Iain might be surprised to discover that one of the reasons so many colleagues of both parties supported this is that many of us have young families who remain in the constituency home while we’re in London. You may recall an incident recorded in Paul Flynn’s book, “Commons Knowledge”, when a young woman, accompanied by her boyfriend, turns up at Paul’s home while his wife and children are alone. The woman wants her MP’s help in clearing her boyfriend of the charge of rape.
Without wishing to break any confidences, I can tell you that many colleagues have reported such incidents in the years since. In the weeks following the 2005 general election, Carolyn answered the door on two occasions to male constituents who were looking for me. They weren’t at all threatening, but she didn’t feel comfortable having to explain that at that moment, I was 400 miles away and she was alone with the babies.
The issue has become more worrying for MPs in recent years, because ballot papers are now posted in greater numbers to voters’ homes; there is a far greater opportunity to take note of the information contained in them now than there ever was when the only time you got the chance to peruse the ballot paper was for a few seconds in the polling booth.
Later on, Tom's wife Carolyn was driven to comment on Tom's blog, having taken great exception to what I wrote...
@Iain Dale – “shameful vote”? Oh, shame on you. As the wife of a politician who usually tries at all costs to stay out of politics herself, I feel so strongly about what you wrote I feel I have to comment, especially when your blog is the only (other) political blog I read every day. This vote was never about MPs trying to have one rule for themselves and another rule for others, it was about a genuine concern over safety, for themselves, but primarily their families. The vote to remove MPs addresses from ballot papers (although not the name of the constituency in which they live) was not to prevent a terrorist attack as you say it was – I think there may be more high profile targets than a 3-bedroom semi in suburbia. Rather, the security issue is about no longer making it so easy to find out the home address of someone who you know will be in London all week, while their family – usually a wife and children – are at home alone. Already the comments are predictable – this vote proves all politicians are vile, dishonest, corrupt; if you don’t like it, don’t become a politician etc.. How much easier it is to stand on the sidelines shouting about everything that is wrong, instead of being the person who actually steps up to the plate and tries to make a difference. You say that one of your favourite books is ‘In The Arena’ by Richard Nixon. I was genuinely sad to read the vitriol you extended over this vote. When even thoughtful political commentators like you now make the automatic assumption that everything politicians do is dishonest, God only knows why anyone still wants to go into politics. Being alone all week with small children is far from my ideal, but I chose to marry my husband, and his job was part of the deal. I’m not looking for sympathy or special treatment, but at the same time why should my children and I be made vulnerable because people despise him and his job? As a man, and as a man who has no children, I can only assume you haven’t tried to imagine how intimidating it is for a woman to answer the door to strangers and admit that you and your young children are home alone, as I have had to do. One man has already left a comment saying that if he knew where we lived he would come round and shit in our garden. Well, I’ll sleep easy tonight then. Wanting to protect your family does not make you a bad person – even if you are an MP.
As readers know, I like Tom, We're around the same age, have a similar outlook on a lot of things and both have a sense of the ridiculous. I've never met Carolyn, but I follow her Twitter feed and feel I know enough about her to think that if I ever did meet her we'd get on famously. So I take her comments very seriously. So let me respond in the form of an open letter...
Dear Carolyn,
You're right. using the word 'shameful' was a bit OTT. But that's what headlines are for I suppose. So, first point to you. But I am afraid that is where our agreement will end. I totally understand the desire for privacy. I also understand the desire to protect loved ones. Being in the public eye can be a nightmare and those who choose public service sacrifice a lot, and yes, their families often sacrifice more. It's not fair, but that is the way it is. The experiences you and Tom relate are unpleasant in the extreme, but think about the alternative - where politicians are so remote from people that in the end people rebel against it. Politicians can be their own worst enemies. They may not intend to pass laws that are seen as creating one rule for most but a different one for them - but it happens too often.
Political candidates' addresses have appeared on ballot papers for ever. There needs to be a very good reason indeed to change the system. Is it really any different from the public being able to access my address from Companies House? Why should MPs be treated any different from company directors? I can think of no good reason. Why should Sir Fred Goodwin's personal address be public when an MP's isn't. I suspect Lady Goodwin might have similar thoughts to yourself at the moment. I wouldn't blame her, but nor would I expect Companies House to change the rules.
