So for some reason Filibustering is the newest American import in the UK.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Goliath**

ARTICLE

independent wrote:Conservative MPs have blocked a bill to bring first aid training to schools by talking non-stop until time to discuss and vote on it ran out.

The Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-Funded Secondary Schools) Bill would have required schools to teach first aid training to children as part of the national curriculum.

The group of MPs used up the bill’s time by talking for hours, with one speech by an education minister described by the deputy speaker as like reading a “telephone book” out loud.

Because the proposed law is not supported by the Government it only has a limited amount of time to be debated in Parliament, or has to be shelved.

It is backed by St John Ambulance, the British Red Cross, and the British Heart Foundation .

Tory MP Philip Davies, who is famous for “talking out” bills during Friday sessions of parliament, gave the longest speech of all, lasting around 50 minutes.

“The title gives away the principle of this bill: compulsory emergency first aid education in state-funded secondary schools. The point I am trying to make is that I do not agree with the principle of compulsory first aid education in schools. Why on earth would I allow a bill that principle of which I don’t like a second reading?” he said.

Mr Davies ultimately gave way before the end of the debate, with other MPs continuing to talk at length until time ran out.

The debate ended without a vote while Conservative education minister Sam Gyimah continued to read a long list of subjects despite interventions by the deputy speaker asking him to stop.

The Bill was proposed by Labour MP Teresa Pearce but had cross party support, including from some Conservatives. During Mr Davies’ marathon speech fellow Tory MP Roger Gale urged him not to block the law.

“I’d like to think that given that this is a matter of life and death my honourable friend might just allow this to have a second reading and then allow it to be dissected in a committee stage,” Mr Gale said.

Mr Davies responded that Mr Gale’s argument was “ludicrous”.

Among reasons he listed for blocking the bill was that himself had been taught first aid in school but had forgotten what he was taught.

He also said the Government should not expect teachers to assume a “pseudo-parent role”, and that he did not want “the Government to be sticking their nose in at every turn trying to lecture [teachers] every five minutes that they should be doing this, that, and the other”.

St John Ambulance said: “We’re frustrated at today’s result as we believe that the opportunity to learn first aid shouldn't be left up to chance.” The British Red Cross said the outcome was “disappointing”.

The incident follows outrage over Mr Davies filibustering a bill to scrap hospital car parking charges for carers, and an incident where Government health ministers deliberately blocked a bill to promote cheaper off-patent drugs in the NHS.

Mr Davies has also blocked a law that would have required landlords to make sure their homes were fit for human habitation.

Over 9,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Government to reform the filibuster process after the series of high-profile vetos and increased media coverage on the issue.

Well, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Philip Davies is despicable, and this adds to it yet again. He previously filibustered a bill that would enable carers to get free parking at hospitals, whilst himself having his hospital parking charged to his expenses, and then claimed to somehow be defending carers. It does seem that in recent weeks that the ability to filibuster these bills is being used entirely by Tory MPs (particularly Philip Davies and Alistair Burt, whom sadly is my local MP) in order to shut down any proposals that they don't approve of, despite back-bench or cross party support, which would seem to fly in the face of the idea of having an opposition.

So, what are people's thoughts on this? Approval? Ambivalence? Seething rage?

**Torga_DW**

Ambivalence. But then i have a low opinion of politicians in general.

**Grey Templar**

Seems like a silly thing to block over, but it also seems like First Aid should be something that is optional and not mandatory. There are plenty of things which children should be required to learn which aren't, First Aid seems fairly low on the list relative to things like creating a budget, meal planning, etc...

**Breotan**

Just slip him some Ex-lax in the morning and it'll put an end to those Friday afternoon filibusters.

**LethalShade**

Well, why the feth would a conservative block first-aid training in schools ?

**AlmightyWalrus**

LethalShade wrote:
Well, why the feth would a conservative block first-aid training in schools ?

Because the very concept of public schools is too revolutionary and socialist.

**Paradigm**

Sadly this is nothing new. If anyone saw the show that was on the BBC last year called 'Inside the Commons' or words to that effect, you could already see plenty of this going on; particularly for Private Members' Bills, which only had a very limited time for discussion. there was plenty of tangential time wasting, talking almost comically slowly just to eat up time ect.

