David Tuller: Trial By Error: Carol Monaghan Scores Another Parliamentary Debate

Carol Monaghan Scores Another Parliamentary Debate

"Carol Monaghan, a member of Parliament from the Glasgow area, has done it again. This week she is spearheading a three-hour debate in the House of Commons about the awful situation confronting ME patients in the UK. (The organizers of this debate are using ME, not CFS or ME/CFS or CFS/ME. As readers know, the issue of what to call the disease or cluster of diseases is fraught.)"

 

"The Bristol University vice chancellor, for his part, has filed multiple complaints with Berkeley to try to shut me up."

I think that's creepy.

 

Full of creepy crawleys.

 

me too!

 

So the debate is 3 hours long? Excellent.

That should be enough to knock the PACE house of cards over for good. Hopefully (one can dream), the PACE authors are just going to avoid the public debate.

 

Depends hugely on how the vote goes, which in turn depends hugely on the turnout and its composition. And of course on Carol Monaghan, and those briefing her. I guess my worry is you just know the "other side" will be practising their dark arts to get as many people they can of theirs in the chamber.

 

A more realistic view is that they're going to feed the audience a lot of bullshit, half truths, and distractions like "PACE followed CONSORT guidelines". That sounds good but is completely irrelevant and not an answer to any criticism. Or they will try to distract with discussion of whether there really was "outcome switching". They're good at that.

 

Does anyone know how the vote works? Is it only among those who attend? Does there have to be a quorum? Does the vote happen right then, at the end of the debate?

 

The "audience" of course are all MPs. Hopefully Carol Monaghan and supporters will be able to cut through any bullshit and expose it for what it is, and the bullshitters for who they are.

 

Not sure, but I believe only those who attend can vote. And presumably there has to be some minimum - 3 MPs voting would not really cut it!

Edit: Found this explanatory info, though still not found if a quorum needed. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/education/online-resources/printed-resources/debates.pdf

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/82488.stm

Looks like 40. And yes, the vote concludes the process. See info in previous post.

 

So whenever you don't agree with someone, who is helping to shift a paradigm, try to shut them up. Hmmm....

Haven't we been silenced long enough? Haven't we been wronged enough? Some with vested interests might answer no. They might also say we've not been wronged, nor silenced.

I hope the debate goes really well, and hope to see a link to it. Thank you to Carol Monaghan and her colleagues for putting this together!

 

Still concerned how many MPs will have prior commitments at this very busy time and with just a week’s notice. My MP (Ed Davey)has confirmed he cannot attend because of a prior commitment. He has attended and spoke well at the last two debates, and signed @dave30th letter (scientists and MPs) and is very much onside. He is a persuasive speaker too. He has said that he will speak to MPs who are attending before the debate.

Anyone know what happens next?

 

Lots of MPs leave Westminster early on Thursdays, because there usually isn't any 'important' (ie Government) business to debate on Thursday afternoon or Friday, so they arrange to head back to their constituencies early. Ed Davey is unlikely to be the only MP who can't attend given the short notice - but that can't be helped.

I don't mean this to sound discouraging, but the answer is probably "Not very much".

It's good that there's another debate, it's good that it's happening in the Commons Chamber, and it's good that it's a debate on a substantive motion (by which I mean it expresses an opinion and it calls for specific outcomes). But what the motion is calling for is not particularly specific (which is almost certainly an intentional decision by the MPs that tabled it) so if it's carried the Government will have lots of wiggle room to respond in a way that doesn't involve doing very much.

Don't expect anything to dramatically change as a direct result of this debate - but the Commons debating the issue and (fingers crossed) voting for increased funding for biomedical research and a suspension of CBT/GET would be an important staging post on the way to a paradigm shift in how ME/CFS is treated in the UK.

 

Thanks for the response @Stewart. It’s good to understand the significance of the debate.

 

Yes.

 

MPs don't have to attend a debate to vote, but they do have to be present in person at the vote. I think the motion is carried or not the basis of a simple majority of those voting, regardless of how many (or how few) are present.

[added - sorry I missed @Barry 's post above indicating that there needed to a minimum of 40 MPs (including the Speaker) present at the vote itself. I had been wondering whether or not to contact my MP as he invariably votes for the government line, and any ministerial input so far has been unconstructive. However given numbers present at the vote is important even people likely to vote against the motion may be needed to ensure a vote happens.]

 

I think every bit helps. To be able to argue that Parliament has voted against GET/CBT would be a big onus on those who advocate for such stupidity to make a better case--which of course they can't.