Skip to main content

The Sinn Fein Votes

There were two votes yesterday on a Free Vote. As they were on a Free Vote I feel I should explain my logic for voting as I did.

A report from the Independent Monitoring Commission initially called for a suspension of the members allowances for the MPs that don't take their seats in the house of commons. (Sinn Fein). This same group concluded recently that matters had changed and hence the allowances should be restored. These allowances are mainly used to support constituents.

Additionally the government proposed that SF be given a sum of money equivalent to the "Short Money" that is used to fund parties' research into policy matters on legislation. Given that SF do not attend the House they do not get involved in these matters in the same way. Hence this equates moreso to a bung than a source of finance to support their work on legislation.

Motion 3 was to provide the Short Money equivalent - I voted against.
Motion 4 was to reinstate the constituency allowance - I vote for.

Both motions were passed with Tony Blair voting for both motions.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
Good for TB. Just because Sinn Fein do not attend the House of Commons it does not mean that their elected representatives do not have to be aware of the consequences of legislation on their constituents. Let's face it john, you will never in a blue moon have the opportunity to introduce legislation in any meaningful sense, the same as all of the other backbenchers in the House. That doesn't mean your Party will not want to research and investigate Government legislation to know what impact it will have on constituents. I'm more concerned about the public money you are wasting asking bloody fool questions for self publicity purposes.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…