Slashdot Mirror

How often do MPs in the UK defy their party leadership?

Interesting question, and one that can I can make a start at answering. TheyWorkForYou.com have taken data from a variety of official and non-official sources, compiled it and exposed it all as a web service. Included in this information is how often an MP rebels against their party line. It's fairly trivial to write a script that iterates over the MPs. Here's a basic one that simply prints the average rate of rebellion (remember to unmangle it; I don't know why Slashdot of all places makes it impossible to post code in a decent way):

#!/usr/bin/env python

import httplib2
from xml.etree.cElementTree import fromstring

baseUri = "http://www.theyworkforyou.com/api/"

total_rebe llions = 0
counted_mps = 0

http = httplib2.Http()
response, content = http.request(baseUri + "getMPs?output=xml")
mps_xml = fromstring(content)

for person in mps_xml.findall("match/person_id"):
....response, content = http.request(baseUri + "getMPInfo?output=xml&id=" + person.text)
....person_xml = fromstring(content)
....rebellions = person_xml.find("by_member_id/match/public_whip_re bellions")
....try:
........rebellions = int(rebellions.text[:-1], 10)
........total_rebellions += rebellions
........counted_mps += 1
....except:
........pass

print "Average rebellion rate: %f" % (float(total_rebellions) / counted_mps)

Okay, it's not great and undoubtedly an oversimplification, but it's not bad considering it took longer to run than to write.

Oh, and when I ran it, the average rebellion rate was ~1.2%.

How often do MPs in the UK defy their party leadership?

Interesting question, and one that can I can make a start at answering. TheyWorkForYou.com have taken data from a variety of official and non-official sources, compiled it and exposed it all as a web service. Included in this information is how often an MP rebels against their party line. It's fairly trivial to write a script that iterates over the MPs. Here's a basic one that simply prints the average rate of rebellion (remember to unmangle it; I don't know why Slashdot of all places makes it impossible to post code in a decent way):

#!/usr/bin/env python

import httplib2
from xml.etree.cElementTree import fromstring

baseUri = "http://www.theyworkforyou.com/api/"

total_rebe llions = 0
counted_mps = 0

http = httplib2.Http()
response, content = http.request(baseUri + "getMPs?output=xml")
mps_xml = fromstring(content)

for person in mps_xml.findall("match/person_id"):
....response, content = http.request(baseUri + "getMPInfo?output=xml&id=" + person.text)
....person_xml = fromstring(content)
....rebellions = person_xml.find("by_member_id/match/public_whip_re bellions")
....try:
........rebellions = int(rebellions.text[:-1], 10)
........total_rebellions += rebellions
........counted_mps += 1
....except:
........pass

print "Average rebellion rate: %f" % (float(total_rebellions) / counted_mps)

Okay, it's not great and undoubtedly an oversimplification, but it's not bad considering it took longer to run than to write.

Oh, and when I ran it, the average rebellion rate was ~1.2%.

Thank you. Yes, I'm primarily interested in the UK. A little bit of research on that story turns up more information and a followup. It looks like MPs hassled the government, it was determined that parental consent is necessary, and the fingerprinters are backing off, or at least making parents aware of the issue.

Following it up with a better source, Greg Mulholland MP seems to be the MP that is pressing the matter the most and he's not dropping it. Seems to be a good bloke all around - against ID cards, against terrorism laws, and for an investigation into Iraq.

Oh, and "bogtha" is Irish for "intoxicated". Somebody had a sig way back that said they were convinced that people remembered sigs more often than usernames, so I just put my username in my sig. Three times to allude to Badger Badger Badger.

It's a good thing this sort of idiotic nonsense pandering to ignorant pressure groups and those with an anti-porn agenda doesn't happen on the right hand side of the pond.

Oh, wait a minute, it does...

The UK Government wants to make it an offence, punishable by three years in jail, to simply possess "violent pornography", the definition of which appears to be based on the subjective viewpoints of some narrow minded and puritanical members of the Home Office.