You say that I "make the automatic assumption that everything politicians do is dishonest, God only knows why anyone still wants to go into politics" I do no such thing, and if you do indeed read my blog every day you will know that I constantly come under fire from my readers for defending politicians and politics as a profession. I think MPs deserve to be paid more, are entitled to a second home allowance and enough resources to run a properly resourced office. Most of my readers think they should be paid very little, should live in London in a £20 a night b&b and should type their own letters - and still have change out of a farthing.
You ask plaintively why on earth anyone should want to go into politics. I ask myself that question too. And increasingly, the wrong sort of people are going into politics - people with no experience, no hinterland, but an insatiable desire to be someone rather than believe in something. That is the system we have created. What we now have to do is deconstruct that system and improve the body politic. We won't do that by changing the rules to make the system even less transparent than it already is.
I have never been an MP, but I have worked for MPs and know exactly what they have to contend with. I have also been a candidate - an openly gay candidate in a very conservative area. I don't need anyone to tell me about abuse from the electorate. The silent phone calls. The threats pushed through a letter box. The anonymous green ink letters. It shouldn't come with the territory but it does. Yes, why would anyone go into politics? I've been 'In the Arena'. Much of me would like to be in it again. But I too have seen the effect it has on people close to you. My partner is like you - more comfortable out of the public eye. My mother uses every opportunity to urge me not to do it again. But I'm like Tom. I can't get rid of the political virus. We both see things which make us angry and we want to change. And that can only be done at the sharp end - not by writing, not by blogging, not by broadcasting. But by being 'in the arena'.
MPs' families have a rough deal in many ways, especially where there are young children. I appreciate that. And I would not wish to do anything to make their lives even tougher. But if someone wants to 'have a go' they will find out their address no matter if it is publicly available or not. The change in the rules voted on last night will make no difference to the nutters. All it does is give further grist to the mill of those who think that MPs are already featherbedded and remote from the very people they are supposed to represent.
Someone on my blog, or maybe it was Tom's, expressed the doubt that if I were an MP I would have voted against this change. I can assure them I would have. At the last election, I could see which way the wind was blowing and I issued a ten point (rather pompously titled) Pledge of Integrity. I thought the electorate deserved to know how I would conduct myself if I were elected. I'll list it here...
* never to solicit or accept a company directorship while serving as an MP
A fat lot of good it did me. But if I ever stood again, I'd do something similar. But what an indictment of our politics that a candidate should have to do such a thing. If our politics worked, most of that would be taken as read.
* to publish in detail any expense I reclaim while in the pursuit of my parliamentary duties
* to tell people my real views even when I know they will disagree with me
* never knowingly to claim credit for something when the credit is not mine
* never to employ any member of my family in my parliamentary office
* to live in the constituency (as I do now) and make my main home among the community I serve
* never to promise what I know I cannot deliver
* never to waste taxpayers' money by tabling pointless Early Day Motions or asking Parliamentary Questions for the sake of it
* never to use taxpayers' money via the Parliamentary Office Cost Allowance to promote party political activity
So, Carolyn, I am sorry if you felt my words were too strong, but I care deeply about transparency in politics and can't pretend that I think that last night's vote was a step in the right direction, because I don't.
Yours Ever
Iain
80 comments:
So basically, Tom's argument is
"We, the Labour Party, caused the problem, while simultaneously undermining the integrity of the electoral system, by massively expanding the use of postal voting. We intend to solve the problem by reducing the information available to voters."
What a prat!
The most sensible solution would be once again to limit postal voting to those ill or overseas on polling day. However, if Labour is afraid that such a solution would deprive it of tens of thousands of corrupt votes, perhaps we could adopt another solution - omitting the candidates' addresses only from postal ballots?
I think I'm right in saying that it is fairly simple to get anyone's address from the electoral register at the local library. Well, it used to be - I used this method to do mail shots in the 70s. Is is still the case?
Apart from that, Iain, I agree with all the points you have made but can see why Carolyn Harris reacted the way she did.
What Mrs Harris appears to be suffering is "fear of crime" by being alone in her house without protection. This is what all ordinary people who don't live in expensive areas experience the whole time. MPs might now think the law needs changing to protect them, but I would rather they got on with solving the underlying problem of crime and violence in our society.
