MPs went home early today following the debate on the Nat West 3, called for by the LibDems and granted by Speaker Martin. it was called under Standing Order 24. Under Commons rules, the debate is called on a "Motion that this House do Now Adjourn". It is up to the Party calling for the debate to force a vote at the conclusion for the three hour debate. If the vote is won the House adjourns and the second part of the opposition day (a Conservative inspired debate) is lost. I understand that the LibDems had intended to force a vote, but when it came to it the Labour Party didn't put up any tellers and as they didn't oppose the adjournment motion, it was carried without a vote. Some MPs thought this was a bit odd, but put it down to the fact that every speaker, including Labour ones, in the debate spoke in favour of the Nat West 3 and the Government may have feared a defeat.
What no one knew was that Lord Levy was already in Police custody. Had MPs known that they would have demanded an immediate government statement, preferably from the Prime Minister, but probably from the Leader of the House, Jack Straw. With the House adjourned, that was conveniently (for Labour) impossible.
What will probably happen now is that Jack Straw will have to make a statement tomorrow, which will try to bat everything away by saying that the whole thing is sub judice. In itself a fair point, but this raises far more questions than the immediate future of Lord Levy.
13 comments:
How can you be a special envoy if you can't leave the country?
That's not right.
It was only cos of the HIPs debate.
Iain I may have missed something, but I can't see it as a plot if Jack Straw has to make a statement tomorrow!
Paul, timing dear boy. 20 more hours to spin their way out of it...
Levy has now said that his arrest was "totally unnecessary". Wouldn't any crook say that? after all you wouldn't get your average criminal praising the police for their well-timed and totally justified intervention, now would you?
Iain
Maybe you or your clever readers could tell me why the lyrics
"You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two..."
keep running through my head? ;)
"The only MPs who "voted" No were three Campaign Group members and another lefty, probably happy to see rich bankers shipped out."
I think all 4 (Skinner, Simpson, Cohen and Taylor*) were from Campaign Group. There were some Labour MP.
There were some Labour MPs in the "aye" lobby too. I see John McDonnell and Clare Short listed.
Actually David Taylor voted in both lobbys. He often does it to mark an abstantion.
{How can you be a special envoy if you can't leave the country?}
Well that's what is so special about him.
Amusingly the next show on BBC is called 'on the fiddle'...
Iain,
You should no better. No speaker would grant such a PNQ while someone was in custody. I know you are getting desperate, but stay clear of the fantasy stuff.
Sorry, I can't quite accept the conspiracy. The notion of the entire Parliamentary Labour Party participation in a bid to save "Lord" Levy's hide seems far-fetched, and I imagine a few are enjoying this development.
Nope, don't buy this one, I'm afraid.
The PM wouldn't have had to make a statement to the House about what is, ostensibly, a party matter. No charges have been forthcoming and the matter is not sub judice until charges are laid. However, nobody would wish to prejudice the investigation, regardless of the protection offered by speaking in the House.
Tomorrow's news should be interesting especially as the BBC can't afford to wriggle out of reporting on this one - just loved the comments on Nick Robinson's blog today.
Post a Comment