Shake me up Judy Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Yes, I'm no wiser as to his sacking either. What was his objection to the border closure or the planning policy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said: Yes, I'm no wiser as to his sacking either. What was his objection to the border closure or the planning policy ? Sounds as if it could be both, which might be the reason why his position was made untenable. But we'll have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 The twitters are fairly busy on this story, there are a lot of posts. Julie Edge described him as the most intelligent person in CoMin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, gettafa said: Lawrie Hooper is being groomed for the job. They get them all onside in the end. But why start now? We're on the run in to the next election? ETA. Something stinks about this. Thomas has been axed for not playing COMIN, that's a given. But precisely what COMIN are doing, and why, with planning legislation is another matter. I think this is not of Quayle's doing, at least other than him making the announcement, which involved somebody else loading the cassette in the back of his head. There's a push on to grab and further centralise power here, and further remove democratic process using COVID as a convenient excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said: Yes, I'm no wiser as to his sacking either. What was his objection to the border closure or the planning policy ? Why not it is pretty straight forward. The rules for being a minister are, and have been for years, that you argue and disagree within the council of ministers but once the council of ministers have agreed a position by voting all ministers support that decision. If you don't you having broken the rules you are out. It is irrelevant what the matter being discussed or voted on was. That has no relevance to the sacking. That is purely down to the fact that he voted against what the council of ministers had agreed was their position. You do that you are out. It is irrelevant who you are or what the matter is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said: Yes, I'm no wiser as to his sacking either. What was his objection to the border closure or the planning policy ? The planning changes under emergency powers must contain something objectionable, but if you look here it isn't clear what - unless changing planning law under emergency powers is itself dodgy. He must have been absolutely clear about collective responsibility though - it has been around for at least 200 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 According to Mannin line intelligence the planning bit was a Bill was being voted on under the emergency act that objectors to plans would not get to personally state their case but had to put it in writing. Obviously this is because of the current state of play with the virus but it was to remain in place after the state of emergency ended the reason given being that it would streamline and their is a build up of cases waiting, big backlog. Now I can sort of understand people not being happy about this Thomas included but why would he not vote for the closure of the borders that is just ridiculous. Anyway he accepted the position, he knew the rules, he broke the rules, twice, rules that were made long before this present government were in power so he got the elbow quite rightly so. I hope Thomas does not milk this like Beecroft did there are too many pity parties at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Perhaps the fact that the Govt lost the vote was a factor in his sacking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Lost Login said: Why not it is pretty straight forward. The rules for being a minister are, and have been for years, that you argue and disagree within the council of ministers but once the council of ministers have agreed a position by voting all ministers support that decision. If you don't you having broken the rules you are out. It is irrelevant what the matter being discussed or voted on was. That has no relevance to the sacking. That is purely down to the fact that he voted against what the council of ministers had agreed was their position. You do that you are out. It is irrelevant who you are or what the matter is about. There's something about this that doesn't add up and so for me it's not straightforward. A disagreement over one policy can be brushed under the carpet but not two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 24 minutes ago, hissingsid said: According to Mannin line intelligence the planning bit was a Bill was being voted on under the emergency act that objectors to plans would not get to personally state their case but had to put it in writing. Obviously this is because of the current state of play with the virus but it was to remain in place after the state of emergency ended the reason given being that it would streamline and their is a build up of cases waiting, big backlog. Now I can sort of understand people not being happy about this Thomas included but why would he not vote for the closure of the borders that is just ridiculous. Anyway he accepted the position, he knew the rules, he broke the rules, twice, rules that were made long before this present government were in power so he got the elbow quite rightly so. I hope Thomas does not milk this like Beecroft did there are too many pity parties at the minute. The intelligence is defective. Yes, it was to allow all submissions were to be in writing, on paper. No, it wasn’t permanent. During the Coronavirus Proclamation period, to the extent that the 2013 Order continues in operation for the purpose of the transitional arrangements set out in article 29 of the 2019 Order, the 2013 Order is modified as follows. (2) In article 8 (appeal from decisions of the Department) — (a) omit paragraph (1)(c); (b) after paragraph (2) insert — «(2A)An appeal is determined by means of written representations.»; During the Coronavirus Proclamation period, the 2019 Order is modified as follows. In article 10 (appeals from decisions of the Department) — (a) (b) omit paragraph (5)(a)(ii); and after paragraph (8), insert — «(9) An appeal is determined by means of written representations.». Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barlow Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 22 minutes ago, hissingsid said: but why would he not vote for the closure of the borders that is just ridiculous. According to Andy Wint on Mannin Line - and he's never wrong and knows everything - Chris Thomas didn't vote to keep the borders open, he abstained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Thank you John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Same difference he is a half wit as well as the king of waffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfer Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 The issue on planning was that they were using emergency powers to stop objections except in writing, they could easily accommodate verbal objections with a bit of common sense e.g. On Zoom or with social distancing in a room. Concern was that it would be used to slip a lot of planning permission through. as the motion was defeated in both houses there was obviously a lot of other members not happy , Howie lost his rag as he didn't get what he wanted!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 34 minutes ago, hissingsid said: Same difference he is a half wit as well as the king of waffle. He might waffle-on but he's no one's fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.