Instead of trying to insulated themselves further from "the real world" I would like to see politicians actually get out there and experience it properly.
The other day Mr Harris said he didn't think civil liberties had been eroded! How much more evidence do we need to see how out of touch the political class is?!?!
AD627's point occured to me as soon as I read Tom's post, along with the fact that the expansion of postal voting was an attempt to gerrymander for the Labour Party.
A further thought is that this is the same government that wants to have more information about us at the same time as allowing us less information about themselves.
Difficult one. On balance I come down on the side of publish (and be damned?).
Do bloggers publish their addresses?
If someone is on an electoral roll that ought to be sufficient. Or it can be available for scrutiny by the press at the HoC if security is important. But I do fail to see why a candidates address should be published on the ballot paper. An MPs office is of course publicised.
No one is going to turn up at Shaun Woodwards home address enquiring for him - they would get lost in the drive. And they would never find him at his safe house in St Helens -- so its different strokes for different folks I suppose.
If an MP could make a case then OK but a blanket ban for total anonymity is too far.
Methinks Mr and Mrs Harris doth protest too much. But I think some bloggers are getting hysterical about this - all Jacqui Smiths fault. What address did she have on her last ballot paper?
Tom Harris would not use this to his advantage. But far too many would! And that's the problem.
I am with Tom and Mrs Tom on this one.
Why the change now? Our MPs didn't hide their addresses during the years of IRA terrorism. What a bunch of cowards.
Great post. Ask husband to leave job if it causes aggro at home, that is what everyone else does.
Company directors can apply, on a case by case basis, to have their addresses withheld from the publicly available version of the companies register (or whatever it is called). This was introduced mainly to protect people from the terrorist nutters of SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, I think.)
This is a terribly difficult issue to judge BUT in my amateur opinion, for what it is worth, this is what I think.
In the 21st Century, where we all use email, mobiles, twitter etc. surely it is better to have your MP's email address rather than their home address? Why on earth would you want to turn up at their house?
The solution is surely to generalise the area in which they live. IE I live in Docklands, so I would say I live in the Narrow Street area. Constituents would know I live in their area. Locals would find out where I am roughly.
I don't think that the Companies House analogy works. If I ate a prawn sandwich from M and S and got food poisoning, I wouldn't turn up at a Director's house to complain. But if I was a nutter who had had a few dealings with my MP, I might.
If an MP holds regular surgeries, I don't think he needs to give out his home address. I know where to find him when I need him.
If Iain's argument prevailed, I think it would be reasonable to ask for permanent police protection.
trevorsden said "Do bloggers publish their addresses?"
The moment that bloggers start to accept vast quantities of public money, they can publish such details. Till then, nobody's interested.
I'm just surprised to discover you're not an MP, Iain. For some reason I'd always assumed you were.
Carolyn wrote:
When even thoughtful political commentators like you now make the automatic assumption that everything politicians do is dishonest.....
It's not only political commentators, Mrs Harris, it's an ever growing number of the general public who think that politicians (of whatever party) are money grabbing troughing pigs with about as many morals as an alley cat.
Since MPs addresses have been public for many years, why the sudden need to change. You say it's a matter of security. Well, to paraphrase another commenter, that's something we plebs have to live with day in and day out, due largely to the idiocy of MPs who have swung the justice system too far in favour of the criminal. As you sew so shall you reap Mrs Harris. Perhaps you might pass that on to Mr Harris.
Iain, just to underline your point about nutters finding you, I once upon a time ran a parrallel group to the number 10 message board, and when it changed to something very unusable people went to my newsgroup.
The rules were open as long as people were civil. I had to ban someone, and ban then several times as they changed IP addresses. Then the abusive phone calls started, (to be fair to my staff at the time, never the bottle to swear at me) and then he turned up outside my house.
I was in, so he ran away, but what can you do? he had to do some research to find me, and it is easier to find an MP even if they do not have their addresses listed on the ballot paper. (granted there should not be postal ballots without a god reason, bit Tom´s lot brought that in to prop up their vote so there!)
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
I really don't understand the stushie about this. MPs are amply rewarded, they are given a most handsome sum of taxpayers money to spend on living away from home and they're certainly not going to be living off the state pension when they retire.
