Skip to main content

Answer the Question

Having found a few spare minutes outside Standing Committee A etc I managed to issue the papers for R v The Prime Minister ex parte Hemming yesterday.

So far the Cabinet Secretary, Prime Minister and Prime Minister's solicitors (Treasury Solicitors) have been unable to give a substantive response to my complaint that Ministers of the Crown don't answer questions. There are now very tight deadlines within which they are forced to provide a substantive response.

Judicial Review has two main stages. The first stage is to get "permission" for JR. This involves the papers being issued, served a response (ackknowledgement of service) from the other side and a desk consideration by the Judge. That can then be taken to a permission hearing if needed.

In this case the Speaker's Counsel is an "interested party" because of the issue relating to the 1688 Bill of Rights. However, the Speaker has the view that the content of questions is not a matter for him.

Comments

TonyF said…
And how much will all this cost the taxpayer John?
john said…
Bad government and tyrannical government costs billions if not more.
TonyF said…
That wasn't the question and you know it! Who is footing the bill for this little game of yours?
TonyF said…
my complaint that Ministers of the Crown don't answer questions.


MPs are fairly good at this as well!
john said…
The costs are unclear. If the government give in straight away then it won't cost them anything.

Judicial Reviews are normally estimated at about 25K although my experience is that the figure is considerably less.
TonyF said…
So knowing how much this is going to cost the taxpayer such as people in your constituency, you're still going for it?
Why don't you just ask him at question time?
john said…
The JR is about questions that have been asked and not answered.

They have been asked verbally and in writing a number of times and still not answered.
TonyF said…
And I've just asked you a question and you have not answered it.

Why (now listen this time) not ask Tony Blair at Prime Ministers questions instead of wasting taxpayers money which the Lib Dems have criticised the Government for doing.
Or are you just trying to make a name for yourself in case of another leadership battle?
john said…
http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2006/05/letter-to-tony-blair.html

The point is that they don't answer.

You can see Blair's response to my question of wednesday as a good example of this.
TonyF said…
A letter. You know full well what I'm talking about re Prime Ministers Questions. How can you have the nerve to attack this Government, albeit a useless bunch, over questions when you yourself won't give a straight answer?
john said…
I get about 1 shot at PMQ every year. Even then the question is not answered.

I can, however, ask a substantial number of written questions. They, however, are not answered properly.

Hence the reason for the JR.

That is exactly the answer to your question.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…