Digby wrote:It's just very bizarre behaviour from Mogg. I've yet to find one person I know, friends, family, business (many of them staunch Tory voters) who is accepting of the reasons given that Parliament must vote in such fashion, indeed the overwhelming reaction is much closer to it being lunacy than it being a sensible way out of lockdown
The images of MPs queuing in such a long line to cast a vote are just embarrassing. Like you, I can't find anyone who thinks its a good idea.Trying to send a message that they are back to work with the rest of us I understand. But you could have the lower chamber full (in social distancing mode) and allow full participation online. Message duly sent.
Now it looks like the Business Secretary, Sharma, may be ill and was seen to be suffering in the Commons yesterday. So he is now self isolating plus anyone else he was in close contact with.
Utter fucking lunacy of the highest order.
It did though remind me of this
Just to add to the social distancing Barry Gardiner attended the protests in London yesterday, which is understandable if perhaps not advisable given a role at the Commons. If any MP does undertake such a thing will they be self-isolating for 14 days before returning to the Commons?
Digby wrote:It's just very bizarre behaviour from Mogg. I've yet to find one person I know, friends, family, business (many of them staunch Tory voters) who is accepting of the reasons given that Parliament must vote in such fashion, indeed the overwhelming reaction is much closer to it being lunacy than it being a sensible way out of lockdown
The images of MPs queuing in such a long line to cast a vote are just embarrassing. Like you, I can't find anyone who thinks its a good idea.Trying to send a message that they are back to work with the rest of us I understand. But you could have the lower chamber full (in social distancing mode) and allow full participation online. Message duly sent.
Now it looks like the Business Secretary, Sharma, may be ill and was seen to be suffering in the Commons yesterday. So he is now self isolating plus anyone else he was in close contact with.
Utter fucking lunacy of the highest order.
Let's look on the positive side here. If Sharma returns a positive test, it will at least give the contact tracers something to do.
How’s voting, committees etc going in Holyrood? Vicious rumours you’ll have the IT up and running in a few weeks.
Sandydragon wrote:
The images of MPs queuing in such a long line to cast a vote are just embarrassing. Like you, I can't find anyone who thinks its a good idea.Trying to send a message that they are back to work with the rest of us I understand. But you could have the lower chamber full (in social distancing mode) and allow full participation online. Message duly sent.
Now it looks like the Business Secretary, Sharma, may be ill and was seen to be suffering in the Commons yesterday. So he is now self isolating plus anyone else he was in close contact with.
Utter fucking lunacy of the highest order.
Let's look on the positive side here. If Sharma returns a positive test, it will at least give the contact tracers something to do.
How’s voting, committees etc going in Holyrood? Vicious rumours you’ll have the IT up and running in a few weeks.
I'm pretty sure committees have been suspended.
No idea about the remote voting. It was meant to be in place a couple of weeks ago, but I've heard nothing.
ETA: I was wrong about the committees. They've been scaled back, but some are still running. I guess through zoom or something similar.
If our elected officials are using Zoom for meetings they're unbelievably stupid. Okay we live in an age of driving to test if you're blind, but there's no way the security of a platform like Zoom should be considered sufficient, their standard of security is suitable for arranging a socially distanced picnic with your in-laws, on which basis Zoom would ideally be withdrawn from the market to make it harder to arrange a picnic with the in-laws
Digby wrote:If our elected officials are using Zoom for meetings they're unbelievably stupid. Okay we live in an age of driving to test if you're blind, but there's no way the security of a platform like Zoom should be considered sufficient, that standard of security is suitable for arranging a socially distanced picnic with your in-laws, on which basis Zoom would ideally be withdrawn from the market to make it harder to arrange a picnic with the in-laws
I don't know if they use Zoom or some other video conferencing programme. I was just being lazy and typed "zoom" instead of "some videoconferencing programme".
I agree, I would hope that you use something a bit more secure.
Digby wrote:If our elected officials are using Zoom for meetings they're unbelievably stupid. Okay we live in an age of driving to test if you're blind, but there's no way the security of a platform like Zoom should be considered sufficient, that standard of security is suitable for arranging a socially distanced picnic with your in-laws, on which basis Zoom would ideally be withdrawn from the market to make it harder to arrange a picnic with the in-laws
I don't know if they use Zoom or some other video conferencing programme. I was just being lazy and typed "zoom" instead of "some videoconferencing programme".
I agree, I would hope that you use something a bit more secure.
From what I know, UK and Wales parls do use Zoom but it’s not the same as the one available to hoi pilloi like us.