Many people live away from home to work, there are two wives with young children less than 500 yards from me here. Everyone knows they are on their own, one for long periods of time. That is their choice, they don't complain and they have sensible security to protect themselves.
As another poster said, the addresses were available all through the IRA years so what's changed? Must be something that we're not being told.
I am an elected councillor.
My home address is published on the Council website for the duration of my time in office.
I have not had one constituent come to my door yet, and I live around the corner from a very difficult constituent who has a number of complex cases on the go.
Given that many MPs don't live in their constituency, or will have been councillors and possibly had their addresses publicised as with mine, I wonder just what the big deal is?
Just because you don't make your home address available to the world, doesn't make you any less susceptible to a nutter turning up on your doorstep.
While I appreciate Carolyn's fears (assuming they're genuine), I'm afraid the solution is rather simple... get out of Dodge City. If the burden of being transparent is too much then don't (or allow Hubby to) become an MP.
In many ways its surprising most MPs haven't had nutcases turning up on their doorsteps over the years. But then most people are blessed with enough common decency not to turn up at someone's home unannounced. Pity the MPs don't return that trust but instead feel they must scurry away like woodlice into the cracks.
Frankly, I don't know my own MP's home address and wouldn't normally even bother to find out. But its nice to know that upon becoming an MP his opening move was to formally declare it for those wishing to know. Seriously, there's something quite honest and old fashioned about that and I'd hate to see it disappear.
By the way, I'm in total agreement with Iain over this. And I certainly won't listen to a member of the Labour Party (or his Mrs) when the very same party thought it fair game to use sneakily taken photos of the rival candidates family home in their Crewe & Nantwich by-election campaign leaflets and website
Finally I don't suppose its occurred to the great and good that once their addresses are hidden it will become good sport for others to try and discover them; publish them online even? Serves themselves right, more people than ever and from far beyond their own constituencies will now be interested in peeping behind the veil.
@ Cato said...
" It's not only political commentators, Mrs Harris, it's an ever growing number of the general public who think that politicians (of whatever party) are money grabbing troughing pigs with about as many morals as an alley cat.
Since MPs addresses have been public for many years, why the sudden need to change. You say it's a matter of security. Well, to paraphrase another commenter, that's something we plebs have to live with day in and day out, due largely to the idiocy of MPs who have swung the justice system too far in favour of the criminal. As you sew so shall you reap Mrs Harris. Perhaps you might pass that on to Mr Harris."
Oh, so well put...
Whatever the merits of this secrecy, the underhand way in which it was introduced into the Bill late at night without notice and then voted on without debate is sufficient reason to be indignant and to oppose it.
If Harris doesn't understand that, he should be voted out at the next opportunity.
As for Mrs H, I recommend she gets a video answerphone or goes to live in a gated community isolated from the common folk who pay her husband's wages.
Well said Cato - I left a comment on Tom's blog basically saying the same thing but Tom declined to publish the comment.
I wasn't abusive but I did use the words - troughing, piggies and honourable. I think Tom may have got the hump over the word "honourable"
In the immortal words of Corporal Jones - they don't like it stuck up 'em
Slightly off topic but bang on the money...
Humiliated, hopeless, paralysed. Time to go
Even Cabinet ministers are finding it hard to contemplate another 14 directionless months. We need an election now
[Alice Miles, The Times - March 4th]
"Can the country really bear another 14 months of this? Not even ministers are sure they can endure it: one member of the Cabinet told me recently that, despite the hell of being in opposition, he could hardly wait for the election to get away from the misery and directionlessness of the Brown regime"
Hear hear!
"I’m not looking for sympathy or special treatment..."
But that's precisely what she's looking for...
oh, and what Blue Eyes said.
I can understand Tom's wife. I was once a Conservative Councillor and my family were brought into the political arena whether they wanted to be there, or not! We had personal callers several evenings a week and at weekends, which irritated my other half profoundly and whose support remained, sometimes only through gritted teeth. There are many public service occupations however that can never be entirely private, the police and medical professions to name but two. To remain close to the public these people have to reside within the community to serve the people they represent or serve, no other way is morally acceptable. It goes with the territory!
