Secret Troughs!
 

As I understand it the correct way to address the envelope for a letter to your Member of Parliament is:
Right Honourable <name><initials of any middle names><surname> MP

Well there is nothing honourable about the current bunch of MP’s if the latest opt out of the Freedom of Information Act is anything to go by.

I am a bit surprised that no one on this forum has had their say about when recently out of 650 odd MP’s less than 100 actually voted on the motion to exempt MP’s from the Freedom of Information Act and less than 20 voted against the motion. At least those who did vote had the moral fibre to show publicly where they stand. As for the rest I can only label them as spineless, morally deficient and self-serving, greedy pigs.

Hopefully the House of Lords will throw out the motion.

Members of Parliament are in effect employed by the citizens of the UK to represent them in the House of Commons and as employees, the employer (us) has a right to know what they get paid, what expenses they claim and for what purpose. In short the financial expenses of Parliament should be in the public domain and open to scrutiny and comment.

I don’t know where my MP stands on this issue but I intend to try and find out and also make my views known. It would be nice if everyone did the same.

And now I hear that MP’s are considering debating whether the public purse should fund the political parties.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

It was discussed in this thread.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...r-30627-4.html

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

[quote=jambutty;429834]I don’t know where my MP stands on this issue but I intend to try and find out and also make my views known. It would be nice if everyone did the same./quote]

Jambutty, your MP, who I believe is Janet Anderson, was one of the hundred or so members who voted to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information Act. I trust that you will be making your views known to her!

Greg Pope didn't vote at all. I wonder if he could come on here and explain to his constituents why not?

Apart from the 20 or so MPs who voted against the motion, it seems to me that those who represent us (including the prime minister-in-waiting) are quite content to live by the maxim "do as I say, not as I do".

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

[quote=Wynonie Harris;429957]You can rest assured that the Right Dishonourable Janet Anderson MP will get both barrels from me.

I don’t for one moment suppose that it will do any good but it will make me feel better.

I wonder if there is a petition against the motion on you know who's web site?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

This whole sheenanigans is a complete and utter disgrace, reminiscent of East European communist states in the days of the Cold War.

The Tory MP who was behind this move claimed that it was to protect confidential information on constituents contained in MPs' correspondence from being revealed but there are already exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act as it stands to cover this. When it comes down to it, those who rule us simply don't want us to see the extent of their self-serving greed.

The fact that both the Labour and Tory frontbenches colluded to ensure that this exemption was passed shows that this greed extends to the very top in British politics.

And now that MPs have put themselves above the law on this issue, what's the betting that they'll do the same on other issues too?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Hi, I'm happy to explain where I stand on MPs and freedom of information. First of all I didn't vote on this Bill because, like most MPs, I had arranged to spend that Friday on meetings in my constituency (some Fridays like that one are set aside for Private Members Bill which MPs don't have to be there for. Most MPs had already made long standing arrangements when this Bill came forward). However, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am in favour of publishing MPs' expenses; I published mine on my website before MPs had to do so and I still publish them in advance of most MPs - I believe strongly that the people have a right to know exactly how much I cost the people. I am opposed to exempting Parliament as whole from the Freedom of Information Act - obviously the same rules should apply to Parliament as to ther public bodies.

However, there is a problem that does need addressing even if this Bill is the wrong way of going about it. Some correspondence from MPs on behalf of constituents has ended up in the public domain because of the FOIA and it seems that the current Data Protection rules aren't adequate to prevent this - I do believe that people have a right to confidentiality when they go to see their MP.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Thank you, it's good to know where you stand on this issue.

Some of the people who support the bill seem to suggest that confidential information isn't covered by the Data Protection Act. According to this article, it seems that it quite clearly already is. So unless they have something to hide, no MP's should be supporting this Bill.

It's bad enough, come July, that the only place exempt from the smoking ban will be the House of Commons. The laws of the land should be applicable to all.

'For correspondence between MPs and constituents is already protected under the data protection legislation. Mr Maclean knows this because he perfectly explained the situation to the House. As he said, when a third party attempts to access a file containing a letter from a Member of Parliament to a public authority, an officer of the public authority should consult the Member and should look at the file, and then should make a decision on whether it should be released. If it contains personal information, the officer of the authority should invoke the Data Protection Act 1998 and should not release it.'

Andreas Whittam Smith: The MP, his quad bike and a phoney scare story - Independent Online Edition > Andreas Whittam Smith

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Thank you for telling us where you stand on this Greg.

What does bother me though is the low number of MPs that are allowed to vote on the issue. I realise that when bigger issues are at stake the majority of MPs show up but how is it that things are allowed to go through with only a scant turn out?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

good to know that mr pope, but someone out in parliment should kick off big-time about this as its nothing more than DECEIT.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Quote:

It's bad enough, come July, that the only place exempt from the smoking ban will be the House of Commons. The laws of the land should be applicable to all.

I didn’t know that garinda. Thanks for sharing. Time to amend my letter to my MP. Fortunately I hadn’t sent it off yet.

No doubt the debate and vote was set for a Friday in the knowledge that many if not most MP’s would be away at their constituencies and they wouldn’t have to take any responsibility if the bill was passed in favour of the Freedom of Information Act not applying to MP’s. It’s just too much of a coincidence. I wonder how many got crushed in the stampede for the door before the debate?

For a bill to be passed is there a minimum number of MP’s voting to make it legal? Surely 90 odd out of 650 odd is way outside what normal committees are bound by. That is usually a quorum of half the members and often two thirds for any decision to be valid.

Can I suggest that the bill was passed when MP’s were not quorate and surely that doesn’t make it legal?

Maybe Greg Pope could confirm that there should be xxx MP’s voting before a bill is passed.

This whole issue stinks of gerrymandering.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

As far as im aware it dosn't require a certain number of MP's to be present.

There are 464 MP's not 650, just to add a little correction.

I was going to post what Greg did, the low turnout was because it was a friday and most MP's are in their constituency. I'm not *entirely* sure but if its a private members bill I think it has to be on one of the later days of the week because the early ones (like wednesday) are taken up by other parliamentary business?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

OK, Greg, fair enough, but I'm still not clear where you stand on this. Supposing you had been there - how would you have voted? Because on the one hand you're saying that you're in favour of MP's expenses being published, yet you think this bill is the wrong way of going about it. Seems like a classic case of fence-sitting to me!

I'd also like to take issue with you on your view that correspondence between MPs and constituents has ended up in the public domain because of the FOIA. Gary has already highlighted a perfect example of this sort of scaremongering which is being used as smokescreen to get this exemption through. It's my understanding that Section 40(2) of the FOIA exempts information whose disclosure would be a breach of the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act. And as the article that Gary has brought to our attention highlights, there are practically no instances of this happening, anyway.

What is most disgraceful, in my view, is the fact that the front benches of the two major parties could have killed this private member's bill stone dead. They deliberately chose not to - a classic illustration of the contempt which they have for us mere mortals who pay their wages - and expenses!

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Sorry Cyfr but according to the list of MP’s at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ there are 645 of them, which isn’t 650 odd either.

It was a Private Members' Bill - Introduced by David Maclean

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Maybe Greg could answer this question?

Is there a minimum number of MP’s required before they can vote for a bill to be passed? If so what is that number?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

There are thirteen Fridays throughout the year, set aside for Private Member's Bills.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

To claify a couple of points that have come up: firstly, I am opposed to this Bill and would have voted against it. The reason it came up on a Friday is because that is the day of the week set aside for Private Members' Bills - turnout is always low on these days for a couple of reasons, partly because they are unwhipped (MPs don't have to be there), partly because they stand virtually no chance of becoming law (i.e. it is potentially a waste of time), and partly because MPs usually have constituency engagements of Fridays. There is a quorum for the house of Commons which has to be demonstrated by the number of MPs voting (rather than present in the chamber for a debate) and it is 40, made up of 1 person in the chair (Speaker or Deputy), 4 tellers (to count the vote) and 35 voting MPs; previously this could be tested by shouting "I spy strangers" which would force a vote - I could bore you with the history of this dating back to the English Civil War but I won't! Suffice to say it has now been 'modernised'. As has been pointed out there are currently 646 MPs, a reduction of 13 from the last Parliament as the number of Scottish MPs has been reduced following devolution.

Despite all the assurances about the Data Protection Act, some MPs' correspondence regarding constituents has ended up in the public domain so there is a problem that needs sorting. Finally, it is not quite true that the House of Commons will be exempt from the smoking ban - the building is royal palace and as such has crown privilege (which technically exempts it from the ban). The Commons itself has voted to ban smoking everywhere in the building from 1st July, the same day the law comes into effect.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

My bad I ment 646 I guess I should watch which numbers I hit first, get them in right order next time!

Edit: The 646 figure is including the speaker of the house, I think.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

thanks for the explanation greg, i am not disputing your view on how you would vote, but would say,(i.e. it is potentially a waste of time), not much point going against what people think,when its not (much chance of becoming law) i may be a cynical git, but thats what a lot would do;) glad to see commons has voted to uphold the smoking ban although thats less ammunition for me.:D thanks again.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Ok, thanks for that, Greg (although I'm still not convinced that the FOIA presents a threat to constituents' confidentiality). Anyway, glad to know that you would have done the honourable thing if you'd been there.

I sincerely hope that the Lords throw this iniquitous amendment out now.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Much obliged for clarifying Greg.

What alarms me is the possibility that a law could be passed on the say so of just 18 MP’s. OK! I accept that it is a very long shot and a snowball has more chance of surviving in hell than that happening but nonetheless such a possibility should not exist.

Fortunately, as you state, private member’s bills have little chance of becoming law, yet once in a while one does. Hopefully this one will not be the exception to the rule.

I wonder how many of the 500 odd MP’s who were not there to vote will declare, like you, that they would have voted against the bill when secretly they would like such a bill to become law? Not that I am suggesting that you are one.

The Houses of Parliament are so steeped in traditions going back hundreds of years that such traditions have no place in this modern world. Total Parliamentary reform is long overdue.

You must have a keyboard like mine Cyfr. Those darned keys keep changing over when you least expect it.:rolleyes:

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Although most Private Member's Bills don't make it to enactment, it was just such a Bill that in 1964 abolished the death penalty in this country.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

I wonder how many MP’s voted for the act?

If it were less than half the MP’s in office at the time then it was forced onto the citizens of this country by a minority. That’s democracy???

No new law or an amendment to an existing law should go through on a minority vote. But then the government of the day is usually voted into office (not power as TB is so fond of stating) on a minority vote.

On BBC2 on Tuesday evenings there is a series on “History of Modern Britain” written and narrated by Andrew Marr and all past PM’s and MP’s depicted so far spoke of being “in office” and serving the country etc even if some of them made a hash of it. In one case (Suez) took us to war on a lie.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Thank goodness times have changed. You wouldn't get a present-day Prime Minister doing anything like that! ;)

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

"Democracy" in terms of how many people are voting for something isn't always a good thing, tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.

As for the History of Mordern Britain, its brilliant, havn't got chance to watch this weeks yet though!

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

true cyfer butin situations of 'tyranny of the majority ' it is all too often brought about by a scheming minority. thats the irony

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Sorry made a mistake!

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

i think cyfr is very textbooky at this moment in his young life. dont mean it in a patronising way

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

interesting phrase (tyranny of the majority) what exactly does that mean? the minority could be MPs, and the majority the public. which to me is what makes the world more dangerous.;)

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

What do you mean?

Pretty much how you said it! A majority of people, say public, shouldn't be able to make decisions that benefit them whilst working against minorities that can't have a say because there ain't enough of them. What im trying to say is the majority might have a decision, but that doesn't mean its the right decision for the country. :D

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

agreed, but way back in 64, i doubt very much if the public would have voted to do-away with the death penalty.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

1964 or today, everytime they take a poll on it, Joe Public always wants the death penalty brought back.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

true but was it not a minority of the minority in 64?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Does this mean that the majority of folks who dont want to ride in a taxi driven by a convicted sex offender can have no say in the matter when a minority of the community (members of the council sub-committee) decides its ok , and infact the councillors are doing there civic duty by protecting the rights of a minority (in this case sex offenders) :confused::confused::confused:

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

No it doesn't. What I said was not exclusive, the majority can be right too. :p

As a matter of interest the councilors in question still got elected again didn't they?

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

[quote=Cyfr;430690]What do you mean?


re the textbooky comment cyfr. all im trying to say is that the country isnt goverend in the manner that textbooks suggest. the gov is in many ways the public relations front for the powers that actually run the country. There is a bigger picture

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

We were not discussing that though so I never mentioned it. I could give you a nice long essay on where power lies, but this is a forum not an exam. :p

I still don't understand the textbook bit though. The power/influence of people is still documented in textbooks....

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

yeah i could too cyfr but as say were not discussing it
the textbook comment :from your posts it just seems that youv gained a lot of knowledge from textbooks without having a real passion for your own opinion. thats just what im thinking intuitively perhaps im wrong. like i said im not patronising you its just what seems to come across.

Re: Secret Troughs!
 

Well considering it was an opinion combined with knowledge then I guess I wasn't being textbooky.