This knee-jerk legislation came about after Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst, because, it's claimed, he looked at sites like Necrobabes which "promote violence against women".

Even though the Court of Appeal has quashed his conviction the "We must be seen to be doing something!" bandwagon keeps rolling and a law that will create a Thought Crime and trample over people's right to make up their own minds about what they can look at on the internet is in the offing.

For more information see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and UK citizens can sign an online petition objecting to the Nanny State trying to control what we can or cannot see at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ or write to their MP to object via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

like the sites

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/

are good sites for any freedom fighter today :)

One of the big problems in politics is communicating with and informing the general population. Not only does the Internet itself make it easier than ever to do so, but offshoots like mailing lists, wikis, etc help to organise people and information. We already know these things have the ability to coordinate efforts to build things as complicated as operating systems. Why not apply that experience to other problem domains?

We've already seen the beginnings of this. TheyWorkForYou.com publishes and indexes what MPs say in the Houses of Parliament, and notifies people when something they are interested in is discussed - with all the source code for the website available and a web service too. A few days ago, the same team launched an open-source online petition system backed by the UK government (sign the "fair use" petition). The same team also have a number of other projects in the same vein, such as mailing lists for MPs. Some MPs now have weblogs. Across the pond similar work is being done in the USA.

The real problem is that current MPs mostly grew up without the Internet and haven't gotten to grips with it. This is why MySociety's work to get them on board is so important. For instance, it took me thirty seconds to find out that my MP "replied within 2 or 3 weeks to 73% - 96% of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2005, according to polling data -- well above average amongst MPs," and I can sign up to get an email every time he speaks in Parliament.

Far from fuelling a crisis in politics, I think the web can be incredibly beneficial. Unfortunately, there is incredible inertia amongst government to adopt new strategies like this.

One of the big problems in politics is communicating with and informing the general population. Not only does the Internet itself make it easier than ever to do so, but offshoots like mailing lists, wikis, etc help to organise people and information. We already know these things have the ability to coordinate efforts to build things as complicated as operating systems. Why not apply that experience to other problem domains?

We've already seen the beginnings of this. TheyWorkForYou.com publishes and indexes what MPs say in the Houses of Parliament, and notifies people when something they are interested in is discussed - with all the source code for the website available and a web service too. A few days ago, the same team launched an open-source online petition system backed by the UK government (sign the "fair use" petition). The same team also have a number of other projects in the same vein, such as mailing lists for MPs. Some MPs now have weblogs. Across the pond similar work is being done in the USA.

The real problem is that current MPs mostly grew up without the Internet and haven't gotten to grips with it. This is why MySociety's work to get them on board is so important. For instance, it took me thirty seconds to find out that my MP "replied within 2 or 3 weeks to 73% - 96% of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2005, according to polling data -- well above average amongst MPs," and I can sign up to get an email every time he speaks in Parliament.

Far from fuelling a crisis in politics, I think the web can be incredibly beneficial. Unfortunately, there is incredible inertia amongst government to adopt new strategies like this.

One of the big problems in politics is communicating with and informing the general population. Not only does the Internet itself make it easier than ever to do so, but offshoots like mailing lists, wikis, etc help to organise people and information. We already know these things have the ability to coordinate efforts to build things as complicated as operating systems. Why not apply that experience to other problem domains?

We've already seen the beginnings of this. TheyWorkForYou.com publishes and indexes what MPs say in the Houses of Parliament, and notifies people when something they are interested in is discussed - with all the source code for the website available and a web service too. A few days ago, the same team launched an open-source online petition system backed by the UK government (sign the "fair use" petition). The same team also have a number of other projects in the same vein, such as mailing lists for MPs. Some MPs now have weblogs. Across the pond similar work is being done in the USA.