And frankly, it just adds to my opinion that the House of Commons needs restructuring from the ground up. When the politicians that we, the people of the UK, put our faith in to represent us in government are incapable of acting with any more decorum and decency than you might see at the first meeting of a junior school lunchtime debating club, it's pretty sickening. From pathetic attempts like this to 'game' the system, to the general rowdiness and thuggishness that would be totally unacceptable in almost any other line of work, the whole process needs stricter rules, less potential for exploitation, and basically, higher standards. Let it be about policy and debate, not just who can shout loudest/talk longest/play 'comment tennis' with a colleague to waste time the best, and then we might get somewhere. Until then, we can just be appalled that these supposedly educated men and women (though from the evidence I've seen, the men are by far the worst) that we put our trust in to lead and represent us are incapable of acting any more mature than a bunch of kids.

**Kilkrazy**

If the government wants the bill to pass they can allocate more time, though that has to be taken away from a different piece of legislation so there is fallout somewhere.

**SilverMK2**

The speaker should have far more power to stop people from doing this at the very least (and set punishments too). Like any good moderator they should be able to stop BS like this when it occurs.

But I agree with Paradigm that the entire system needs updating and all the loopholes need closing. Ideally most of the overgrown children need a damn good sorting out too. Laws should be backed on merit, not on technicalities like some bunch of vastly overpaid donkey-caves wasting time and acting like two year olds throwing their toys out of the pram.

**Orlanth**

The 'filibuster' is a new word, not a new concept. In the House it is referred to as 'talking out' a bill. It has been done for centuries.

The tactic goes back to ancient Rome, an classical history was well read by educated European men in the medieval and later eras. Cicero was infamous for this ploy, as was Cato. This was remembered.

**Nevelon**

It’s nice to know it’s not just our government that can act like spoiled children. Not a big fan of the filibuster system. I’d like the guys in government to actually do their job. Shocking. Any time there are rules and procedures, there are going to be people who game them. It’s just RAW. You want to play RAI, go get elected to some fluffy town council. When it is used sparingly, I can kinda accept it. But as a regular tool in party politics, it sickens me. If you don’t agree with the issue, shut down the government.

As for the mandating first aid, I’m torn. I do think everyone should learn it. It’s a good skill to have, and the more people who have it, the better off everyone is going to be. But at what level do we want government micro-manageing our schools? (I use “our” loosely, as we are a world wide forum, and even locally there is a lot of difference). Here in New York the amount of crap teachers have to put up with is insane. Requirements, oversight, mandates, tests, etc. It’s getting to the point where all the crap the government is trying to do “for the good of all the students” is preventing the teachers from actually teaching. And that’s not even touching the litigious nature of our society and the impact that has on their jobs.

But as this thread looks to be more about government, rather then education, I’ll not rant further about this half.

**Paradigm**

My biggest issue with the concept is that it undermines the principle of a supposedly fair democracy. Since it was put forward by a Labour MP, I'm assuming this bill was a Private Members' Bill. For those outside the UK/not familiar, the idea behind these is that any MP who wants to can submit a bill that they or their consituents feel strongly about, and bills are drawn at random to be tabled for discussion. It is thus one of the few times an non-majority MP has the chance to put forward a Bill.

While it's unlikely the bill will go through in those circumstances, as it would rely on some opposition MPs voting against their Party line, it is has that chance. But with very limited time for discussion, this practice of just time-wasting to prevent just makes the whole principle a waste of everybody's time. Moreover, as pointed out this isn't a bill that's going to stand much of a chance of being passed, so there's no need for this; just vote on the bloody thing knowing you're likely to be able to stop it, and let the democratic process do its thing! Allowing one or two people to shut that process down just by talking for a couple of hours is just a farce, really.

Think about it this way; this kind of delaying tactic is not allowed in the final minutes of a football match, or a 40k tournament, or even in organised debating; why should politicians be allowed to get away with something that is undemocratic, unprofessional, and that would be severely frowned upon in any other line of work?

