This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

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.

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.

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

Me either.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

Iam64 agreed!

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.

Dear, dear me!

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."

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.

I don't believe Chope is a supporter of FGM, nor that he is indifferent about it. Therefore, logically at least, there must be a good reason he did what he did on Friday.

Time, I hope, will tell.

The Children Act 1989 enables the Court to consider the needs of the child, including the need for protection. The Court has to consider whether the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering significant harm. There are Judgements that have been written by Judges asked to consider specific incidents or risks of harm. The Act doesn't detail every specific harm a child could be subjected to, or at risk of. That's unnecessary and unwieldy. I don't know the detail of the proposed bill but we are now almost 30 years since the Act was introduced so I'm not surprised that the need to specify FGM has been confirmed by the proposal.
Debates about the best way to work with parents to protect children at risk of FGM were taking place in the 80's when it was hoped that engaging with communities, rather than simply criminalising parents was the right way forward. I didn't share that view and I'm not up to date with statistics or the current approach. It does seem clear to me that if attempts are being made to incorporate FGM as a specific risk of harm, that's come about because the people working most closely in this area believe that is what is needed to protect children.
Intellectualising why people like Chope behave as they do doesn't butter parsnips (as my grannie might have said)

Baggs may I point out there was a question mark at the end of the post you replied to. I was therefore asking a question of you, not stating a fact. No need to shout.

Whilst I understand & agree that the Bill can still proceed despite the legitimate delaying actions of this man I do think the reason he chooses fairly high profile " social" cases is to deliberately stir. This does not seem to be honourable. If he really cared about these issues he would be busy preparing speeches and lobbying. I have yet to find evidence that this is what he does. Too few politicians are driven by a real desire to serve their electorate, improve the quality and safety of life for ordinary citizens. They are rather too full of their own self-importance.

I have less and less respect for most MP's now as many have proved that they're not fit for the job in hand nor for the purpose of becoming MP's. Education does NOT equal common sense !!

EllanVannin what is education? would be a long debate on its own! There are too many MPs who have blinkers, who do not have the capacity to think beyond their own experiences, the imagination to forsee the potential impact of their decisions/ actions, the ability to look at life from anothers' perspective, to even debate properly ! Our 2 party system is more and more unfit for purpose!

‘Intellectualising why people like Chope behave as they do doesn't butter parsnips (as my grannie might have said)’

Neither does it explain his utter hypocrisy

I think that his hypocrisy about allowing some that suit him to go through without appropriate debate completely undermines his own explanation for his actions!