The real problem is that current MPs mostly grew up without the Internet and haven't gotten to grips with it. This is why MySociety's work to get them on board is so important. For instance, it took me thirty seconds to find out that my MP "replied within 2 or 3 weeks to 73% - 96% of messages sent via WriteToThem.com during 2005, according to polling data -- well above average amongst MPs," and I can sign up to get an email every time he speaks in Parliament.

Far from fuelling a crisis in politics, I think the web can be incredibly beneficial. Unfortunately, there is incredible inertia amongst government to adopt new strategies like this.

Yes, it's called Hansard; you can access a searchable copy of it at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/.

You can find out more about Lord Phillips of Sudbury, including what he's been getting up to in the House of Lords, at They Work For You.

Even with a large team of grad students at their disposal, researchers find it difficult to tag more than a small subset of the speeches in question

Are there really that many speeches? TheyWorkForYou.com offer a similar service for the UK's Houses of Parliament, except it's done manually, and there's only a dozen volunteers working on it.

If you live in his constituency (Airdrie and Shotts.), you can try Here [theyworkforyou.com].

Otherwise, find your MP on theyworkforyou.com, and write to them, explaining why you think it was the wrong decision, how it affects you, enlighten them on some of the technical issues if necessary, and request that they ask a question of John Reid or Blair in Parliament.

Writing direct to someone else's MP (even if they are the Home Secretary) is rarely succesful. Get your own elected representative to do teh talking for you.

If you live in his constituency (Airdrie and Shotts.), you can try Here [theyworkforyou.com].

Otherwise, find your MP on theyworkforyou.com, and write to them, explaining why you think it was the wrong decision, how it affects you, enlighten them on some of the technical issues if necessary, and request that they ask a question of John Reid or Blair in Parliament.

Writing direct to someone else's MP (even if they are the Home Secretary) is rarely succesful. Get your own elected representative to do teh talking for you.

The BBC has a cool website that encourages action that sounds a little like this the action network that used to be called iCan. I also like they work for you, a great resource for holding your MP to account. Pledgebank gets to the root of empowerment - getting people to amplify their efforts by working together.

I have to say though, just from the Mission Statement, this "Wikia" really doesn't sound like anything new at all. Diverse people have been talking about politics on the internet since before there was an internet! Of course, just because it's not anything new, doesn't mean it might not be useful or be the first to make a big impact. Still any resource that helps hold politicians to account and encourages participation is important in modern democracies. Good luck to him I say, even if I am a little cynical about the ideas value.

Well, here in the uk we have a website called: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ which allows you to track everything your member of parliment says, havent been subscribed for long, but I have to say it is a nice change from the mass media rhetoric.

is better, some examples both for UK.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/

And it must always be noted that, in the end, the (elected) house of Commons can force a bill through Parliament (using the Parliament Act) regardless of what the Lords think.

Yes, sorry, you're right. I was thinking of course of the Salisbury Convention.

The House of Lords should remain, and should continue to be permitted Parliamentary scrutiny precisely because they act as checks-and-balances, because they are less susceptible to lobbying and the whips, aren't out to win cheap votes/laughs, and actually take the time to consider the ramifications of any bill, which most MPs don't have the time to do (as they have other constituency duties, which often require a lot of travelling).

If you're being generous... Frankly, I think it really is a case of lobby fodder in the Commons - principled objections are so rare as to be newsworthy. And if you live in the constituency of a member of the current ruling party, well, look at your MP's record. Mine has rebelled in less than 1% of divisions since 1997.

A case in point is the Identity Cards Bill
Lords warn over ID cards scheme

To summarise the exchange:

* Commons originally set out a bill that makes ID cards mandatory (and that you have to pay for)
* Lords comes back with amendment making ID cards voluntary
* Commons counter with, yes they are voluntary, unless you want a passport...

Which is hardly voluntary, particularly if your job requires you to travel (mine does - where's my opt-out..?). And the manifesto commitment was to a voluntary scheme. If HMG believes it's so good and has such support in the country, why don't they allow people to choose it..?

