As members of Parliament, we all deal regularly with differing interpretations of various events or situations and differing views of documents laid before the House. Members can, and often do, disagree about the actual facts of the same situation. Disagreements of this kind form the basis of our debates. Our rules are designed to permit and indeed to encourage members to present differing views on the given issue. This tolerance of different points of view is an essential feature of the freedom of speech and of the decision making process that lie at the heart of our parliamentary system. – Former Speaker of the House of Commons (Canada) Peter Milliken, Debates, 1 October 2003, p. 8041
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Tagsadmin Alternative Vote Australia politics Backbench Business Committee backbenchers Canada Canada politics Canada procedure coalition government committees Conservatives (UK) constitutional reform Deputy Prime Minister e-petitions elections electoral reform fixed-term parliaments FPTP government formation House of Commons Canada House of Commons UK hung parliaments Interesting links Lib Dems media ministerial statements MPs New Zealand politics parliamentary politics parliamentary reform parliaments party leaders PMQs political parties political reform Politics prime minister procedural reform Procedure question period referendums Speaker UK parliament UK politics UK procedure