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

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…