MPs vote to keep their addresses secret

[scifisam]

In the particular case of councillors, they are required by electoral law to live or work in the local authority where they are standing. While this is not the case for parliamentary elections, the purpose of publishing addresses is to allow the electorate to judge how well a candidate may be qualified to represent their local interests (which is the basis of our parliamentary system through its division into geographical constituencies).

Like I said before:

Voters should have the right to know if their prospective MP lives within their constituency, but why would they need to know the MP's precise address?

All they need to be told is where the candidate is registered to vote.

 

[agricola]

All they need to be told is where the candidate is registered to vote.

You miss the point Cybertect is making. The current state of affairs is that we know their address, this information is already published and there has been a lack of incidents whereby MPs or their families have been targetted at these addresses. They should have to demonstrate - and they have singularly failed to do so - why the law should be changed.

As for your point, given that you can be on the electoral roll in two places - as, for example, Jacqui Smith is - just saying they were registered in so-and-so constituency wouldnt work.

 

[DotCommunist]

Just as you and I have the right to not have your name and address published.

how specious is this point? I don'tengage in parliametary decision making an I am noy elected to represent anyone.

 

[bluestreak]

I've just discovered that another major proviso of this bill is the enable the Secretary of State to appoint a judge to hear an inquest in private. Just the coroner and the judge. No jury, no relatives, no media. It would enable the government to sweep state killings under the carpet completely, even more than they already are. Can anyone justify that?

 

[scifisam]

You miss the point Cybertect is making. The current state of affairs is that we know their address, this information is already published and there has been a lack of incidents whereby MPs or their families have been targetted at these addresses. They should have to demonstrate - and they have singularly failed to do so - why the law should be changed.

True, usually the ones asking for a change in law are the ones who have to justify why. But I can't see why not, either.

As for your point, given that you can be on the electoral roll in two places - as, for example, Jacqui Smith is - just saying they were registered in so-and-so constituency wouldnt work.

That is a good point. So you could have 'candidate Lysan-Spin has his main residence in []borough.'

I've just discovered that another major proviso of this bill is the enable the Secretary of State to appoint a judge to hear an inquest in private. Just the coroner and the judge. No jury, no relatives, no media. It would enable the government to sweep state killings under the carpet completely, even more than they already are. Can anyone justify that?

I can't, personally. Nice way to keep that proviso out of the limelight, eh?

 

[MikeMcc]

I can't, personally. Nice way to keep that proviso out of the limelight, eh?

It's been kicking around for a while, the Forces are particularly unhappy about it. It looks like a measure to shut the coroner up when they've been criticising the Govt about issues related to soldiers deaths (lack of body armour, helicopters, ECM gear, blue-on-blue incidents, etc)

 

[Bakunin]

It's been kicking around for a while, the Forces are particularly unhappy about it. It looks like a measure to shut the coroner up when they've been criticising the Govt about issues related to soldiers deaths (lack of body armour, helicopters, ECM gear, blue-on-blue incidents, etc)

Yep.

That, and potentially embarassing cases such as that of Jean Charles De Menezes will be more easily covered up, one suspects. So much for the culture of 'open government' that politicians used to blather on about.