Everyone deserves (and is entitled to) their right to privacy... if they so desire. Surely a 'choice' would resolve this matter. Opt in or opt out.
There has to be boundaries and the demand for MPs to publish their private address seems to me one step too far.
You cannot complain about an erosion of civil liberties and then demand this information without questioning what personal freedom actually means.
Ted Foan said... “I think I'm right in saying that it is fairly simple to get anyone's address from the electoral register at the local library. Well, it used to be - I used this method to do mail shots in the 70s. Is is still the case?”
No.
@Canvas.
Don't you read anything or do you just jump in?
MPs addresses have always been in the public domain. It goes with the job.
Completely disagree Iain.
No bugger communicates by snail mail these days. And addresses are a funnel for idiots.
Expenses is separate from security.
Kerry McCarthy has gone off on a self flagellating mission - cool! But she's 4ft 2" in high heels and why should her address in Mogadishu South be known if her e-mail, office address, work nos and Westminster contacts are available.
If there are issues that need sorting out of work hours then 99.9/100 it ain't owt to do with MP's.
Richard said... “...the fact that the expansion of postal voting was an attempt to gerrymander for the Labour Party.
”
Hardly. It was an attempt to increase turnout.
I’ve certainly used it for convenience (I’ve never known where I will be on polling day.) And I’m no Labour supporter.
I think you see a conspiracy that just isn’t there.
It's anachronistic.
Dave said... “I'm just surprised to discover you're not an MP, Iain. For some reason I'd always assumed you were.”
He got his hide thoroughly spanked by sitting Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb at the last GE. It looks like it put him off for good although Iain Dale is still on the Tory candidate list, he has told me.
Iain
Great post.
Good comments, apart from the Canvas troll.
Shows what blogging can do.
Not too many MPs joining in. Surprise that.
I'm with Tom on this one. Just because some of us might want MPs to publish their addresses doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. A lot of people might want to destroy the lives of other people in the public eye by invading their privacy and harrassing their family but that doesn't make it right either.
Here's my take on this issue.
“...it's an ever growing number of the general public who think that politicians (of whatever party) are money grabbing troughing pigs...”
I don’t. I think they generally do a good (and unrewarding) job - with ridiculously silly hours - for not very much money. The life of the back-bencher is a miserable ‘treated like mushrooms’ one.
And they are ridiculously understaffed to do the job they are supposed to do for us. Compare and contrast the average US Congressman or Senator.
I think that MPs should have the use of a YMCA type hostel when they are working in London in order to keep costs down (admin, security and housing).
There are plenty of vacant buildings that could be upgraded to provide the facilities.
Mark McDonald said... “I am an elected councillor... ...My home address is published on the Council website.. ...I have not had one constituent come to my door yet...”
Yeah right. Like anyone gives a toss about a councillor.
I mean really. Good grief. Be serious.
What evidence is that at all that have their address public puts MPs at risk?
I have news for them; unless they go to extraordinary lengths within an hour its possible to house them. So this measure has no practical effect in that respect.Will they come off the electoral register? Only use 'work' as an address for everything? Gag the postman? If they seriously think this will keep the Mail or News of the World away from their door they are very naive.
There is also no evidence at all that any MP has even been significantly at risk becasue of their address being public. The concern seems to flow from a totally exaggerated perception of the real risk of crime (actively fostered by this Government to support its own attacks on personal freedom). When was the last time an MP was attacked at home?? When was the last time an MPs home was targeted for vandalism?
No, yet again, this is a smokescreen. Our Masters want to hide away and protect their privacy which, for some, will be very convenient while ripping as much as they can in expense payments. One also presumes for example that the addresses of their second, third, fourth and fifth homes will also be protected, not just the ones they live in!!!!
I understand, for example, that historically there was a nice little scam in Westminster used by some long serving members where they would buy an apartment and claim expenses. They would quickly clear the mortgage, rent it out to another MP (who would claim expenses) and move their own claim to the new premises. In this way tidy little property portfolios could be carefully built up. All perfectly legal. All within the rules. But are we to be denied knowledge of this?
Being in politics should be about leadership and accountability. Leaders do not hide. If they do, its time to start asking why they are so afraid.