It's worth noting that the ID card as proposed

* will set you back £93 (over US$150) if you want a 10-year passport

...if you believe the Home Office figures, which no-one not affiliated to HMG does. £300 is the current estimate. Oh, and that's just set-up costs, and doesn't count actually installing readers in every doctor's surgery, every hospital, every school, every local and central government office, every bank, every Post Office, every police car, every sensitive building, every employer and so on, which it'll need to achieve its stated benefits (which are also a pile of donkey droppings, but that's another discussion).

Costs for this (per the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment (Annex A, page 42) which uses the same setup):

Reader: £3000-£5000 (each reader)
PC for reader: £1000 (each reader)
plus £21,000 for cabling at each location (derived from a estimate of £1 million for 47 airports and ports).

* Has your
o biometric data (incl. fingerprints and photo),
o a full record of all your addresses, ever,
o is linked to your NI number (think social security number),
o has your immigration details, work permit details, visa details, etc.
o is linked to both your passport number and driving licence number
* The data will all be stored on a central database

...which per the Bill (Clause 4(i)), may also contain:

the numbe

If you're in the UK, you might want to visit some of the weblogs written by our Members of Parliament.

• Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, blogging since March 2003 (even entitling it 'First Post'!).
• Richard Allan, formerly Liberal Democrat MP for Sheffield Hallam.
• Boris Johnson, Conservative MP for Henley-on-Thames. Article on his views on blogging.
• Clive Soley, formerly Labour MP for Hammersmith, Ealing Acton and Shepherds Bush, and now a member of the House of Lords. Why MPs Should Get Blogging.

Other important resources are TheyWorkForYou.com, which is a "Web 2.0" (ugh) way of keeping track of what your MP is doing and what's happening in the Houses of Parliament; and WriteToThem.com, which takes the hassle out of writing to your MP - they print it out and post it for you.

Of course, if that's not enough for you, you can switch on Celebrity Big Brother, where George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow has been residing for the past few weeks. As predicted by Tom Watson in 2004.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tim_boswell/daven try

Some how I suspect this doesn't bode well.. :/

Back in February, when few had a clue that our totalitarian Government was plotting the creation of a database on citizens 20x more intrusive than anything else on the planet, Richard was busy trying to explain it to any MP who would listen.

He was also one of the few who understood the 'Nazi Enablement Act' which granted our Government unlimited power under the law.

And he questioned the Government on who DID actually seize Indymedia servers.

Back in February, when few had a clue that our totalitarian Government was plotting the creation of a database on citizens 20x more intrusive than anything else on the planet, Richard was busy trying to explain it to any MP who would listen.

He was also one of the few who understood the 'Nazi Enablement Act' which granted our Government unlimited power under the law.

And he questioned the Government on who DID actually seize Indymedia servers.

Back in February, when few had a clue that our totalitarian Government was plotting the creation of a database on citizens 20x more intrusive than anything else on the planet, Richard was busy trying to explain it to any MP who would listen.

He was also one of the few who understood the 'Nazi Enablement Act' which granted our Government unlimited power under the law.

And he questioned the Government on who DID actually seize Indymedia servers.

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

I hope it works because our MP's aren't looking out for our rights. My own MP http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tom_levitt/high_p eak Tom Tevitt, always votes the party line never rebels or sponsors a bill and costs us >£100000 a year in expenses (not including salary).

If you read some of the rest of the debate --- surprisingly good stuff, provided you skim it and don't get bogged down in the interminable speeches --- you'll realise that the statement was in the context of a debate on the Racial And Religious Hatred Bill, now undergoing reading for the second time. I'm not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman saw fit to follow it up with a rather long lecture on Cumbrian history, that was only brought short by his running out of time and the Speaker cutting him off...