Digby wrote:If our elected officials are using Zoom for meetings they're unbelievably stupid. Okay we live in an age of driving to test if you're blind, but there's no way the security of a platform like Zoom should be considered sufficient, that standard of security is suitable for arranging a socially distanced picnic with your in-laws, on which basis Zoom would ideally be withdrawn from the market to make it harder to arrange a picnic with the in-laws
I don't know if they use Zoom or some other video conferencing programme. I was just being lazy and typed "zoom" instead of "some videoconferencing programme".
I agree, I would hope that you use something a bit more secure.
From what I know, UK and Wales parls do use Zoom but it’s not the same as the one available to hoi pilloi like us.
Still, all that concern about Huawei when they're giving stuff away for free on Zoom and WhatsApp
Just to be clear if I used Zoom for company business, and that business wasn't when can we meet up for a pint, I'd expect to get fired for gross misconduct. A bit different if you're a garden centre discussing when your next shipment of plants is due perhaps
I mean...I use Zoom all the time, but no-one's going to be getting state secrets by listening in! It's not made for politicians or anything where more than a few thousand £ is at stake.
I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
Mellsblue wrote:I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
I'm sure they do have secure communication tools, I do wonder if they have access to those in sufficient numbers. And I'd like to think they're not discussing anything confidential on public platforms, but I have my doubts, and the problem is I assume they do discuss matters more sensitive in meetings than we might expect to be given access to as the public. Although I would have liked to listen in on the strategy to defend the indefensible that is Dominic Cummings, unless that was just Cummings telling crown minsters what their position was
Mellsblue wrote:JRM is a prat (I’m being nice) but the govt, as of yesterday, have belatedly done the correct thing and MPs are allowed to vote by proxy if they can’t attend for any reason.
Digby wrote:If our elected officials are using Zoom for meetings they're unbelievably stupid. Okay we live in an age of driving to test if you're blind, but there's no way the security of a platform like Zoom should be considered sufficient, their standard of security is suitable for arranging a socially distanced picnic with your in-laws, on which basis Zoom would ideally be withdrawn from the market to make it harder to arrange a picnic with the in-laws
They were using Zoom (blame the Cabinet Office for that) but after a number of other government departments suggested it was a bit daft, and NCSC agreed, they are now using other options.
At least for anything that isn't already publically available, which most parliamentary proceedings are.
morepork wrote:So the PM contracts it, spends a week in the ICU, and this Mogg creature imposes in-person voting, now someone else has it?
That's just genius.
Rees-Mogg brought it forward but 261 MPs voted for it. it's government policy, not the (merely) the whim of an extremely odd person.
It'll be interesting to see how many MPs get infected in the near future.
Actually it is his plan. This (not unsurprisingly) wasn't in the manifesto but the government whips were doing their usual thing and it gets passed, despite some internal rebellion.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
For those proceedings, its also quite fair to suggest that the events are public anyway, so who cares if a third party is recording it.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
For those proceedings, its also quite fair to suggest that the events are public anyway, so who cares if a third party is recording it.
My understanding of the security breaches that have happened with Zoom have not so much been someone recording it, but someone breaking in and joining the conference. Normally introducing a stream of gratuitous, extreme porn. I suppose that the fact that this hasn't happened live during FM Questions is some sort of evidence (perhaps thin) that they have some kind of security protocols in force.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
For those proceedings, its also quite fair to suggest that the events are public anyway, so who cares if a third party is recording it.
Normally introducing a stream of gratuitous, extreme porn.
Mellsblue wrote:I’ll repeat. It’s not the Zoom you plebs use for your family pub quiz. GCHQ have been involved in security measures.
Given there are cameras in the chamber, in the committee rooms and you can pretty much watch rolling coverage on a dedicated BBC channel I’m not sure what the problem is.
I’m sure anything sensitive/critical/confidential will not be discussed via Zoom. The other answer is govt goes about its business with no scrutiny, as per Holyrood (#stopthecoup), or by packing everyone into the chamber and committee rooms.....
For those proceedings, its also quite fair to suggest that the events are public anyway, so who cares if a third party is recording it.
My understanding of the security breaches that have happened with Zoom have not so much been someone recording it, but someone breaking in and joining the conference. Normally introducing a stream of gratuitous, extreme porn. I suppose that the fact that this hasn't happened live during FM Questions is some sort of evidence (perhaps thin) that they have some kind of security protocols in force.
You can apply some basic settings to prevent that. Its just that most people didn't bother and then wondered why there was inappropriate content appearing.
morepork wrote:So the PM contracts it, spends a week in the ICU, and this Mogg creature imposes in-person voting, now someone else has it?