In short, the Lords needs to go (that's a whole other discussion) and the Commons needs to be seriously reformed. We need MPs that are going to do their job, and we need to be able to hold them accountable if and when they don't. We have democracy as far as getting MPs into parliament, but past that, there's no way for them to be held responsible for what they do once they're there.

**LordofHats**

As much as I hate fillibusters (seriously, it's a that fing guy move) its one of those problems that I just don't think can be solved.

There is no referee in politics. Even if you tried to instill one, whatever side is on the losing side of the call will just complain that the referee is biased (and they might be, because this is politics!).

**Kanluwen**

I'll referee.

But I might also turn it into a cage match; two sides enter and one side wins through conviction and beating the tar out of the opposition!

**A Town Called Malus**

LordofHats wrote:
As much as I hate fillibusters (seriously, it's a that fing guy move) its one of those problems that I just don't think can be solved.

There is no referee in politics. Even if you tried to instill one, whatever side is on the losing side of the call will just complain that the referee is biased (and they might be, because this is politics!).

Here in the UK the speaker of the house of commons is meant to be an impartial referee. In this case he did criticise the MPs for what they were doing but apparently had no means of actually stopping them.

**LordofHats**

Kanluwen wrote:
I'll referee.

But I might also turn it into a cage match; two sides enter and one side wins through conviction and beating the tar out of the opposition!

Well at the very least it would make decent television.

I want a fist fight between James "Ragin Cagun" Carville and Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. No matter who loses, I win

**Kanluwen**

I think I need to pitch this to Fox News.

I'm looking for a job anyways, Politician Fight Night host sounds as good as anything else!

**Zaku212**

Orlanth wrote:
The 'filibuster' is a new word, not a new concept. In the House it is referred to as 'talking out' a bill. It has been done for centuries.

The tactic goes back to ancient Rome, an classical history was well read by educated European men in the medieval and later eras. Cicero was infamous for this ploy, as was Cato. This was remembered.

True, obstructionism was something we used to get in all sorts of bother over

**Paradigm**

LordofHats wrote:
As much as I hate fillibusters (seriously, it's a that fing guy move) its one of those problems that I just don't think can be solved.

There is no referee in politics. Even if you tried to instill one, whatever side is on the losing side of the call will just complain that the referee is biased (and they might be, because this is politics!).

In the UK, we sort-of do. The Speaker has the power to keep things on topic, and shut people down if they're going on too long about irrelevant crap. According to the article, though, various MPs simply ignored the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker in this case) and as soon as one was forced to stop, another started. So yeah, a reform is definitely needed. More power to the speaker, maybe even a completely different system.

**LordofHats**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Here in the UK the speaker of the house of commons is meant to be an impartial referee. In this case he did criticise the MPs for what they were doing but apparently had no means of actually stopping them.

Yeah, but the Speaker (as I understand it) is basically there to keep basic order and decorum. We have the Speaker of the House and Vice President to fill similar roles. In all cases though, none of them are really empowered to tell someone attempting a fillibuster (as if it were so easy) to shut the feth up and sit down. Political parties with brains wouldn't stand for it, and I question whether its even right for men and women in such position to dictate what can be debated and how.

**Orlanth**

Talking out a bill is part of the orators art. Done well its not repetitive and P's have every right, and duty to speak in the House on issues being discussed.

This eats into parliamentary time.

Labour do it as much as the Tories if not more, as its normally an opposition technique. But because its the Tories someone is trying hard to make out its a brand new evil Cameron ploy. Which sweet innocents like Corbyn, Milliband, Brown, Blair or Kinnock would never consider doing. Yeah, right.

**Paradigm**

Orlanth wrote:
Talking out a bill is part of the orators art. Done well its not repetitive and P's have every right, and duty to speak in the House on issues being discussed.

This eats into parliamentary time.

Labour do it as much as the Tories if not more, as its normally an opposition technique. But because its the Tories someone is trying hard to make out its a brand new evil Cameron ploy. Which sweet innocents like Corbyn, Milliband, Brown, Blair or Kinnock would never consider doing. Yeah, right.