Here is Jamie Reed's MP page on My Society's excellent TheyWorkForYou project.

And here is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.

Here is Jamie Reed's MP page on My Society's excellent TheyWorkForYou project.

And here is the screen scraped debate, that you can comment on like a blog.

Have a look and see how important your vote is on May 5th. The vast majority of those who don't wish to vote for the incumbent might as well burn their polling cards right now.

http://www.doyoucount.co.uk/

Ehm, Proportional Representation anyone?

Oh, while we're on the subject of representation, does your MP represent you or do they really represent the leader?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

This is really quite an eye-opening survey of the broad and already-demonstrated applicability of "open source" principles beyond the domain of software. There's something very stirring and promising about the potential of things like Ohmynews , PledgeBank and TheyWorkForYou. This is about us and what *we* can do.

Here is fax your mp = get a question asked about this in Parliament = it will destroy the British software Industry.
http://www.faxyourmp.com/
And Contact details for your MP's phone and address.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
C'mon lets /. for democracy and all our coding futures.

The Register covers this in more detail, stating that parliamentary questions have been tabled asking "what recent discussions [The Home Secretary] has had with US law enforcement agencies concerning the seizure of material from UK-based internet hosting providers; and if he will make a statement."

I'd expect we'll see his evasion^h^h^h^h^h^h^hanswer appearing on the excellent theyworkforyou.com

They Work For You indexes, collates and cross-references it all. You can do keyword searches across all speeches and debates. It will let you do such things as look up your MP by postcode, find their speeches, see their track record (my MP rebels against her party fairly frequently, for example), and comment. You can attach comments practically anywhere. They provide a public forum where you can discuss what your government says, as they say it.

It's cross-referenced to all kinds of other political resources on the 'net; it has RSS feeds for just about everything --- it is deeply, deeply cool, and a genuinely important resource to anyone interested in UK politics. Oh, yeah, and it's all open source, of course.

You could do far, far worse to adopt something similar.

They Work For You indexes, collates and cross-references it all. You can do keyword searches across all speeches and debates. It will let you do such things as look up your MP by postcode, find their speeches, see their track record (my MP rebels against her party fairly frequently, for example), and comment. You can attach comments practically anywhere. They provide a public forum where you can discuss what your government says, as they say it.

It's cross-referenced to all kinds of other political resources on the 'net; it has RSS feeds for just about everything --- it is deeply, deeply cool, and a genuinely important resource to anyone interested in UK politics. Oh, yeah, and it's all open source, of course.

You could do far, far worse to adopt something similar.

"That 45% includes a lots of people who support him because the alternative is worse"

Nope, they were polls in support of Tony Blair's actions, not the best candidate for the big chair. Kinda a completely different question.

"the ultra-creepy ultra-authoritarian Tory leader Michael Howard"

The father of the community charge. As for 'ultra-authoritarian', they have a tendency to not be as controlling as Labour, although this seems contrary to common sense. However, I'll vote for him the day Mandelson dons a pretty frock and sings Gilbert & Sullivan.

"who has opposed the few mild liberalisations"

Who has opposed everything because he's confusing 'vocal and loud' with 'dynamic and commanding'. It's political gainsaying that doesn't do him any favours, but as you said, you have a bad choice and a worse choice.

"Realistically the choice is between him and Tony Blair at the next election."

Now you're depressing me. You mean to suggest that we should be voting for the frontman rather than your local MP and his record? That's a fairly whack way of exercising a democratic right, as neither Tony or Mike will be representing you as anything other than the leader of their parties, and that _can_ change based upon the cluster of people behind them...

Nip over to http://www.theyworkforyou.com and research your MP...engage with him over the things you don't like rather than wait four years.

Part of the bloody problem with throwing out the conservatives last time was that people voted to get them out rather than seeing how ill-prepared the labour party was to govern after the death of John Smith; for weeks after the election Labour ministers could be seen looking like bunnies caught in headlights.