I don't think anyone disputes that they intentionally disrupted the process of Paliament.
I too am pointing out that the punishment is overly disproportionate.
I also think if you want a harsher penalty than a few days' suspension, it should not be one that comes at the expense of the constituency, as this one does.
This context makes sense, thanks. I can see that interrupting a vote is more serious than ordinary interjections.
I agree though, preventing people (and their constituencies) from voting for weeks seems really anti-democratic.
Yes, I get the impression most people are worse off lately. Devil take the hindmost seems to be turning into devil take the entire bottom half.
I wonder what conclusions they will come to about what to do about it...
I'm familiar with it; I think it's a really great illustration! I guess some of the low income parenting examples like boots would be things like dentistry.
I think you only need one member of your party there these days and they put in a vote for the whole group (section 20.5).
But suspended people can't be included.
I don't either. Everyone should get to vote. I was reading about the Homosexual law reform the other day and surprised to see some members tried to make Parliament vote early to take advantage of the weather preventing others from attending. That shouldn't be a thing.
such disdain
That's a thought crime.
Suspension is supposed to punish actual actions, that are breeches e.g. fistfights, criticising the speaker, stepping to someone and telling them to "stand up" for a fight, etc.
The physical actions currently being punished are not 7x worse than anything else on record (e.g. all the above).
As for disdain, it's also arguably disdainful to our democratic system to completely abandon the scale/tradition of punishments that have been handed out during the entire history of our Parliament.
I hope it doesn't become the new normal going forward, like "under urgency" has.
I agree, the whole thing makes no sense.
Saving up for you kid, doesn’t equal not living at all; because the kid is also living the same life.
Well yes but "being poor is expensive" and in my experience some low-income people try to cushion children from that by saving up so that there are always funds for things like emergency healthcare or even big ticket items like braces, rather than letting them do all the middle class stuff and have no safety net.
Edit, but thinking about it, that doesn't make any sense given her emergency fund thing (which as you say is weirdly low).
I do wish journalists didn't do this.
I remember an article a while back with a beneficiary complaining about not getting to buy much icecream.
It makes it sound like spoilt people whining over nothing, whereas plenty of people's wish list is mostly just nutritious food, medicine, or being warm enough.
It's all relative!
I saw her salary and immediately went to check how to become a teacher if we ever get a cure (it would be hard to get my old career back, so I'm always thinking up ideas).
I love this quote:
I don't love the increase in cheaper meth though. Meth was already a disaster.