Ben Bradshaw’s Transparency Smokescreen: Political Bollocks of the Day
[Update 26/5/2009: there's been quite a bit of debate on this post, so I've dug a bit more into exactly what Ben Bradshaw said, and he did refer to both "reform" and "transparency", so I think my question about other Bills stands. I'll be posting an audio file of the comment, and also a transcript].
Ben Bradsahw MP made a number of unusual statements on Question Time on Thursday this week, including the rather wonderful:
Ben Bradshaw on Question Time, ‘I always vote for reform, check theyworkforyou. It says “Voted moderately for a transparent Parliament”
This is rather wonderful if true, and indeed you can check out the link here:
Unfortunately for Ben Bradshaw, this is no longer the age of “make a summary statement and move on in the hope that everyone will accept it and move on with you”. The nice people at They Work for You let us drill down to check the veracity of political statements.
So if we click through, what wonderful “always voted for reform” voting record do we find.
Did Ben Bradshaw “always vote for reform”? To be blunt – no. Here’s the detail (click on the image for a bigger version):
Even for Government Ministers busking it on Television:
“Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Yes – Yes – Yes”,
does not equal
“I always vote for reform”
This is what is known as “Slightly Desperate Bandwagon Jumping”.
Categories: All WW, Comment, House Rules for Parliament, Internet / Technical, Knockabout, Media, News - Current Affairs, Parliaments, Politics
Only the last three (in which he voted) are actually about voting for reform, though. The others (which are actually all votes on a single private member’s bill) were an attempt to exempt MPs from FOI. If he had been there and voted against the bill, that wouldn’t be ‘voting for reform’. So “Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Absent – Yes – Yes – Yes” does equal “I always vote for reform”, if only the last three votes were on reforms to be voted for.
Hmmmmm. I still disagree. Reform and transparency in this area are intimately linked.
The PM bill was specifically designed to prevent reform by excluding MPs from the FoI Act (as you say).
In my book, a statement such as “always vote for reform” suggests constant support – which is not what happened.
It’s Bank Holiday, so I’ve got a little time to dig back further.
If I can find evidence of constant support from Mt B for reform, I’ll certainly update, but I don’t think that is the case.
Matt Wardman´s last blog post..Ben Bradshaw’s Transparency Smokescreen: Political Bollocks of the Day
Obviously what he meant to say was ‘when I can be bothered to vote at all then it’s in favour of reform’. Must have slipped his mind, all those times when he *could* have voted for reform but failed to get his arse into the chamber.
But he *couldn’t* have ‘voted for reform’ at those times – just voted against a bad reform.
I posted this as a comment on May 21st and strangely it’s still awaiting moderation:
According to they work for you, your voting record appears to indicate that you have only once voted for a transparent parliament before this row erupted – http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1580&dmp=996 and there appear to be no speeches indicating your support for the foi. Maybe it would have helped if http://www.theyworkforyou.com/freeourbills/ was in place?
@simon
Simon
I’ve no idea where a previous identical comment went on May 21st, as there’s no trace in any of the comment boxes – it hasn’t even been spammed by mistake.
Which post was it on?
This one went up on May 25th so it can’t have been here.
Rgds
Matt
So what you’re saying is he has never voted against reform.
@Kermit
No – according to those Public Whip lists (and see below about how far they go…), whenever a *positive* reform has been on the table, he’s voted for it. What he didn’t do is actively oppose David Maclean’s bad Private Member’s bill to exempt MPs from FOI – although in that he’s joined by the vast majority on all sides of the House.
The top vote marked as a particularly important one for Public Whip (Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Keep disclosure for MPs’ expenses) only had 46 MPs voting, including only three Lib Dems. I don’t think any of those votes had more than about 140 MPs there. I have no doubt that the vast majority of the Lib Dems would have opposed the Bill – Jo Swinson, who has campaigned for transparency a lot, wasn’t there for the April 20 proceedings. It’s not that they didn’t care, it’s just that Private Member’s Bills are taken on Fridays, when most MPs (especially ones living far from London) go back to their constituencies to hold surgeries and the like.
I *think*, as well, that each government department keeps one Minister back in London on sitting Fridays when Private Member’s Bills are discussed, while the rest get to go back to their constituencies (though I’m far from certain about this – it’s based largely on a remark from a Minister’s twitter feed). If so, it looks like Andy Burnham and Ivan Lewis were the relevant duty ministers for the DoH those days. Unfortunately both voted for the bill.
