No, DavetG, I understand that. It's possibly worth emphasising that he actually blocked 3 PMB's that afternoon (someone, I forget who, did point this out above). All of the publicity & consequent outrage has focused on just ONE of those 3 PMB's... And, with reference to both yourself & BW, Howard is entirely correct. A PMB is not necessarily a genuine attempt to enact legislation. And Chope can hardly be accused of being a mere party toady, whatever else can be flung at him.

Which, if you accept that that is case, rather reinforces his apparent stance that his objection is to procedure, not the content of any given bill. If (and it's an 'if') a primary purpose (not 'the'; 'a'!) of a PMB is to draw attention to something rather than to attempt to enact legislation, it surely is entirely appropriate that he objects to the government intruding on backbenchers' prerogatives?

I refer the Honourable MM's (Members of Mudcat ;-) ) to my earlier remarks. I do understand both your & BW's objections, but I have no particular opinion myself, beyond arguing for restraint in 'leaping' and for reasoned consideration (m'lud, etc! ;-) ). As with the tax system, I don't know enough to make a more informed comment. Perhaps it's better left in the hands of experts, even if, in this case, the experts are the MP's (my cynicism knows no bounds...)?