Skip to main content

Parliamentary Procedure and reruns of the 1992 General Election

There are odd bits about the workings of parliament that are not generally known. For example it took me a year to get broadband internet access that allows me to down load emails from my email servers (which are outside the network), but I had a pink ribbon for my sword immediately.

Another issue is the differential treatment between members of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords. Those peers who have been MPs can buy tea in the MPs tea room. Similarly they can have dinner with MPs in the Members Dining room. However whereas MPs are allowed credit accounts Peers have to pay cash on the nail. An enterprising Peer investigated this and found that the House Authorities had too many bad debts from Peers who built up meal debts and then passed on. It is, therefore, the differential mortality between MPs and Peers that has resulted in MPs being allowed to maintain an account and Peers not.

It is quite useful to have some Peers involved in the discussions. Clearly the issue of House of Lords reform is an issue that warrants discussion. Having a fully elected House of Lords could see some people who were previously MPs restanding for election. Could we, for example, see an election in which the General Election leaders of 1992 Neil Kinnock, Margaret Thatcher and Paddy Ashdown are all candidates?


Unlike for serving MPs, the mortality rate for most classes of serving peers is 100%.

Given the present rate of progress with reform, this could remain true for all current members.

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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…