Gransnet forums

News & politics

I saw this and said I dont believe that can be true

(35 Posts)
paddyanne Tue 08-Sep-20 16:11:03

Sadly it is

Tonight, Felicity Buchan was one of 318 Tory MPs to vote AGAINST implementing fire safety recommendations made by the Grenfell Inquiry.
Felicity Buchan is the Tory MP for Kensington - the constituency where the charred remnants of Grenfell Tower stand.
t.co/36L277PEw1

paddyanne Tue 08-Sep-20 16:13:03

How can these people sleep at night ? Why do folk still support them ? Is there no one left with any sense or compassion for the families who lost loved ones at Grenfell or the potentila loss of life in other tower blocks that may be affected ?

Whitewavemark2 Tue 08-Sep-20 16:13:18

Starmers going to be spoiled for choice at PMQs —again!

suziewoozie Tue 08-Sep-20 16:51:21

They just don’t care do they? Not one little bit. Does anyone still read ( the very limited) media coverage of the enquiry?

Ilovecheese Tue 08-Sep-20 17:06:19

I have read most of the coverage. I don't know what the excuse the MPs who voted against this are giving, maybe it will say in the paper tomorrow.
They really must be very heartless.

ayse Tue 08-Sep-20 17:21:45

Totally immoral!🤬

Jane10 Tue 08-Sep-20 17:26:53

Tell us how SNP voted on it?

westendgirl Tue 08-Sep-20 17:27:50

Can't they stand on their own feet .I wonder if this is what Felicity Buchan really thinks or is she mindlessly supporting the party.
Oh dear !

Illte Tue 08-Sep-20 17:43:45

She voted against an amendment, proposed by Labour to the original Bill I think.

Dors anyone know what the amendment was?

Her twitter feed says it would have had the effect of delaying fire safety implementation.

I know I'll get shouted at, but I'd like some more information before I decide whose culpable here

Baggs Tue 08-Sep-20 18:30:14

Well said, illte. It won't be as simple as is being made out.

varian Tue 08-Sep-20 18:53:34

The disgustingly large group of Tory MPs voted in last year by a minority of electors could just as well be replaced by robots.

This woman is shamefully letting down her constituents, but does she car? - no more than a robot would.

lemongrove Tue 08-Sep-20 19:04:10

The usual uniformed but jumping in with both feet (complete with bovver boots) comments on here.
There is more to it: a bill has to be passed before anything else can be done so the amendment put down by Labour is not accepted now.Just saw that on a news item on tv, but you should google the whole thing before rushing to judgement.
Gransnet is becoming more and more ‘shoot first and ask questions later’.

paddyanne Tue 08-Sep-20 19:06:17

SNP cant vote on English only matters ,you should know that jane Not only cant, never have even before EVEL .Yu trying to spin SNP = BAD again?

Nandalot Tue 08-Sep-20 20:57:09

Illte, this is the substance of the amendment.
I have copied the section below from The Standard, link here www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/grenfell-fire-inquiry-vote-speed-of-fire-safety-reforms-a4542251.html

“But Labour wanted to amend the Bill to ensure the Government implements recommendations made by the first phase of the Grenfell Inquiry.

The party’s new clause one would have required owners or managers of flats to share information with their local fire service about the design and materials of the external walls.

They would also have been required to carry out regular inspections of lifts and individual flat entrance doors, while evacuation and fire safety instructions must be shared with residents of the building.”

I really cannot understand how anyone could vote against this.

Jane10 Tue 08-Sep-20 21:35:44

paddyann see previous posts on finding out the whole story first. PS SNP are bad. No spin required.

Nandalot Tue 08-Sep-20 22:51:13

Lemongrove, from my 5th form Civics lessons, I understood that a bill can be amended before it is passed. It may have had its first and second readings but at the third reading I thought amendments would be debated. Perhaps it has changed. (5th form rather dates my schooldays era, indeed it was actually Lower Fifth!)

Callistemon Tue 08-Sep-20 23:18:11

The amendment would have held up the Bill because they would have discussed it ad nauseam.

It's vital that fire safety regulations need to be implemented as soon as possible and amendments can be debated and passed later when the main Bill is passed.
There has been far too much delay already.
Why would anyone want to hold that up?

maddyone Tue 08-Sep-20 23:22:01

Maybe I’m just not very bright, but I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would vote against implementation of the findings and recommendations, whatever their political affiliation.

Callistemon Tue 08-Sep-20 23:25:43

Labour are unhappy with SNP MPs because they abstained.
Ian Murray, Shadow Scottish Secretary, said:

“The SNP and Scottish Tories have let down Grenfell victims. It is a dereliction of duty by both parties to fail to vote for the inquiry recommendations.

“The border the SNP is so obsessed about should be irrelevant when it comes to a tragedy like this, and Nationalist MPs should today hang their heads in shame.”

Murray added: “The Tories’ refusal to support the amendment was sadly unsurprising, but the SNP pretends to be a progressive voice in parliament.

“Labour will continue to fight for the necessary measures to prevent a fire like Grenfell from ever happening again in any part of the UK"

How can these people sleep at night?
Abstaining over an issue which should concern us all?

MaizieD Wed 09-Sep-20 00:02:35

Callistemon

The amendment would have held up the Bill because they would have discussed it ad nauseam.

It's vital that fire safety regulations need to be implemented as soon as possible and amendments can be debated and passed later when the main Bill is passed.
There has been far too much delay already.
Why would anyone want to hold that up?

Staggering ignorance of parliamentary process being shown on this thread.

Amendments are debated and voted on before the bill itself is voted on because if amendments are carried the bill, as amended is voted on and goes to the next stage.

As for the sudden desire for urgency, it is the function of parliament to scrutinise all bills (i,e proposed legislation). The bill goes through 2 'readings', a committee stage and to the House of Lords (which can also propose amendments). The idea is not to frustrate the government, but to ensure that the bill is 'sound'. It's nonsense that the bill has to be rushed through.

Callistemon Wed 09-Sep-20 14:58:55

Amendments are debated and voted on before the bill itself is voted on because if amendments are carried the bill, as amended is voted on and goes to the next stage.

Well, yes, that was my point.
Introducing amendments at a late stage could delay proceedings. It could even be 'talked out'.
Filibustering.
This Bill, already scrutinised needed to be voted on without any more delay as it is vitally important that it is implemented as soon as possible.

Callistemon Wed 09-Sep-20 14:59:45

Staggering ignorance of parliamentary process being shown on this thread

Staggering rudeness but not unusual.

Illte Wed 09-Sep-20 15:12:59

Bear with me, because it's important I understand this.

Was the Bill ready to be passed and implemented straight away? If the amendment had received a positive vote what would have happened next?

Illte Wed 09-Sep-20 15:13:26

Well important just to me, obviously😳

MaizieD Wed 09-Sep-20 15:45:35

If the amendment had been accepted the bill would have been voted on as amended.

Amendments are always debated before the final bill is voted on.

The whole process is explained here:

www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament

As far as I can see there is no reason why the acceptance of the amendment would have delayed the enactment of the bill (i.e the bill becoming law.)