I think I am in the Harris camp on this. As long as the constituency of residence is shown, that deals with the "is s/he local" question and why do we need to know any more than that? If we want to see an MP, they have surgeries. I do not expect to visit my MP at home.
The argument that anyone in receipt of public funds should disclose their address does not stack up - that means every civil servant should do so. And the Companies House argument fails also as they information can be get secret on request of Companies House.
Iain, as company director who has also held public office I don't think your analogy holds up. There is a big difference between publishing and widely circulating the address and making it available. Companies quite rightly have a legal requirement to publish their registered address, but if you want director's home addresses you have to go and inspect the register.
"If someone is on an electoral roll that ought to be sufficient. "
Errr you do realise that all the data on the electoral roll is freely available to private companies for market research at a price? You can even log onto a website and pay £10 to search through all electoral roll;s for the last 10 years and all records of births marriages deaths, company directorships, etc, etc. Takes less than a minute. You can then go to Goggle earth, key in the address and you will get satellite pictures of the actual house, good enough to id the car on the driveway..
Welcome to Brown's Britain. Their privacy is important. Yours isn't!
"if you want director's home addresses you have to go and inspect the register."
Sorry, but no you don't. See my last post. Or you can log on at Companies House and do it on-line. I think it costs £1.
All this just shows what a nonsense this change in the law is.
To all MPs.
Sign of the times maybe?
So, MPs consider that the atmosphere in the country is getting heated and that they are exposing themselves to public abuse by continuing the status quo.
Perhaps you should view the situation you and other MPs have created and hang your head in shame. If there is an increasing danger then you have yourselves to blame.
Don’t legislate your way out of a tight spot, look at the causes and judge how good a Labour government has been for this country.
Shame on you all.
Are they feeling that hated and vulnerable that they feel they are in danger now?
GOOD!!!!
Perhaps they'll realise that the dictatorial, Nazi state that they have turned our country into is making people angry.
Perhaps if they'd have behaved like the servants that they are, they wouldn't be living in fear!
You only have yourselves to blame. It has got to the point where politicians are detested, despised and people do feel violent towards you and rightly so!
Cynic said... “Errr you do realise that all the data on the electoral roll is freely available to private companies for market research at a price...”
Errr you do realise this is mainly no longer true?
For quite a few years there have been two electoral registers. The second one specifically allows you to opt out of the attentions of commercial companies, general public nuisances etc.
The marketing industry recently complained that already some 40% of voters are opting out.
I notice that you haven't said that you would vote in the best interests of your constituents.
In other words, you're just going to be a Lobby sheep and vote the way you are told to vote.
It's time the electorate were given control over politicians and not vice versa.
Are you really sure you want to be an MP and run the risk of being lynched when people find out that MPs have spent all the cash?
Dave @ 11.10
He should have been an MP but my next door voters in North Norfolk ( populated by incomming luvies)voted in a Lib/Dem.
I do not always agree with Iain ( he can be a bit wet), but he would have made an excelent MP if only for his honnesty alone.
How very unfortunate for you that the voters of Norfolk North decided otherwise.
OK, I see where Carolyn is coming from (I have 2 kids and sometimes get nervous if I'm out at the prospect of some hulking stranger knocking at the door) but this misses the point a little.
MPs are fair game - along with anyone else - for searches of the electoral register, either directly or using companies who sell on the data. Sometimes you can get more than just name and address. So this will not stop a stalker or anyone determined to intimidate, harass or harm. Besides there are legal protections out there (the protection from harassment legislation). Also, if MPs have a proper constituency office and staff (rather than using the family home, employing family members and trousering the alloeances) then people would be clear where they could go to seek advice. I'm not certain as to how Tom Harris runs his office and this is a general observation rather than an accusation.
The only way to completely protect MPs would be a privacy law - and I bet there are plenty who would jump at the chance of this!
This will (probably) be my last comment on this issue.
A few of the comments here have said that "MPs' addresses have been public for years - why change now?" or words to that effect. Except they've NEVER been public, except on one day every four or five years. Even then, they've only been published on those ballot papers in one specific constituency. They've never been available on a publicly-accessible register (other than the electoral roll, which will continue unchanged).
