works whenever they see fit. The whole system needs scrutinising for practicability and fairness. Is it feasible, is it desirable, is it workable, is it fair?

Right now we seem to be too easily bogged down with incomprehensible processes, outbursts of public school braying and outdated rituals.

Come on!

The first tweet is not all that clear. I think the guy means that he doesn't think Chope has anything against the proposed laws on upskirting and FGM.

Maybe the blocking tactic is a kind of attention-seeking, but maybe it isn't. While people rant away about how awful Chope is, NOBODY IS EXPLAINING the procedure and what it is there for and why he, or anyone else, can use it in the way he does. I feel there has to be a good reason.

Yes, yes. I get all that. I've just been reading a thread on Twitter. Most people are criticising Chope. Nothing new there. But one guy says this (see photo):

I really would like to understand why this blocking procedure exists.

Baggs my point about the rules is that it needs precisely on objection to block new legislation being passed on a Friday! There might well be valid reasons to have a method for blocking available, but the method as set up at the moment allows too easy sabotage without proper accountability for using the methodology!

On another point, I would feel slightly more understanding of this mans actions if he actually demonstrated in practice that his actions are done on a matter of principle! However ha has admitted openly that if a PMB is submitted by a few of his close friends in Parliament he never objects! He has also submitted PMBs himself! Hmmmm!

Sorry, that makes no sense. What I meant to say is I agree with you,Maryl, the safe seat has a lot to answer for.

Me either.

MPs in safe seats ( of either party) keep getting elected because the constituency party members are happy with them - not the electorate. I can just imagine the demographics of CCs local party members and the cosy fit with him

I heard an interview with Chope after he had delayed the upskirting bill and his explanation is what Baggs said. He wanted bills to be given adequate time for debate and not passed too quickly. When he blocks something that seems to us to require no further debate, then he needs to make his objections public. Otherwise, applying a jobsworth approach to every bill undermines any good that he is doing. I doubt that he would be open to any suggestion that he should examine his motivation. His constituents must be happy to keep voting for him so perhaps he has redeeming features at a local level.

This man needs tearing down because he’s a hypocrite and an utter waste of space. He uses PMB when it suits his own interests and had never set up any grown up campaign to improve the process other than this Friday afternoon ‘ look at me’. This man deserves all the attacks heaped on him - and then some.

He is not the only one wasting parliamentary time, although probably the worst. My MP this week asked a question totally relating to our local council and which no one else in the H of C would have been even slightly interested.

I'm not sure the rules are the real issue. There might be occasions—I'm sure there have been historically or why would this rule be there at all?—when a way of blocking new legislation from being passed on a Friday is actually useful.

Baggs, I fear the reason he's using a parliamentary device is simply because he can

Yep. That sounds likely but that's still not what I care about, which is why I didn't mention it. So long as the stuff about FGM still can be added to the Children Act, which I think it can, I don't feel the need to analyse some awkward blighter's motives. And I don't feel the need to ratchet up a Twitter-style mob to have him hung, drawn and quartered (yes, that's an exaggeration, obviously) but many of the commenters on this thread do seem to be more interested in tearing the man apart than with accepting, with some degree of irritation, that a removable blockage has been put in the road of the proposed legislation.

If he is objecting "on principle" why does he not object to every Bill?

He is only able to do what he does (inconsistently!!) because Parliamentary rules allow it! The rules are the real issue; his irritating use of them is not the key point!

Baggs, I fear the reason he's using a parliamentary device is simply because he can. He's a self interested, self entitled right winger whose objections seem largely focussed on things most of us would support like - opposition to up skirting, gay rights and now the inclusion of FGM in a section of the Children Act.
Yes we know its already illegal but there will be good reason to specifically include it in the Act that is used to protect children. He claims he shouts Object, to ensure bills are given a proper reading. I don't believe his motivation is anything other than self promotion.

So Baggs you ate saying this man is governed by higher principles and not just being an awkward so-and-so?

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's what you've decided I'm saying, à la Cathy Newman (reference her 'interview' of Jordan Peterson in which she kept saying: "So you're saying..." when he wasn't saying what she said he was saying at all).

No, I think Chope is just using a common parliamentary device, that probably won't be damaging in the long run, for reasons that I don't understand. Someone up thread suggested it's a power trip or some such for him. I don't actually care why he's doing it. What I care about is that he can't stop good laws from being made by using this blocking device. AND THAT'S WHAT I SAID, I think you'll find. I did not mention the blocker's motivation at all.

Where it usually is on this forum maryeliza

Anja where was your tongue when you were posting?