Comments on: Ben Bradshaw’s Transparency Smokescreen: Political Bollocks of the Day http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/ Politics and Life Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:51:50 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Fit notes..? Does that include NL MPs….?! « Harpymarx http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14939 Fit notes..? Does that include NL MPs….?! « Harpymarx Fri, 29 May 2009 14:10:08 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14939 [...] Matt Wardman on Ben Bradshaw http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks... [...]

[...] Matt Wardman on Ben Bradshaw http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks... [...]

]]> By: Matt Wardman http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14900 Matt Wardman Wed, 27 May 2009 12:24:29 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14900 @polemicalreport Yes - that's all helpful. The more comment, the merrier. Thanks. @polemicalreport

Yes – that’s all helpful. The more comment, the merrier.

Thanks.

]]> By: Matt Wardman http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14899 Matt Wardman Wed, 27 May 2009 12:23:47 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14899 @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. @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.

]]> By: Tom http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14897 Tom Wed, 27 May 2009 12:04:20 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14897 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. 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.

]]> By: Matt Wardman http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14896 Matt Wardman Wed, 27 May 2009 11:07:16 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14896 I asked them to look, but I don't competely agree - I give him 2 and a half. Further post in the works. I asked them to look, but I don’t competely agree – I give him 2 and a half. Further post in the works.

]]> By: The Polemical Report http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14889 The Polemical Report Tue, 26 May 2009 21:06:23 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14889 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. <abbr><em>The Polemical Report´s last blog post..<a href="http://thepolemicalreport.blogspot.com/2009/05/few-links-video.html" rel="nofollow">A few links & a video</a></em></abbr> 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

]]> By: Matt Wardman http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14878 Matt Wardman Tue, 26 May 2009 09:57:31 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14878 I'm told that this is getting picked up by Channel 4 Fact Check, after I made the suggestion. I’m told that this is getting picked up by Channel 4 Fact Check, after I made the suggestion.

]]> By: Matt Wardman http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-14871 Matt Wardman Mon, 25 May 2009 22:12:16 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/05/25/ben-bradshaws-transparency-smokescreen-political-bollocks-of-the-day/#comment-14871 @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/ @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/

]]>