Secondly, those who claim that this small change will allow MPs to "fiddle their expenses" clearly don't understand the nature of the change. How exactly will they be able to do that? You can't claim for either your London or your constituency home without providing an address to the Fees Office, and you still have to provide the address where you're registered to vote to the returning officer in the constituency where you're standing.
All this hysteria and paranoia is entertaining, but it's really not justified.
Jess The Dog said... “MPs are fair game - along with anyone else - for searches of the electoral register, either directly or using companies who sell on the data.”
I fear I’m beginning to sound like a broken record...
THIS IS NO LONGER TRUE.
Since the introduction of the opt-out two register system. (Some 40% of voters now opt-out), companies have NOT been able to sell such data.
This is actually bullying now Iain, however politely you dress it up. It's your way or the highway, and you don't seem to give any creedance to any alternative view.
Your pledge is all very well, but as you say, it did you no good.
You might also correct the impression that Company Directors have to have their residential addresses in the public domain.
It ain't so, and it will be getting easier on 1 October for "vulnerable Directors" to keep their addresses private from the public, though still registered, and still available to the proper authorities.
As someone pointed out the Tories that bothered to attend voted 2-1 in favour of this. Labour were more even and Lib Dem mostly against.
My sincere belief is that had you been elected you would hav gone through the lobby with Tom.
PS link to my blog with references re Company Directors' confidentiality.
PS One can choose whether to be on the published Electoral Roll or not. It may even be possible to have full details suppressed in the long version available to public authorities and candidates.
Why should an MP’s address be any less private than any other public servant’s? How does gawping at their gaff add to transparency?
Perhaps the answer is that their home tells you about their lifestyle, which helps you decide how well they can represent you. Which of the following should you also know, as a matter of right? The schools their children attend? The hospitals they use? What they eat? Where they go on holiday?
I side with Tom and Carolyn.
My MP is David Amess. He uses his constituency office as his address on the ballot paper. He lives in the constituency - I know this as I used to live in the same road as him. I presume that if he can use a constituency office address then anyone can.
It's difficult issue: public figures do attract nutters, and any perceived increase in the risk associated with that might discourage future candidates. But there are enough nutters to go around even for us private individuals, and I can't see that an MPs family is at any greater risk than an oil rig workers or a touring musicians or truck drivers or...
Each of these families take steps suitable to protect themselves at their perceived level of risk and their available resources. I'd rather support an increase in MPs salary to fund entryphones than abandon the transparency of the published addresses.
The comment that only making these addresses public 'one day in 4 years' is very different from *really* publishing them is really scraping the barrel - if only the public's memory of government performance was as ephemeral as it apparently is of addresses - we wouldn't need elections at all!
Anyway, I am certain every MP shows the same concern for protecting their family in every aspect of their public life, not just over their addresses. For example, I am certain that no MP would *ever* politically use photographs of themselves with their family, or actually showing their home as a backdrop, due to the increased chance that they could be recognised and targeted...
in. There is nothing wrong with MPs giving WHERE they live rather than their specific home address.
For example Michael Howard represents Folkestone but lives in Hythe. So that's all people need to know. They don't need to know street or house number.
Oh DO shut up Tom
You need to be asking yourself why 646 Politians are so hated by the rest of us, that you need to be legally invisible to us.
Tom Harris
" Except they've NEVER been public, except on one day every four or five years"
In that case, what are you worried about? Your address is public one day in every 1,400-1,800. You defeat your own argument with that comment.
You claim you want your address to be secret to protect your family. Presumably this is protection from the famously large number of people who wait for an election to come around so that they can get your address from the ballot paper and then storm your home.
This government has made a habit of losing the sensitive information of millions of people every month or so and you are concerned about your address appearing on a small slip of paper once every 5 years? Pull the other one. What are you really hiding?
An MP should be the person most able, taking into account all facts and circumstances, to represent the 100,000 people (65,000 voters) in his/her constituency, and should be open and available to the people they represent.
If they feel they have to hide from their electors, whether or not that is doe to protect their families, then they are clearly unfit for the job.
The job of an MP is to represent others. When they forget that they are nothing.
Iain,
Why are you going on about this, and pinning it on Tom Harris, when it was a bi-partisan thing. Meanwhile, nothing about Caroline Spellman.
