I just don't get how someone can manifestly go against all the current advice/rules (how can you self-refer for a COVID test, then not self-isolate until you have the test result? What's the point of having the test in the first place?), then have their party withdraw their support/the Whip and even the Speaker of the Commons express anger at their putting the rest of (or some of the rest of ) the House at risk, and think that their position is even remotely tenable?
It's interesting the way opposition politicians are calling for Ms. Ferrier to be "sacked". Surely as a democratically elected representative she can't be sacked? De-selected, maybe, but not sacked?
But how do those she is elected to represent express their anger/dissatisfaction (assuming this is the case)? She can't be sacked as she holds her post by virtue of being elected to it, and (all things being equal-ish and no General election being called sooner rather than later) the voters won't get the chance to have their say for another 3- 4 years....
That would need the standards committee to consider her actions fall in their jurisdiction, and warrant a suspension from the House for a couple of weeks. The other bases for a recall petition aren't relevant - she's not going to be facing a custodial sentence for her actions, and there's nothing relating to expense claims.
It's interesting the way opposition politicians are calling for Ms. Ferrier to be "sacked". Surely as a democratically elected representative she can't be sacked? De-selected, maybe, but not sacked?
To all intents, she's been sacked by the SNP ... there's nothing more that the party can do. There may be options for her removal from any select committees that she may serve on. But, there's no mechanism for either the SNP or the Speaker of the House to sack her. The next move is hers, she can choose to stand down as MP and trigger a by-election, but no amount of people telling her she should do so can force her to. She's not going to be re-elected if she stands as an independent, and it's possible that her actions have ruined the chances of the SNP holding the seat, in which case it'll swing to Labour.
I just don't get how someone can manifestly go against all the current advice/rules (how can you self-refer for a COVID test, then not self-isolate until you have the test result? What's the point of having the test in the first place?),
"I'm sure I don't have COVID but want to prove it to you" would give some sort of logic to this set of actions. Presumably this would involve lying a bit to get the COVID test in the first place.
But, there's no mechanism for either the SNP or the Speaker of the House to sack her.
MPs can be suspended for various breaches of parliamentary protocol - AIUI usually for a week in the first instance, and I suppose that speaking in the House whilst awaiting a (positive) Covid test might be viewed in such a light. But I suspect that the speaker will not seek suspension, because he intends to pressure her to resign.
She's not going to be re-elected if she stands as an independent, and it's possible that her actions have ruined the chances of the SNP holding the seat, in which case it'll swing to Labour.
Is that a certainty? Maybe it is, if her majority is/was slim, but a good number of SNP voters must vote for the party as well as for the individual.
Rutherglen & West Hamilton swings back and forth between SNP and Labour. It won't take much of swing away from the SNP for Labour to regain the seat - and the actions of Ms Ferrier have got a lot of SNP members (let alone voters) angry. Anger at the individual, but it'll wash over into anger against the party she was a member of - that's just human nature.
The big questions would be a) will there be a by-election? and b) when? For there to be a by-election she'll need to stand down as MP, there's no option of forcing her out. As for timing, a by-election now will be interesting in relation to the Scottish Parliamentary election cycle, it's not impossible that if she thinks about things for a week before standing down that someone will schedule the by-election for May, the same day that we go to the polls anyway.
If she did stand down, would they really wait until May before having a by-election? It seems like a long time, considering how quickly a General Election can be arranged when somebody wants one.
It would also mean quite a long time for her constituents to be unrepresented.
I will just note in passing that while her own party leader has condemned her unequivocally Johnson and Number 10 have been silent. Proof I suppose that there is some depth of hypocrisy to which even they won't stop.
If she did stand down, would they really wait until May before having a by-election? It seems like a long time, considering how quickly a General Election can be arranged when somebody wants one.
It would also mean quite a long time for her constituents to be unrepresented.
6th May is the currently scheduled date for the Scottish Parliamentary election (there has been some talk in Holyrood that in the event of a big second wave into the spring that these may be delayed if it's considered not possible to hold elections in a covid-secure manner).
I will just note in passing that while her own party leader has condemned her unequivocally Johnson and Number 10 have been silent. Proof I suppose that there is some depth of hypocrisy to which even they won't stop.
I think Johnson made some comment about it being 'a matter for her party', but otherwise, he expressed no condemnation of her limited (and in a specific way) law-breaking...
I think Speaker Hoyle has made the Westminster parliament view pretty clear. I guess that Johnson doesn't want to be seen as making a political point, in case the Cummings debacle is resurrected.
To follow up the earlier conversation, I see that Sir Keir Starmer has made a special point of calling on the people of Rutherglen & West Hamilton to get their views ... so, it looks like Labour are expecting a by-election soon.
I would think on Monday. Hope it doesn't involve travel restrictions or a wedding I have scheduled might be off again! But I am right behind Nicola and my old pal Jason on this one. And I am so tired of hearing people - mainly on the radio which I am turning off more regularly these days - explaining why their inconvenience is the one that matters.
I'm right behind Nicola, too, but I am really hoping the exemption for visiting the terminally ill in their own homes isn't changed. I think my brother, who lives near our parents, can legitimately describe himself as a carer, but we are 90 miles away.
Given the rain last Saturday, we were very glad that we didn't have to sit outside!
From this side of Hadrian's Wall, we hear that lockdown is not planned, but that further restrictions may be introduced - more info tomorrow, according to the BBC.
Oh, I think her actions were indefensible, especially as it's now suggested she may also have gone to Mass whilst showing symptoms. And yes, I think she should resign.
Last week, Jason Leitch (national clinical director, frequently on TV explaining current situation) was thanking churches and other places of worship for all they'd done to make their properties as covid safe as possible, with no cases tracked to spreading in places of worship. Hopefully, this isn't something that causes a break in that record. The priest at our local RC church has confirmed covid, and that must have created a lot of work for the test & protect people contacting all those he's been with over the last couple of weeks.
As a CofS minister I have just received a letter from Jason Leitch regarding spiritual care in hospitals. Essentially it says that the chaplaincy teams will be first port of call but that if they decide a person's own faith leader should be called in then we would not be considered the named visitors, and then enumerates the practical protocols, especially around use of oils, communion elements etc. The letter is not CofS specific, so I expect that it will be forwarded to ministers of different denominations and faiths. Mine came from the Principal Clerk - probably keen to show he is working before 9 a.m.! (Cynic, me?)
As a CofS minister I have just received a letter from Jason Leitch regarding spiritual care in hospitals. Essentially it says that the chaplaincy teams will be first port of call but that if they decide a person's own faith leader should be called in then we would not be considered the named visitors, and then enumerates the practical protocols, especially around use of oils, communion elements etc. The letter is not CofS specific, so I expect that it will be forwarded to ministers of different denominations and faiths. Mine came from the Principal Clerk - probably keen to show he is working before 9 a.m.! (Cynic, me?)
I'm hoping that we don't go backwards in church services after Nicola Sturgeon's announcements later today. Jason Leitch's letter is helpful. Nevertheless as Alan Cresswell's post about his local RC priest suggests, I'm very conscious of being one of the highest risks to any vulnerable people I visit, and of course with relaxed restrictions (compared to what they were) I'm permitted to visit those in great need.
A friend of mine somewhat cynically commented that the only reason churches were still open was because the pubs were still open, and there was no way that TPTB could ever argue that churches were less safe than pubs as, unlike pubs, we do have full 2m distancing, hand sanitiser by the bucketload and good facial covering compliance. And as soon as the pubs/restaurants close, churches will close too. (Said friend is both a medic working in acute medicine, and a churchgoer, so not uninvolved in either the medical or spiritual implications).
It should be added that the local priest contracted covid from a relative, and was already self-isolating after that relative got a positive result. So, there was a very short window of time when he might have been in contact with parishioners between contracting the virus and going into self-isolation. And, there's no indication of any transmission within the church. Parish mass is cancelled for an indefinite period until it's safe for him to conduct worship, a couple of funeral masses scheduled will be taken by a priest from another parish.
And yet there are people on other threads complaining bitterly about the restrictions placed on churches, somehow not appreciating The Duty Of Care which ministers (and church authorities in general) have towards not only their own flock(s), but also others 'outside' the church.
Grr...
But yes, as @Anselmina says, hopefully there won't be any further restrictions. The same applies down here in Brexshitland, too.
Yes, nothing was mentioned, either in the speech or in the"evidence" document on which that was based - although as yet the "more detailed guidance" has yet to appear on the Scottish Government website. I wonder of the Members at Holyrood saw this letter: https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/40605.
Last orders folks (at least, for those in the Central Belt).
Can't say this makes any impact at all on life as I am currently living it. I would dearly love to visit a friend in the Borders (and yes, it would be an outside meeting) but it is preferred we don't travel outside our own Health Board. But we're not actually restricted on travel, so I could still go.
I think they're being sensible - and it seems just possible that these relatively draconian measures might mean that they don't have to last for too long.
I'm supposed to be moving into my new flat in a couple of weeks; I was worried that I might not be able to see anyone at all for weeks, but apparently if you live alone you can have people from other households as long as you only have one household at a time, which seems quite doable.
Meanwhile, Perthshire is bustling. The hotel we're staying in is fully booked: the nearby B&Bs have No Vacancies signs: House of Bruar (an upmarket shopping complex) was like a Fair Day: the local gastropub was packing them in. One of the waiters was telling us it's been like this since the initial lockdown eased, and will now, presumably, continue/increase now that the hospitality and tourism sectors in the Lowlands are being closed down.
... but apparently if you live alone you can have people from other households as long as you only have one household at a time, which seems quite doable.
Have to say, that's not my understanding of the Rules...
I read that as being the only people I can have in my house (or indeed into whose house I can go) are my extended household. And I can only form that extended household with one other household (for example my sister, b-i-l and nephew) . We may choose to end the extended household, but I can't then form a different extended household with (say) friends.
Which basically means that if I'm holding out hope of catching up with sister et al for Christmas, which will involve a stay (they're 200ish miles away, also somewhere you can't meet others indoors unless in extended household), I can't form an extended household with anyone else. So I can only meet friends outdoors or in a cafe/hospitality setting...
The answer seems to be for all @Piglet 's rellies to double as tradesmen ('Hello Auntie Jean. You'll be here to unblock the sink.') except for the under-12s who can come as themselves.
Comments
Some of the comments made today have the nasty stench of misogyny. Which is deeply disappointing.
“after having given consideration etc etc”
But how do those she is elected to represent express their anger/dissatisfaction (assuming this is the case)? She can't be sacked as she holds her post by virtue of being elected to it, and (all things being equal-ish and no General election being called sooner rather than later) the voters won't get the chance to have their say for another 3- 4 years....
"I'm sure I don't have COVID but want to prove it to you" would give some sort of logic to this set of actions. Presumably this would involve lying a bit to get the COVID test in the first place.
MPs can be suspended for various breaches of parliamentary protocol - AIUI usually for a week in the first instance, and I suppose that speaking in the House whilst awaiting a (positive) Covid test might be viewed in such a light. But I suspect that the speaker will not seek suspension, because he intends to pressure her to resign.
Is that a certainty? Maybe it is, if her majority is/was slim, but a good number of SNP voters must vote for the party as well as for the individual.
The big questions would be a) will there be a by-election? and b) when? For there to be a by-election she'll need to stand down as MP, there's no option of forcing her out. As for timing, a by-election now will be interesting in relation to the Scottish Parliamentary election cycle, it's not impossible that if she thinks about things for a week before standing down that someone will schedule the by-election for May, the same day that we go to the polls anyway.
It would also mean quite a long time for her constituents to be unrepresented.
We're not in any immediate risk of flooding, but I'll be watching the water levels closely today.
6th May is the currently scheduled date for the Scottish Parliamentary election (there has been some talk in Holyrood that in the event of a big second wave into the spring that these may be delayed if it's considered not possible to hold elections in a covid-secure manner).
I think Johnson made some comment about it being 'a matter for her party', but otherwise, he expressed no condemnation of her limited (and in a specific way) law-breaking...
Indeed, but most of Johnson's phrases are meaningless...
I agree with Dafyd, Darda and BF - the less attention AbdePJ draws to the Cummings and goings of certain people, the happier he'll be.
(*See what I did there? The clue is Barnard Castle...)
The person in question remains
Given she tested positive, she may well not be feeling very well..... (depsiet travelling as she felt better!)
In other speculation: further lockdown starting this week, or waiting until next?
Given the rain last Saturday, we were very glad that we didn't have to sit outside!
And far more charitable than I am being atm .....
Currently contemplating the horror of being well known and all my sins & stupidities blazed across our media....
Oh, I think her actions were indefensible, especially as it's now suggested she may also have gone to Mass whilst showing symptoms. And yes, I think she should resign.
I'm hoping that we don't go backwards in church services after Nicola Sturgeon's announcements later today. Jason Leitch's letter is helpful. Nevertheless as Alan Cresswell's post about his local RC priest suggests, I'm very conscious of being one of the highest risks to any vulnerable people I visit, and of course with relaxed restrictions (compared to what they were) I'm permitted to visit those in great need.
Grr...
But yes, as @Anselmina says, hopefully there won't be any further restrictions. The same applies down here in Brexshitland, too.
I guess the Central Belt includes the bulk of the population of Sootland Scotland?
BTW, it looks as though places of worship can carry on as before, with the restrictions that are already in place, of course.
Can't say this makes any impact at all on life as I am currently living it. I would dearly love to visit a friend in the Borders (and yes, it would be an outside meeting) but it is preferred we don't travel outside our own Health Board. But we're not actually restricted on travel, so I could still go.
Overall, it could have been worse...
Indeed.
I'm supposed to be moving into my new flat in a couple of weeks; I was worried that I might not be able to see anyone at all for weeks, but apparently if you live alone you can have people from other households as long as you only have one household at a time, which seems quite doable.
Have to say, that's not my understanding of the Rules...
I read that as being the only people I can have in my house (or indeed into whose house I can go) are my extended household. And I can only form that extended household with one other household (for example my sister, b-i-l and nephew) . We may choose to end the extended household, but I can't then form a different extended household with (say) friends.
Which basically means that if I'm holding out hope of catching up with sister et al for Christmas, which will involve a stay (they're 200ish miles away, also somewhere you can't meet others indoors unless in extended household), I can't form an extended household with anyone else. So I can only meet friends outdoors or in a cafe/hospitality setting...
It's pants.