That's just genius.
Rees-Mogg brought it forward but 261 MPs voted for it. it's government policy, not the (merely) the whim of an extremely odd person.
It'll be interesting to see how many MPs get infected in the near future.
Actually it is his plan. This (not unsurprisingly) wasn't in the manifesto but the government whips were doing their usual thing and it gets passed, despite some internal rebellion.
How do we know Rees-Mogg came up with this plan? All we know is that he presented it. Nothing is going to be brought forward in this way without Johnson's approval, particularly something which affects parliament is such a dramatic way. That this is happening is down to Johnson, not Rees-Mogg.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Rees-Mogg brought it forward but 261 MPs voted for it. it's government policy, not the (merely) the whim of an extremely odd person.
It'll be interesting to see how many MPs get infected in the near future.
Actually it is his plan. This (not unsurprisingly) wasn't in the manifesto but the government whips were doing their usual thing and it gets passed, despite some internal rebellion.
How do we know Rees-Mogg came up with this plan? All we know is that he presented it. Nothing is going to be brought forward in this way without Johnson's approval, particularly something which affects parliament is such a dramatic way. That this is happening is down to Johnson, not Rees-Mogg.
He's Leader of the House of Commons. By definition, how the HoC goes about its business is his purview. It's possible that it was Johnson's idea and I'm assuming Johnson signed off on it (considering he voted for it), but it's Rees-Mogg's department and officially his decision.
Sandydragon wrote:
Actually it is his plan. This (not unsurprisingly) wasn't in the manifesto but the government whips were doing their usual thing and it gets passed, despite some internal rebellion.
How do we know Rees-Mogg came up with this plan? All we know is that he presented it. Nothing is going to be brought forward in this way without Johnson's approval, particularly something which affects parliament is such a dramatic way. That this is happening is down to Johnson, not Rees-Mogg.
He's Leader of the House of Commons. By definition, how the HoC goes about its business is his purview. It's possible that it was Johnson's idea and I'm assuming Johnson signed off on it (considering he voted for it), but it's Rees-Mogg's department and officially his decision.
Puja
It doesn't matter if it's officially down to Rees-Mogg. Johnson wants this, so it's happening. If he didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening. De facto, it is down to Johnson.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
How do we know Rees-Mogg came up with this plan? All we know is that he presented it. Nothing is going to be brought forward in this way without Johnson's approval, particularly something which affects parliament is such a dramatic way. That this is happening is down to Johnson, not Rees-Mogg.
He's Leader of the House of Commons. By definition, how the HoC goes about its business is his purview. It's possible that it was Johnson's idea and I'm assuming Johnson signed off on it (considering he voted for it), but it's Rees-Mogg's department and officially his decision.
Puja
It doesn't matter if it's officially down to Rees-Mogg. Johnson wants this, so it's happening. If he didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening. De facto, it is down to Johnson.
We're back to the discussion on accountability vs responsibility. How far has Boris looked into this in detail or just told JRM to make it happen? I doubt seriously that this is Boris' plan, nothing about him suggests he has that much grasp of the detail and at the moment he has plenty of other things to consider. The general concept is probably Boris', but the clownish detail is JRMs for sure.
He could have achieved the same with a number of MPs in the house and the rest online with equal voting for all via technology. It could have been the start of a revolution in how the Commons operates with electronic voting instead of this ludicrous filing out to be counted in various lobbies. Instead we get this.
Puja wrote:
He's Leader of the House of Commons. By definition, how the HoC goes about its business is his purview. It's possible that it was Johnson's idea and I'm assuming Johnson signed off on it (considering he voted for it), but it's Rees-Mogg's department and officially his decision.
Puja
It doesn't matter if it's officially down to Rees-Mogg. Johnson wants this, so it's happening. If he didn't want it, it wouldn't be happening. De facto, it is down to Johnson.
We're back to the discussion on accountability vs responsibility. How far has Boris looked into this in detail or just told JRM to make it happen? I doubt seriously that this is Boris' plan, nothing about him suggests he has that much grasp of the detail and at the moment he has plenty of other things to consider. The general concept is probably Boris', but the clownish detail is JRMs for sure.
He could have achieved the same with a number of MPs in the house and the rest online with equal voting for all via technology. It could have been the start of a revolution in how the Commons operates with electronic voting instead of this ludicrous filing out to be counted in various lobbies. Instead we get this.
Agreed, the general concept, the ultimate responsibility is Boris's, the detail is presumably delegated to Rees-Mogg.