I’ve no idea if Ben Bradshaw would have voted against the Bill had he been there. It doesn’t seem 100% likely – few Labour members did vote against it. But what he said is true. He’s voted for positive reform every time that has been an option, according to that Public Whip list.
Of course, it’s important to remember that while TWFY and the Public Whip are massively useful, relying on those particular policies that they choose to feature on the TWFY front page gives a very incomplete picture. Look in more detail into Ben Bradshaw’s record and it’s fairly mixed on parliamentary reform and transparency issues – he voted against abolishing the John Lewis list, for example, but also against allowing candidates for parliament to keep their addresses secret, and voted for a 100% elected House of Lords.
I will be returning here later on. Promise. But at the moment I’m grappling with the Independent, Alexa and BNP traffic statistics.
@Matt
Sorry Matt – I meant I had posted on his blog not yours
Still waiting on my comment being approved on his blog
S
Could he have been paired for those votes where he was absent? I don’t think theyworkforyou knows about pairing arrangements: there’s no formal record of them that the site can draw on.
Doubt it – I don’t think the pairing system operates on Private Member’s Bills. They weren’t whipped along party lines (all ministers who were there voted for it, but several PPSes voted against).
@Simon
I hadn’t noticed that BB had a blog; I did a recent cross-check of all those in the Total Politics directory for another post which I haven’t published yet. That is the nearest we have to a complete list and it’s not in there either.
One thing I can tell you before a more detailed reply is that putting “Political Bollocks of the Day” next to a Minister Name gets a lot of Retweets
and your position examined.
[Update: and, even though he's only up to about 20 posts and three months, it is a real blog with a couple of replies from himself. Score one for BB even if I think he's behind a smokescreen to a degree.
Here btw: The Ben Bradshaw Blog.]
M.
@gareth
>Could he have been paired for those votes where he was absent? I don’t think theyworkforyou knows about pairing arrangements: there’s no formal record of them that the site can draw on.
@tom
>I don’t think the pairing system operates on Private Member’s Bills. They weren’t whipped along party lines (all ministers who were there voted for it, but several PPSes voted against).
I don’t think pairing operates at all now, according to a posting from the MySociety list:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/pipermail/developers-public/2008-September/002853.html
1996 report in the Indy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/whips-tricks-kill-the-houses-trusty-system-1315628.html
Although Lab just appointed a new pairing whip:
http://www.tonycunningham.org.uk/newsitem.aspx?action=view&id=189
Hattip to Matthew Somerville for the links.
http://www.dracos.co.uk/
I’m told that this is getting picked up by Channel 4 Fact Check, after I made the suggestion.
I think that this might settle the debate
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+bradshaw+on+expenses+/3169357
C4FactCheck say that his claims largely check out.
“The verdict
Bradshaw hasn’t been a thorn in the Commons’ side on the issue in the way that, say, campaigning Lib Dem MP Norman Baker has. But he has supported parliamentary reform.
Although he missed some (sparsely attended) votes on a private members’ bill to exempt parliament from Freedom of Information legislation, Bradshaw has voted on other occasions to tighten up the system of MPs’ expenses.”
I hope this is helpful.
The Polemical Report´s last blog post..A few links & a video
I asked them to look, but I don’t competely agree – I give him 2 and a half. Further post in the works.
I think the problem is that there are seven votes listed on the Public Whip policy for this – two of them marked as important – which all effectively relate to a single item, the Private Member’s Bill hiding expenses. So the multiple absences look worse than they really are. Compared to Norman Baker’s equivalent (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1680&dmp=996), his card looks poor. But there are basically four items on that public whip policy – the FoI block on expenses, external audits and no more furniture, full registration of financial interests, and an end to receipt-less expenses. BB voted on three of these and was absent for one; NB voted on two and was absent (or abstained) on two.
I’m not saying Bradshaw is more of a reformer than Baker; I don’t think he is. But the way the Public Whip scores work means things which go through lots of votes on subsidiary issues are given more weight than things which go through in a single vote.
@tom
Broadly agree there. There are also complications such as Ministers not signing EDMs (is that another reform issue between Govt and Parliament?).
Interesting debate.
@polemicalreport
Yes – that’s all helpful. The more comment, the merrier.
Thanks.
[...] Matt Wardman on Ben Bradshaw http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks... [...]