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

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 It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date.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…

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…

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: