Tuesday, March 03, 2009

MPs in Shameful Vote to Keep Home Addresses Secret

Spyblog reports that MPs voted yesterday to keep their home addresses secret from their electorate. Up until now, candidates in elections have to list their home addresses on ballot paper. This amendment to the Parties & Elections Bill will mean that they no longer have to. The MPs (from all parties) who voted in favour cited "security issues" as the reason. Rubbish. If a terrorist wishes to find out where a politician lives, there are plenty of ways to do it. Here's what Spyblog says...

Would you like to be able to check on whether your Member of Parliament actually has a home in your Parliamentary constituency or not ?

Would you like to be able to work out which of their several homes, paid for out of public funds, is their main one, or whether they are "doing a Jacqui Smith" and claiming extra money for a more expensive London property, pretending that it is their main residence ?

Surely this information might influence whether you believe a Parliamentary candidate's claims to be a "local" or not ?

In future, you will be denied this basic information, which has been available for many years, without causing any "security" problems, following Monday's disgraceful vote in the Commons, if it is not overturned.

Members of Parliament have sneaked in an amendment, without any debate to the Political Parties and Elections Bill right at the end of the Report Stage, and just before the Bill was rubber stamped by the Commons for the Third Reading.


Naturally, MPs who don't live in their constituencies - and there are still plenty of them, believe it or nor - will be delighted by this move. See how your MP voted HERE.

So, perhaps we should ask Tom Harris why he voted to keep his address secret. Come on Tom, tell us. And to my astonishment, Douglas Carswell voted the same way. He too might furnish us with an explanation.

Looks like we will have to rely on the House of Lords to overturn this amendment. Perhaps it is time or the good folks at MySociety to launch another campaign...

UPDATE: Tom Harris launches a ridiculous defence of his vote, the natural conclusion of which is that he believes Sir Fred Goodwin's address should be kept private too. Douglas Carswell has also responded on his blog. His defence appears to be that this will make things more transparent. Well you could have fooled me.

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

Simply pure greed.Beneath contempt the whole lot of them.I shall be writing to mine and telling her so too.

Will said...

It's not even consistent. How can they justify keeping current MPs' addresses secret but not the address of a candidate who might, later that day, replace the MP?

Bob said...

Plenty of Tory absentee.

Cameron can drive a wedge between him and Labour by taking the public's interest in this matter.

Failure, driven by self interest to action a good wedge issue. Come on people sort it out.

David Boothroyd said...

I'm surprised you didn't identify the MP who proposed the amendment, and strongly pushed for it. It was Julian Lewis, and it's intimately connected with his desire for security of his constituency home - which makes this post slightly odd because you were just praising his stance on this same subject on Sunday.

Is there not a degree of inconsistency?

It Will Come to Me said...

What does Carswell think he's up to (and Nadine).

Iain Dale said...

David, you are quite right that it was Julian Lewis. I don't defend him at all on this.

Will said...

Further to my comment about consistency above, it looks like the new clause is at least consistent - it applies to all candidates, not just MPs, and requires a statement of which constituency the home address given is in instead of the address.

Cicero said...

Err.. actually the Conservatives appear to have supported this motion by a margin of 2-1, Labour by only 4-5 and the Liberal Democrats opposed the motion by 10-1.

So it is not "the whole lot of them" dmc. It could be an early taste of what to expect from a Tory government though.

stalin's gran said...

Surely the Home Secretary was claiming her London lodgings as her real home so she could claim her real real home as her second home and thereby claim for it - not as Spyblog says?

Bob said...

Just had another though. DO NOT BECOME AN MP IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THESE RULES.

Simon Gardner said...

Your premise behind a lot of this (and that of your respondent) is that voters actually give a toss whether their MP lives in the constituency...

I guess with rural constituencies it’s considered somewhat relevant but in city constituencies does anyone give a damn - least of all the average voter? Does it really matter which borough your MP happens to rest their head at night? Does it actually make any difference as to how good a local MP they are or will be.

Time was when the grander sort of Tory MP wouldn’t dream of living in the constituency. And these tended to be the more liberal left-wing ‘one-nation’ ones too.

(And does anyone apart from me want to blow the utterly slimy and loathsome Julian Lewis up? Well maybe in his case - yes. I can’t believe I seem to be defending him here.)

[rant]I blame the Lib Dems who always make an extreme fuss and virtue about “living in the constituency” for ‘X’ years - where X is preferably donkey’s years. You know - the sort of candidate with no ambition who has droned on in the council chamber until everyone is so buttock-clenchingly bored with him/her that they are desperate to pack them off to Westminster to bore someone else.

It’s interesting that the rest of the political classes (including Iain) have become frightened into believing the propaganda that this is totemically important. - rather than the ability or intelligence of your MP - who is after all not supposed to be some sort of souped-up councillor on steroids - whatever the Lib Dem ALDC say.[/rant]

Anonymous said...

Cicero,do your calculations apply to just members voting or all mps. Lot of absents on the conservative benchs.
Parliament needs to sort itself out and set an example to the public,at the moment its us and them. Goverment vs everyone else.

Frank said...

I think there are two separate issues. I think we should know where our MPs choose to live and what constituency that is in. There is a separate issue about the privacy, safety and security of the families of MPs in constituency homes, particularly for those with controversial views or are in Government. I would think there is a compromise to identify the ward or postcode area in which the MP lives without providing the actual house number.

Jess The Dog said...

Nothing to fear, nothing to hide.

So we are told.

I will follow the example of our elected leadership, and refrain from providing my address to those who ask for it.

Also, if this data sharing bill (Cornoners and Justice Bill) goes through unamended, we need to fight its implementation through a campaign of data refusal and data sabotage (by giving false information). The Census is such a target for a fightback.

Anonymous said...

Boothroyd - Lewis is being consistent. He has - he says - long standing issues with security on account of his stance on terrorism, and has previously got a police exemption to having his address published.

You may disagree with him but he is entitled to his opinion.

Non published addresses should have no bearing on scrutiny of expenses claims. I see no reason to prevent the disclosure of if they live in their constituency. And Iain was not praising his stance on privacy but on his repudiation of a NoW smear.

I do not agree with Iain that a politician MUST 'live' in his constituency. Sometimes it may not be possible.

Anonymous said...

When i first voted at general election it was back home, a wee town in central scotland, rock solid labour, but the tory candidate was listed as having a home address in london. left me thinking whats the point, surely theres a name even in edinburgh you could have put on here.

but still i voted for him...Helen Liddell wasnt getting my vote!

what really gets me is carswell voting for this. Having read his blog for a while (and even having been in my small way the subjecvt of one of his posts) im thinking less and less of him every time i read something that hes put up.

he might blog, but judging from his blog (where he doesnt like to respond to comments) and this vote, he seems to be just anotehr of thsoe MP's to like to talk at but not engage with the country

David Boothroyd said...

Trevorsden - I wasn't accusing Julian Lewis of being inconsistent, far from it. He is an absolute model of consistency on this issue. The inconsistency is in praising him for standing up to a newspaper sting about his expenses which attempted to reveal his home, while condemning him for trying to stop MP's home addresses being publicized.

Simon Gardner said...

trevorsden said... “He [the odious Julian Lewis] has - he says - long standing issues with security on account of his stance on terrorism...”

Don’t tell me - wait I know this one... He’s agin’ it.

Streuth. “Pope in shitting in the woods” shock.

Dave H said...

I'm sorry to be against the prevailing mood, but I think there are too many nutters out there to publicise home addresses. MPs get murdered (Ian Gow was I believe killed at home). MPs have families. I would imagine expressing certain trenchant views, say on Islam, could put your home at risk*.

People would be tempted to send correspondence to their home rather than the constituency office, which is at least a drag, possibly far worse. Sending a letter bomb to an office makes no sense: you'll get a secretary opening it. A home address is different.
I think it would be enough to know the area, but knowing their exact address tells you nothing about how much they interact with the community or know about the area.

If an MP wants you to know their private address, fine, let them publicise it, gain the credit and take the risks.

*Unfortunately the only example I can think of is R. Kilroy-Silk which totally undermines my argument.

simon said...

What bugs me about this is that MPs spend a fair amount of time carefully guarding and burnishing their own privacy rights, while at the same time waving through all sorts of legislation that erodes the rights of the rest of us.

Wouldn’t it be better if issues of this kinds (not to mention MPs’ salaries, pension rights, expenses and so forth) were determined by a body that is free of the taint of self interest and then MPs could get back to representing their constituents instead of themselves and their families?

Simon Gardner said...

“The Census is such a target for a fightback.”

As advised somewhere or other (the Obs or the Grauniad or the Indie), I left almost all of mine blank apart from name and address (which they obviously had anyway) and an entirely bogus d.o.b. I believe they never had enough checkers or something. (And yes I am on the electoral roll to vote.)

The state uses the d.o.b. a lot as a major reference to track people and I've never given a genuine one on any census form.

I never heard a thing back from them for the unfilled form.

(As I recall there were a large number with the religion Jedi too.)

Paranoid? Moi?

Administrator said...

I have started a Facebook group campaign http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59223230994

Iain can you please link to it?

Simon Gardner said...

I tried to write on your wall opposing you, but it wouldn’t let me. :(

rob's uncle said...

Read all about this bizarre stitch-up at:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-03-02a.677.1 My party, the Lib Dems, were whipped to vote against this clause; 7 defied the whip. The full voting list is at:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-03-02&number=45&showall=yes#voters
The vote was: Ayes 235, Noes 176.

Chris Gilmour said...

Would it be against the law to construct a www.wheredoesmyMPlive.com website, which highlights which MPs keep their addresses private and which don't?

Anonymous said...

I sent this to Tom

Dear Tom,
I am a serving police officer and I serve in the community that I police. That’s the way most officers used to serve. Before mass transport, we used to be generally known within the community, who we are, where we are, our families and our friends. These days most officers live far far away from where they police. I think that sometimes they have less understanding and sympathy with the local community as a consequence. There is now a fear in my organisation, a clearly and often stated fear about those who we police finding out where we live. Is it the same for you?

The fear isn’t everywhere though. It is certainly still the case that local politicians on my council post their home addresses on the web. They post their phone numbers as well.Public visibility seems to come with their elected office. What is different locally between being an MP and a councillor?

I believe that it is a hallmark of true local accountability for a public servant that the public know where you are as well as how to contact you. Yes it comes with great problems and risks. Yes people come to your door at odd hours whether you are in or out. Yes one of my less pleasant nights was telling Mrs. Night that I was dealing with people who were organised, violent and liked threatening people after a petrol drenching. I absolutely get that your wife, at home alone with the children, will have found the experience of strangers at the door at best uncomfortable and at worst terrifying. I understand that some MP’s live under constant and real threats to the wellbeing of them and theirs. They get special protection and enhanced security just as I would if I needed it.

What I don’t get is why you and your colleagues seem to have voted for blanket protection whether it is personally needed or not. Are you all so frightened of us?

You, me and the councillors all have an very unusual degree of visibility, empowerment and responsibility in the communities that we serve. Some of us chose to hide and some of us chose to live openly it’s a shame that MP’s don’t seem to have the courage to join us or the wisdom to see that living openly makes you a better and more accountable servant.

Cath said...

I'm with the MPs on this, I think there are quite rational reasons for keeping their exact addresses secret. Any job that involves significant interaction with strangers carries an element of risk. It's one reason why I use my maiden name for work but am on the electoral roll under my married name.

Surely a compromise could be found, where the first half of a post code is published, thereby answering all the legitimate questions about local candidates etc.

Administrator said...

@ March 03, 2009 1:39 PM

Should be able to write on my wall, strange that you cant why not try again!

Gordon Brown said...

I agree that people's name and adddress should remain private if they so wish - As a result, I have not been on the electoral roll for YEARS!

You get a lot less junk mail and there are other advantages too!

Anonymous said...

Should I be fortunate enough to be chosen to fight a seat, I will be happy to publish my address - both if the location of the seat necessitates having two.

I will also publish every full details of expenses claimed, including all receipts, on-line and decline to join the MPs pension scheme unless it is reformed into a money purchase scheme on terms no more generous than any private sector employee.

strapworld said...

Well, one must demand that details of candidates will include the passage:

lives within this constituency.

OR

lives outside the constituency.

OR

promises to live within the constituency if elected.

Then I will know who to vote for!
AND it has to be one who lives within the constituency.

Anonymous said...

I see my (Conservative) MP voted for this - and forfeited my vote at the GE.

Jim Baxter said...

Dave H,

Ian Gow was indeed murdered by the IRA at his home. I doubt very much though if his life would have been saved by his address not being publicly available. Airey Neave was murdered in a House of Commons car-park. The IRA used to say, 'You have to be lucky all the time, we just have to be lucky once'.

There is a serious point about democracy and accountability here, at a time when many feel democratic accountability is being eroded. It's not a view I happen fully to agree with but I certainly understand it. MPs protecting themselves and theirs while people in other occupations must still maintain a public record of their addresses does not help restore faith in our politicians.

Lady Finchley said...

Sorry, can't agree with you on this one, Iain. Yes, they should identify if they live in the constituency but their partners, wives, husbands, or children should not be subjected to the breach of privacy. There are plenty of nutters and pranksters around - others who have no boundaries would turn up on the doorstep. What happens to the family whose husband/wife/partner is away in Westminster all week and somebody just turns up at the home being merely intrusive or even threatening?

Simon Gardner said...

“...have not been on the electoral roll for YEARS! You get a lot less junk mail and there are other advantages too!”

Yeah. Like being disenfranchised but still moaning about the governance of the country.

What an idiot.

I can’t believe there are people so knuckle-draggingly stupid that they boast about not having the vote.

Anonymous said...

I am a Labour Party candidate and live about two miles outside of the constituency that I hope to represent. I don't have a huge problem with people knowing where I live although I do not want all sorts harassing my wife and young family. I can see why some MPs and candidates would be nervous. Just for the record, I have just the one home.

(I live in Southend West and will be contesting Castle Point.)

bustop said...

I am with you on this Iain. Their motives are reflected by the cynical way they introduce this amendment and have many others in the past.
This would be a non-issue but for the corrupt behaviour of some Memmbers of the House. Jacqui Smith is the perfect example of the hypocrisy we see.
What many politicians on both sides of the house fail to gasp is the enormous cynicism now felt about their behaviour. Forget the idea of changing the Law for Goodwin, Harriet wants to change it to exempt MPs further from the FOI act. It’s all about self -preservation and keeping the gravy train rolling. Yes it’s not all MPs but how many stand up and object? Put the House in order, stop the cheats and liars - prosecute those who deserve it, stop hiding behind ‘the rules’ which are inadequate. Try yourselves in the Court of Public Opinion and see what the outcome is. I for one am sick to death of you destroying what I hold of value. You do not get it - as shown here.

Old Holborn said...

Simon Gardner

I do not appear on the Electoral roll either

I choose not to vote (not being on the roll carries a fine of £1000 by the way) and am exercising free will. I choose to challenge authority through my respected and popular organ instead

MY choice.

Matthew Hewitt said...

Iain, I'm not sure I agree that simply because someone is an elected politician, we have the right to know their precise address. there can only be two legitimate reasons for wanting to know this information - to know whether they are local to the area they represent, or to be able to contact them. With regard to the former, there are other ways of making this information available (although wanting a 'local' person to represent you is in my view pointless). With regard to the latter, we don't have an absolute right to contact our representatives at all times of the day or night, provided they make available contact details where they can be got in touch with in an efficient and expedite manner. This can be done in the vast majority of cases via an office address. This should apply for other citizens just as much as MP's.

The charge of inconsistency is one which is more legitimate - they should not demand that other people's addresses be in the public domain if they are not prepared for theirs to be. But I see no public interest in knowing my MP's private address.

Matthew Hewitt said...

Iain, I'm not sure I agree that simply because someone is an elected politician, we have the right to know their precise address. there can only be two legitimate reasons for wanting to know this information - to know whether they are local to the area they represent, or to be able to contact them. With regard to the former, there are other ways of making this information available (although wanting a 'local' person to represent you is in my view pointless). With regard to the latter, we don't have an absolute right to contact our representatives at all times of the day or night, provided they make available contact details where they can be got in touch with in an efficient and expedite manner. This can be done in the vast majority of cases via an office address. This should apply for other citizens just as much as MP's.

The charge of inconsistency is one which is more legitimate - they should not demand that other people's addresses be in the public domain if they are not prepared for theirs to be. But I see no public interest in knowing my MP's private address.

The Grim Reaper said...

Iain, let's say that things had worked out differently in your life and you were now the MP for wherever. Can you honestly say that you would have voted against this?

Gordon Brown said...

Simon Gardner,

Moaning? Nope, I don't do that....how would you know whether I did or not? IDIOT!

Do you agree it should be compulsory to be on the electoral roll then? Are you aware that thousands of people in London aren't?

Why don't you just leave a comment on Iain's article rather than feeling the need to attack other commenters. Or are you incredibly insecure?

Dick the Prick said...

I kinda agree with keeping MP's addresses away from the public.

On this issue alone I can well see their point. There are more psychos out today ever before.

I blame the internet.

Before perverts used to think they were dirty, depraved, disgusting, irrelevant, horrendous vomit on the carpet of sewers.

Now, they can find mates & think they're part of a community - which perhaps they are.

I'm quite happy for MP's to keep their addresses private but ofcourse there should be rules as to their applicability to run for their seat.

Simon Gardner said...

“Do you agree it should be compulsory to be on the electoral roll?”

Abso-bloody-lutely. Particularly as there is now a version of the roll not made available to marketeers that anyone can opt for.

And there’s a strong argument for making turning out (or postally sending in) for elections too. As in Oz. You can always spoil your ballot paper.

“Why don't you just leave a comment on Iain's article rather than feeling the need to attack other commenters.”

Oh puh-leeze give me a break. Particularly when someone is as asinine as to boast as you did.

Anonymous said...

I think this shows that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the status quo, at least as far as corruption in Westminster goes.

Jabba the Cat said...

Hopefully someone with initiative will post the greedy little piggies addresses on Wikileaks so we can still have an ongoing measure of their troughing.

Salmondnet said...

I Have reluctantly to defend our MPs on this. I don't want MPs who might be intimidated, directly or through their families, into serving speialist interests, any more than I want MPS who can be bought. Nor do I want to pay for 24 hour police guards for all members of parliament.

The reality is the there are individuals and organisations who will try to intimidate.

Whether MPs live in their constituencies should be public knowledge. If they don't, we also have a right to know in which constituency the do reside. Further, their council tax band (or the property value)should be in the public domain. None of this requires the publication of addresses.

Unknown said...

don't see why MP's can't reveal the area they live in at least. That is hardly a security risk is it?

Not only that but the neighbours will know where their MP lives!!!

Paul Halsall said...

There may be room for disagreement here, but a vote either way is hardly "shameful."

Rog T said...

It seems they are all at it - well here's your chance to show them what you think !

Vote for the No 1 Hypocrite here

Jo Swinson MP said...

In Parliament I have voted strongly in favour of more transparency, and campaigned hard to get the Government to make its recent U-turn on FOI for MPs’ expenses. However last night I did vote to allow candidates in elections to opt for ballot papers to contain just the constituency their home is in, rather than the full address. They would still have to provide the address details to the Returning Officer as now.

I do believe voters have a right to know whether their MP lives in the constituency. I do not think that there is any good reason why they need to know the exact street and house number.

No security problems over the years? Yesterday I spoke to a colleague who had to clean graffiti from the front of their home this weekend. Another colleague has been stalked. Most MPs receive hate mail from time to time and death threats are not uncommon. It’s not just an issue of actual harm, it is also an issue of feeling safe. I know I would feel less safe walking home to my small (rented) flat in London after a 10:00pm vote, if I knew that any person who wanted to could find out exactly where I would be going. I live on my own so my main home in Scotland is empty for half of the week, and so for security reasons I’d rather that the exact address is not broadcast to thousands of people. Equally, I understand why MPs who leave their families at home while they are in Westminster don’t want them to be hassled. Even if you make the argument that MPs choose to go into politics, their families don’t.

Of course MPs should be accessible to their electorate, but that shouldn’t mean 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with unannounced visits at home from constituents.

On the main/second homes issue (which is important and needs reviewing for the purposes of Commons expenses), the issue of addresses on ballot papers is irrelevant. There is no requirement for the address on the ballot paper to be a main home – indeed many wealthy candidates have been known to purchase or rent a flat in the constituency they are standing in for the purposes of putting it on the ballot paper even though they mainly live elsewhere.

I will continue to oppose the Government's assaults on the civil liberties and privacy of my constituents, whether it is ID cards, unnecessary data-sharing or misuse of RIPA and anti-terror laws. I will continue to oppose the Government’s moves towards greater secrecy, whether it is MPs’ expenses, Cabinet war minutes or documents relating to torture of British residents. However I cannot see the democractic benefits of forcing people’s full addresses onto ballot papers, and there are risks.

Gareth said...

Salmondnet said: The reality is the there are individuals and organisations who will try to intimidate.

There have always been these but it is telling that MPs only now have decided to change the rules. I guess things haven't got better under Labour...

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

Why should MPs have any greater protection than the public? If they get harrassed call the Police. They went into politics knowing their addresses would be made public.

johnAKAmark said...

Christ! this is like a bloody witch hunt - everybody needs to calm down a tad. Let MPs keep their addresses secret if they wish and then let the electorate draw their own (increasingly fevered it seems) conclusions as to each prospective candidate's motives. I'm all for transparency but this is becoming obsessive - what the about the f**king economy, or..I dunno..a substantial discussion about how we'd like Britain to look after we throw the current twats out for flips sake! I couldn't give a toss whether my MP discloses his address or not just as long as he's effective, accountable and can be voted out if not. Jesus - grow up.

Unsworth said...

MPs wish to ensure that their addresses remain secret for no good reason at all. After all, when they volunteer to make this career-enhancing move do they not consider all aspects - including the raising of profile to the point where they may just possibly have to deal with the nut-cases roaming around our society? If they don't then why on earth do they believe they are fit and proper persons to stand for Parliament? Surely their job is to represent and deal with their electorates - crazies included? It goes with the territory. MPs should have enough sense to understand that their pursuit of their personal ambitions will undoubtedly affect their families - in exactly the same way as we all do. It's their choice of career, no one forces them to stand.

Why should they be treated differently now? What has happened to make them all fear for their safety? For that matter, is that really the reason for their reticence?

I'm reminded of the cops demanding that no-one should photograph them for 'security' reasons. That said I'm in firm agreement with Nightjack on this one. Individual protection is available and can be requested. Indeed individual protection is commonplace - witness the fragrant Jacqui Smith's arrangements.

Frankly it's bullshit to pretend that all MPs require greater security than anyone else. There is no greater threat to MPs now than there has been historically - except for one area, and that is the public scrutiny of their activities. If they don't like it they should leave Parliament, simple as that.

One final point. Who is ensuring that the home addresses of HM Forces are being kept secret? After all, are they and their families not in even greater daily danger? I seem to recall various attempts by the IRA and, latterly, by others. Perhaps Messrs Harris and Carswell (and their respective kith and kin) should follow the examples set by the Armed Services, and just get on with it.

Raedwald said...

1. When someone stands as an MP, they know that their life will become public property if elected. This is absolutely right. MPs enjoy huge privileges, but these have a balancing downside. Badger-watching on Clapham Common has to go. Being a public figure isn't compulsory, but those who choose the path need to accept the consequences.

2. Candidates for election are asking for my vote for them to represent me and all the other electors in my constituency. Of course I want to know where they live; does the down-with-the-people socialist live in the Council tower block or the exclusive new gated Barrett estate? Actually, I'm a bit of a snob in this respect and expect my MP to have a good address in the constituency; it's a social thing. So yes, it's important and relevant to me as an elector.

3. If candidates for Parliament can choose to hide their address, so should everyone on the electoral roll. My publicly available Electoral roll entry for the constituency should contain my name, and no other information. It should need an explicit authorisation from me on each and every occasion that this information is released - to a bank, or insurance company, for example.

4. Yesterday's vote was an undignified scrabble by the political class to protect their own interests. Even the MP who responds at length above talks only about themselves, about their rights, about their risks. I'd be more impressed if the rights of the people they claim to represent were mentioned even once in their response.

Dick the Prick said...

Unsworth - dunno ya know. Killing an MP carries proper kudos. Witness the attempt on the Sri Lankans life.

Phone numbers, e-mail addresses, office details etc are fine.

Chris Paul said...

Can't get too excited about this Iain. Not sure why you are. And is Sir Fred Goodwin's address in the public domain? if not what's your last point?

someday said...

Bastards.

WV roguerow - how appropriate!

King Athelstan said...

That excuse is contemptible, and frankly beneath Him.

JPT said...

Unnacountable and spineless.

Unsworth said...

@ Chris Paul

And 'Sir' Fred Goodwin is an elected MP for which particular constituency? Which political party does he belong to?

Clown.

Old Holborn said...

Iain

He doesn't like me either.

I laughed so hard, a bit of wee came out

WV: ditchoik I kid you not

Unsworth said...

@ Dick Prick

OK then, if MPs want to draw up a proper contract of employment that'll be very interesting. They're not 'employees' are they? But if that's what they want to be I'll be entertained - what about their security of tenure, eh?

And knocking off an MP or two has always been a morale raising exercise for extremists, much as beheading a monarch was for Parliamentarians - slightly before my time, though.

Lady Finchley said...

Sorry guys - having to put up with assaults on your family's privacy is not part of the job. And what doctor, teacher, police officer, fire officer, nurse, priest, minister, rabbi is on 24 hour call? They're all paid by the taxpayer so why should MPs expected to be - which is just what would happen if their addresses were published.

As it is some constituents make outrageous demands which are NOT part of the job. Get real, people.

Lady Finchley said...

The Clergy of course are not paid bythe tax payer but they, who have, a vocation are not expected to be on call 24/7.

Cath said...

@ Lady F

Agree with you on this one. Some of the mouth-foaming on here only goes to illustrate Tom's point. There are some very real nutters around.

bustop said...

I repeat what I said earlier and would welcome Jo Swinson's response. The only reason that many people are worked up about this is those MPs with their snouts in the trough robbing the public purse. So huge is the cynicism, caused by lying cheating MPs and equally by the failure of others to deal with them that even were there no ulterior motives to what MPs are doing people would think there are. MPs simply do not understand the depth of Public feeling on this issue.
Deal with Jacqui Smith and all the others quickly and appropriately. Stop hiding behind rules that are drafted to let you do what you want. Do not go ahead with plans to make those rules even softer. Stop cynically launching amendments and policy proposals when you think no one is looking.
show us that you are honourable members and you will have a leg to stand on. Carry on taking the piss out of us and you attract the derision you deserve and the loathing that goes with it.

Dick the Prick said...

I'm well happy for MP's to have codes of employment.

They seem to forget that it's the best job in the world.

I definately think the internet has increased the number of nutters though. Well, not increase the % but their support or research mechanisms.

The cricket thing today man. Can you imagine how bloody furious the Pakistanis are tonight?

MP's can be contacted through mobile numbers these days. If they invite us round their house for a cup of tea, cool - i'd grab a beer.

They have to live in constituency like but there's no reason I need to know where they live other than how much I'm paying for their mortgage - and that ain't secret.

Unsworth said...

@ Lady Finchley

You got any figures for these unwanted/unwarranted intrusions? Do they happen very often?

As to comparison with other public servants, your point is what? Are MP's subject to the same Terms and Conditions - and do they get paid similar kind of money and allowances? Are they answerable in the same way as your examples? If so I'd like to take a look at a few of the Annual Performance Reviews.

Take a look at the current debate of Members' Allowances - on BBC Parliament - it's quite revealing.

Lady Finchley said...

Unsworth - you only show your ignorance. I know a great deal more about MPs' allowances than you do. Whenever newspapers publish the figures they always include the £120,000 to pay office staff and office costs - these are not perks - these are neccessities so that constituents can get the gold-plated service they demand. If you were an executive who had to travel or keep another home you'd be funded. I am not saying the system isn't open to abuse - it is - but this is not the point of the thread. A decent salary and expenses do not entitle the general public to know where you live and to disturb you at will. As it is some constituents e-mail Saturdays, Sundays, holidays and Christmas day AND demand an immediate answer. Do you not think there would be some who would turn up on the doorstep? Why should somebody's family be compromised in that way?

There are civil servants who are paid much more than an MP - should their addresses be published? Your argument just doesn't hold any water, does it?

Old Holborn said...

"There are civil servants who are paid much more than an MP - should their addresses be published?"

They only spend our money on orders from people who refuse to tell us were they live

646 people spend every penny we have. Trillions.

I DEMAND to know who they are and where they live. If they refuse, we should stop giving them our money.

Unknown said...

I agree with the politicians, is this information really so important for the rest of us to know?. If politicians are breaking rules or laws, then let the police deal with it, if they are not breaking the law, then who cares where they live?.

Tom Harris said...

Iain - I don't know if you've read Carolyn's comment on my blog (in the "Here we go again" thread, and no, I didn't ask her to write it and I didn't help her write it)? Setting aside our obvious disagreement on how I and others voted, can you at least acknowledge that her concerns are valid, even if you don't think they justified my decision to vote as I did?

bustop said...

Lady Finchley

MPs get so much time off that they have no right to carp about demands on their time. Many Civil Servants work longer hours than MPs, are available on MPs demand and get six weeks paid annual leave. And do not have other earned income - with businesses they lobby for. Look at the empty seats in the House of Commons - especially on Friday. They are taking the piss out of their electorate. Put their house in order and we will have far more tolerance for them but at the moment they are bang out of credit.
Let one of the crooks test themselves in the court of public opinion which Harman seems so keen on - they would be found guilty in seconds. In fact Jacqui Smith used that very phrase the other day. Is she brave enough to stand up to a public vote on whether her expenses claim is morally right - as she asks about Goodwins pension? Is she heck. While they cheat the public purse they lose all rights. Honourable Members - you are having a laugh.

Unsworth said...

@ Lady Finchley

"I know a great deal more about MPs' allowances than you do."

I very much doubt it. But I'm not in the business of reproductive organ measurement comparison - assuming you have one, of course.

You say that some civil servants are paid more than MPs - so what? Do they have exactly the same Terms and Conditions? Maybe, with your vast knowledge, you can lighten my darkness. Let's just take a look at these 'office expenses' - care to indicate how many MPs' kith and kin are the beneficiaries?

At the risk of tedious repetition - these people choose this career, they're not forced into it. Now, having been elected and with years of tenure, they choose to unilaterally change their 'contract' (if that's how you see it).

Where's the evidence that MPs families are subject to these intrusions, for that matter where's the statistical evidence which shows MPs to be a greater risk than, say, members of armed forces? This is just emotional claptrap being used to jack up secrecy.

And if you believe that MPs provide anything like a 'gold-plated service' you are seriously deluded. The only 'gold-plated service' these guys know about is in the canteens of cutlery they order from John Lewis.

Iain Dale said...

Tom, I did indeed, and I am going to reply directly in a blog post later.

Old Holborn said...

Joseph

I think you need to lie down

The 646 have put my unborn grandchildren in massive debt

646 people. Amongst the 60,000,000 of us.

If anyone can change anything, it is them. If a child dies today because there is no kidney machine, they decided it. If a squaddie get's blown to pieces in Helmand, they decided it. If a failed banker gets £50K a week pension, they decided it. If a Muslim is arrested and held for 42 days and then released after no charge, they decided it.

Is it really so remarkable for the 59,999,354 of us who have to live under their rules and pay through the nose for the priviledge to ask who the hell they are?

I don't think so.

Steve Tierney said...

Actually, i'm sick to death of the whole 'second house' thing. Frankly, I think there are bigger issues and I'm not convinced that more than a tiny percenatage of these spiralling reports are a big deal.

If your bosses tell you that there's a perk of the job and its 'this' and outline it to you, who wouldn't make the most of it if its legal and within the rules? Everybody is being holier-than-thou on the discussion boards, but I've rarely met anybody that pious in real life.

The ones who have broken the law, fine, let's bring them into the open. The ones who are within the rules - I can't see the point. If you want the rules changed, lets campaign to change the rules! Let's not witch-hunt MPs who are acting legally.

So, in conclusion, I can't see a big deal about addresses being hidden. There probably is a danger if MPs addresses are public knowledge, particularly with headlines like they're getting. But if the only result is to put a stop to these endless 'all MPs are crooks' stories (which are counterproductive and exaggerated) I think that would be a good thing.

If I was an MP, It'd really irritate me to have some nosey neighbour with a notepad chronicling my coming and going on the hope of a bung from the News of The World.

Instead of campaigning against the keeping their home addresses secret (something which seems sensible to me) lets campaign to close the second-house deal entirely and come up with some other plan to solve the Westminster lodgings problem.

janestheone said...

I would have voted for Julian Lewis' clause today. When I was an MP I had to move from a house with a front door on to the street to a first-floor flat with pass entry to the building and an intercom,and lose my garden in the process, because having people shouting through my letter box at eleven thirty at night was oppressive and annoying to me and a real pisser for my neighbours - and I never had a stalker or a REAL nutter after me at home, and I had no children at home by then and my husband worked for me in Westminster, so we were safer than most. Conflating the right to a bit of security and privacy, for the MP's family at least if not the member him/herself, which is not too much to ask surely - and constituents still know whether you live in the constituency - together with those who have their "snouts in the trough" as it is charmingly put, is just silly. Not the same thing at all.

Unsworth said...

@ Tom Harris

So your wife is concerned about her safety - and your reaction is to go to Parliament, and both there and on your blog to deliberately raise your profile, whilst nominally seeking secrecy? Meanwhile your home address has been in the public domain for, oh, how many years is it now?

How much public attention do you want to draw to your domestic arrangements just now? Or are you nobly sacrificing your family's privacy and, possibly, security on the altar of the Greater Good?

Absolutely cretinous. Anyone with the slightest experience in security work will tell you that the first principle is to avoid attention.

Old Holborn said...

"There probably is a danger if MPs addresses are public knowledge, particularly with headlines like they're getting."

Good.

We KNOW the law won't stop them thieving, cheating, lying and scamming.

This would.

Anonymous said...

How bad is this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7921780.stm
Shame it's not about Lard Arse-Med.

gutted said...

Voted since 18 years old. Every vote but one Tory. Not any more. I'm sick of them all. Absolute pigs, no respect from me. The most useless Government I have ever known at the same time as the most pathetic Opposition I have even known. I truly despair.

Anonymous said...

Neither Plaid Cymru nor the SNP voted for it so you are wrong to state that it had "all party" support.

Dick the Prick said...

I think this may just be an audit issue. Simple procedural changes. Retropective charging and available receipts cheers.

MP's houses off limits. Let them feel liberty.

It's a no brainer. Things should be slowed down, not accelerated - simple physics.

Martin S said...

A Labour candidate was recently caught lying about her address in order to pretend she lived in the constituency.

Why was this important to the electorate? She showed herself to be a liar even before she became an MP. She had to resign as ppc. Oh, how sad.

Lady Finchley said...

Unsworth - I know a good deal better than you about the services MPs provide about for their constituents. How many do you know? How many have you worked for? You just regurgitate a lot of garbage you ingested from the red tops. And your arguments are facile.

So since when did the armed forces have to disclose their addresses? You just make it up as you go along to try and prove a point. Pathetic.

Chris Paul said...

1. When I called Iain "Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" over at my blog I made a grevious error of which I am very ashamed indeed.

2. Tonbridge, as in T Wells, is in fact spelled Tunbridge. I should like to apologise to all Tunbridge Wellians and what's more Tonbridgians for this calamitous error and do hope that postal misdirections or failures to find their way home afflict the same.

3. Iain was right about this, though sadly when he avoided answering a straight question about Sir Fred Goodwin's home address relevance of he did not answer.

4. Instead he went offensive with some assertions about Company Directors addresses - I don't know whether SFG is a Director or not - which are clearly not true.

5. I knew myself already that Directors could get this information off most company search facilities simply by asking and showing good cause. I knew that this autumn confidentiality at CH itself would be easier to obtain. And I knew that it could already be obtained.

6. I did however suggest that a Court Order was needed.

7. In fact as Barrack Room Lawyer has pointed out, with references, the Secretary of State can grant confidentality to vulnerable Directors who give an address for service of their choosing, and a court is only needed if Mandy or predecessors refused unreasonably

Over an out.

PS Iain's apologising for a comment being allowed to stand that was in fact on someone else's blog reminded me of a song I once knew through my sister endlessly blasting it out at the old joanna, by Carly Simon.

PPS I think Will 11:27am was quite wrong and that the new rules for MPs may also apply to other parliamentary candidates?

Chris Paul said...

Missed a "No" there before postal misdirections ... oops

Chris Paul said...

PS I've just seen Unsworth's comment 7:35pm which unintentionally makes my point for me ... Sir Fred Goodwin is not an MP and what's more there is no reason for IAIN TO HAVE INTRODUCED HIM as someone the KKK or other unwanted visitors should have access to along with MPs families.

And Unsworth calls me a clown? Presumably that was an accident and you meant to call Iain a clown?

Unsworth said...

@ Chris Paul

Iain will speak for himself, but it seems to me that he was pointing out the crassness of Harris' latest position. As a 'company director' Goodwin's address should automatically be in the public domain.

If Harris argues consistently (extremely doubtful) Goodwin's address would no longer be public. Or are you advocating that there should be one law for MPs and another for the rest of the population? Come to think of it what are you advocating, anyway? The law to date has required that MPs make their home addresses known. They are choosing to rescind the law - for no apparent reason apart from the nebulous 'security' consideration. They have provided no evidence to support their position, apart from a reported annoyance of having occasional unwanted callers. Well, don't we all have unwanted callers?

I don't know why you've introduced the KKK, who seem to be pretty dormant these days, but whilst on the subject of extremists what about the loony ALF - who actually have attacked company employees and Directors and their homes and families? Is there an argument for privacy on the grounds of 'security' there? Have any MPs or their families been attacked by them?

There are multiple laws of Trespass which may be invoked, why not use them?

Clown indeed.

rob's uncle said...

A question from Simon Hughes yesterday [Mar 03] drew this from Mr Speaker: 'Michael Martin (Speaker): Order. Let me put it on the record, in case there is any doubt, that the Deputy Speaker was acting on my instructions. I used the powers that the House gave me to allow a vote to take place. I do not need to give reasons for that, but I expect hon. Members to use some logic.
Only a few weeks ago, a statutory instrument went through the House that allowed the addresses of Members of Parliament to be kept private. There was a debate on the matter, and when the amendment was tabled, I considered it right and fitting for parliamentary candidates to have that privacy. After all, as soon as a general election is called, every hon. Member becomes a parliamentary candidate. That is simple.
The hon. Gentleman asks how Members will know when there is to be a vote. If any hon. Member comes to me or the occupant of the Chair and asks, "Is there going to be a vote on that amendment?" sometimes I say yes and sometimes I say no. It could not be simpler.'
http://tinyurl.com/bjezlf

So the point had already been conceded for candidates without any of us noticing and this was, from his point o f view, simply 'tidying up'.

Unknown said...

I can't remember exactly, but wasn't one of the things that contributed to Tamsin Dunwoody's failure in the Crewe & Nantwich by-election that after attacking her opponent as an 'outsider' she then turned out to live 175 miles away?

Would that have come out under the new rules? I think we should be told.

Unsworth said...

@ Lady Finchley

Did I mention the 'services' of MPs?

Just how often are MPs required to publish their addresses, and do you honestly believe that this legislation would stop anyone from finding out? Clearly you have failed to understand my point but I really cannot be bothered to elaborate any further.

I note your comments which indicate that you may have provided you own services to various MPs. How many was that, or have you lost count? Care to let us have a few insights?

In any event, assertion is no proof. So, would you care to name names here?

Why don't you just put up - then we can all fall down in homage and grovel at your fragrant feet?