In fact, I think people/bloggers just need to get off this "all MPs are liars and thieves" meme. Clearly there are some bad apples, but by and large as individuals they are OK. Discussion is better focused on policy.
This applies to all sides. The people at CIF/The Guardian went after Peter Hain, and hey presto, ended up with the far worse James Purnell.
Anyone in any job will maximise legal income. As voters we need to get over it.
As far as I can see, Iain is not pinning anything on any particular MP.
@cato , don't you listen?
And... I'm saying it should be a matter of choice. Opt in or Opt out.
A matter of choice.
Paul, perhaps you should read my original post before jumping to conclusions. I did not "pin it" on anyone. I was surprised that two bloggers I know well, Harris and Carswell, voted in this way and I asked them to explain their actions. They then did so.
I also do not subscribe to what you call as the "all politcians are liars and thieves" meme, as is clear from what I write on my blog.
How you can argue that Purnell is worse than Hain defies logic.
Councillors have to show their home address and work address on the "Register of Interests" which availble to the public. Also details of any other organisations they have an "interest" in - eg a church they attend, a school they are a governor of, a voluntary group they work for.
In 7 years as a Councillor I have had a few people turn up unannounced at home. One was a nutter (wife beater etc). I kept the chain on the door and did not let him in.
I often have to visit people in their home (no tax payer provided offices for Councillors)which puts me as a small woman at a theoretical risk - just like social workers, Avon ladies etc.
Mrs Harris should invest in a good stout chain and pass details of Tom's surgery through the narrow gap. SIMPLE!
Even at the height of the IRA terror - when MPs were murdered - there was no demand from MPs for this measure.
Perhaps if MPs abided by the same rules as Councillors they would be held in less contempt by the general public.
Iain,
It's true that in your more thoughtful posts you are fair to politicians as a class. But it's sheer partisanship that you go after Smith and not Spellman. For my part, I think both transgressed in only the most minor way.
As to Purnell - well, as a person with AIDS who has to spend a good part of the day within 15 feet of a toilet or take so much immodium I can hardly move (TMI I know), Purnell comes across as a pursuing harpie. I expect Labour MPs to be on the side of the sick.
Now, it may be true that some people fake sickness. I don't, but we all get tarred by his Daily Mail pleasing rhetoric.
Hmm... MPs don't want their home addresses published, or their childrens' information to be held on the childrens database, nor did they want details of their expenses made public.
Yet they are quite happy to propose a mega database with all my information on it (accessible by tens of thousands of people), put my children's data on a child database (thankfully mine are grown up), and insist that my expenses claims details are justifiable to the HMRC if required. Plus they want to record the details of my web, email and telephone useage.
Any argument for privacy that MPs put forward applies to me too. If they want to know everything about me, their lives should be an open book.
Full transparency, or full privacy, for all. It is only natural justice.
You may think that it's over-sensitive to wish to protect your children from nutter turning up at the door at night, but is it wise to exclude from parliament those who are more protective of their families? I can't see any reason other than nosiness to publish the address. Having an address in the constituency is no guarantee that an MP will do any work there.
Tom
If as your argue there is no real change in the confidentiality of MPS addresses why make the change?
The answer is simple. Many MPS don't want their constituents prying into their affairs and looking, for example, at where they allegedly sleep of a night and where they claim to sleep for expenses purposes. What has been going on is shameful. But when you even have the PM - yes the PM - inadvertently channelling public money to his constituency party what are we to expect? Even 20 years ago that would have been a resignation issue. Now the ethics of parliament - led I have to say by your party for the last 11 years- are such that its just shrugged off. We electors just expect it of your profession.
Not all MPs have been at it but a significant number have been and those of us who pay to fill the trough want it exposed.
"the PM - inadvertently channelling public money to his constituency party what are we to expect?"
I think you'll find the money was going the other way.
Jimmy
Sorry. Let me be exact and quote from the BBC report
"Commons rules have explicitly banned subletting of premises paid for on expenses since 2004 - when former Scottish First Minister Henry McCleish was forced to quit over a similar scandal.
The committee says that "when entering into the arrangement to share a constituency office with a Member of the Scottish Parliament and to sub-let part of it to his local party, Mr Brown should have ensured that the House of Commons authorities were consulted on the rules relating to Members' allowances".
Apology accepted
Post a Comment