If that's directed at me, then absolutely not. I am appalled by the concept, which I find dishonest, unprincipled and pathetic, regardless of which who is using it. Yes, every MP has a right to speak, but like any other right it can be abused (this incident being a clear example) and there should be repercussions for that, or systems in place to prevent it.

If you want to fight a bill in a democratic system, do it be arguing against it, clearly and coherently, and actually try and convince people that the stance you're taking is the right one, so they vote for your argument. That is the 'orator's art', not the cowardly and ridiculous ploy of wasting everyone's time, undermining the democratic system and damaging the already-poor image of British politics even further.

**Orlanth**

You are forgetting Paradigm this is not a recent development but part of the way democratic politics works since ancient times.

You have two choices, to allow elected representatives to speak, or not to. Once you choose not then its easy to claim anything is ploy simply because you dont agree with it. You think such a power would not be abused? The right to silence a politician who has too many points to make.
What if they can find many things wrong with the bill?

**LordofHats**

It's not like being able to silence a single speaker would stop busters anyway. Another could just take the stand and continue it.

The last time I think a senator really managed to solo bust a bill was Williams Jennings Bryan, who read from a dictionary for three straight days to block a bill he didn't like. Most people, even Senators, aren't that crazy, and get help in busting.

**Paradigm**

Orlanth wrote:
You are forgetting Paradigm this is not a recent development but part of the way democratic politics works since ancient times.

That doesn't make it right. I don't care if this is a feature that has always been there, as it still represents an abuse of power, and there should still be an effort to prevent the practice. Just because there are ways things have always been done, it does not mean they are the best or only ways to do it.

You have two choices, to allow elected representatives to speak, or not to. Once you choose not then its easy to claim anything is ploy simply because you dont agree with it. You think such a power would not be abused? The right to silence a politician who has too many points to make.
What if they can find many things wrong with the bill?

So take it out of their hands. Allocate set times for each side to present their arguments, uninterrupted, then open it to the House for a more 'traditional' discussion. A simple solution, but one that instantly shuts down the potential for 'talking out a bill', at least in part. Or insist that the debate alternates between the opposition and the proposition, preventing a bloc of politicians from one side occupying 90% of the available time and not giving the other a chance to respond.

I don't have the perfect answer, nor might anyone else, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a move to try and find something better than the system we have now, which is clearly in need of altering.

**Grey Templar**

I would argue that the Fillibuster is itself a method to prevent abuse of power. It prevents a majority from simply passing any legislation they wish, IE: it prevents Tyranny of the Majority.

**Kanluwen**

Grey Templar wrote:
I would argue that the Fillibuster is itself a method to prevent abuse of power. It prevents a majority from simply passing any legislation they wish, IE: it prevents Tyranny of the Majority.

Replacing "tyranny of the majority" with "tyranny of the minority" isn't exactly a step up in preventing an abuse of power.

**Grey Templar**

Kanluwen wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I would argue that the Fillibuster is itself a method to prevent abuse of power. It prevents a majority from simply passing any legislation they wish, IE: it prevents Tyranny of the Majority.

Replacing "tyranny of the majority" with "tyranny of the minority" isn't exactly a step up in preventing an abuse of power.

Errm, no. Just no. Tyranny of the Minority would require the minority to have free reign over legislation and total control. This isn't total control. Its a very limited form of power which can only block legislation, it cannot be used to create legislation.

**Dreadwinter**

Grey Templar wrote:
Seems like a silly thing to block over, but it also seems like First Aid should be something that is optional and not mandatory. There are plenty of things which children should be required to learn which aren't, First Aid seems fairly low on the list relative to things like creating a budget, meal planning, etc...

Just out of curiosity, why do you find that being able to treat others as well as ones self in an emergency is less important than a budget? I mean, if I am bleeding out on the ground and I have no clue how to properly make and secure a tourniquet, what is the point of knowing how to create a budget?

Self Preservation first people

**Wyrmalla**

Its hardly like this is the first time this has happened. It went on during the last discussion over Scotland recently too. =P

Though frankly how politicians discuss things in that house is so much of a joke that I'm waiting for the shoes to start being flung and guys punching each other (if they weren't all snarky, passive aggressive gits).