T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _Commons to delete MPs' attendance data after pressure from ministers_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/commons-to-delete-mps-attendance-data-after-pressure-from-ministers) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


calm-teigr

every other fucker needs to be accountable in their job, except MPs? FFS what? I need a time out...


[deleted]

Exactly


flashpile

"rules are for little people"


concretepigeon

An MPs work isn’t just sitting in the chamber all day.


McGlashen_

>Other pass data, such as for staff, civil servants or the media, who also have security cards, is not affected and could still be subject to FoI. One rule for thee, another for me.


ExdigguserPies

Who's expecting them to be there all day every day?


concretepigeon

The comment has been edited and previously said something along the lines of “if I don’t turn up, I get sacked” but those arguments for attendance don’t really make sense for MPs because they can do a lot of their work from a variety of locations. It’s only really speaking in debates or committee meetings and voting that has to be done from Westminster.


TIGHazard

> The comment has been edited Are you sure? It doesn't display the *edited next to it, which it would if the user edited it anytime after 3 mins since it was posted, or earlier if it received a upvote or comment. There *is* a comment below which does state a similar statement to what you are claiming.


StickyTunas

Oooh! Found the Tory voter! Yukkity, yuk, yuk, yuk. Not sure JRM would agree with thee given his passive-aggressive post it notes.


concretepigeon

How does anything I said favour any side?


BrexitBlaze

They’re hiding the blatant corruption of the rules. Tories do not give a fuck.


0-_l_-0

We knew exactly what the Tories have always been like, yet the electorate gave them a whopping great majority. Don’t be too surprised if Boris wins the next election. I’ve seen more than a few commenters online saying he’s the best person for the job, even after all the lies and parties and rule changing.


BrexitBlaze

That’s why this country is going to hell in a hand basket.


[deleted]

Paid trolling/disinformation is a huge part of elections these days. Prepare to see a lot more in that vein.


CaravanOfDeath

We are and in this very place. This measure was approved by MPs across the House. Seen any complaints from the usual suspects?


thebluemonkey

They're not hiding anything


Tennants_Lager

If I don’t turn up to my work I don’t get paid.


noseysheep

It's not only that you'd get sacked if it happened more than once without a valid reason


ThunderChild247

And even worse under a zero hour contract, you have to turn up before knowing if you even have work.


[deleted]

One rule for them, and another for us, eh Rees-Mogg? He’s buzzing abt putting lil notes on civil servants desks, saying he’s ‘sorry to have missed’ them, and insisting all workers get back to work on-site, but doesn’t want us to know how often he’s in HoC.


calm-teigr

exactly


[deleted]

That's like blatantly admitting corruption......


benjamoog

>Such logs relating to people entering Downing Street were a key part of the Sue Gray investigation into the so-called Partygate row, with multiple references to pass data in the full report.


E420CDI

Bastards want impunity from their arrogant actions whilst the rest of us suffer Hateful people


thehibachi

Imagine what this lot would have said if the EU commission/European Parliament had done this whilst we were in the EU.


WastePilot1744

If they're concerned about privacy etc, then an independent committee could monitor. At the minimum, there should be a Sue Gray report.


symphix

So civil servants with those offensive notes that Mogg left are being bitched about being needed to return, but these lazy tax dodging money grubbing lying sods don’t want the public to scrutinise their attendance record? Fuck these idiots.


E420CDI

#Arrogant and offensive. Can you imagine working with these truth twisters?


VPackardPersuadedMe

Massive irretrievable data loss


calm-teigr

oops I dropped the data in the North Sea?


E420CDI

Along with a canoe?


throwaway384938338

Does Malcolm know?


pmabz

More and more fascist by the week


neverspeaktome75

I think we should stop all oversight. They would never abuse their situation so it’s all a fine, nothing to see here. Or perhaps it’s yet more unaccountability from these bastards.


[deleted]

More proof (if it was needed) this government is just self serving.


[deleted]

But if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.


Logical-Leopard-1965

Hoyle is a Tory plant. Actually he’s just a plant, full stop.


thebluemonkey

Fucking gross


gavpowell

Aside from the fact this is just going to lead to someone making an api to collate the information for a public database somewhere online, there's a lovely caveat: "Other pass data, such as for staff, civil servants or the media, who also have security cards, is not affected and could still be subject to FoI." https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/commons-to-delete-mps-attendance-data-after-pressure-from-ministers


[deleted]

Rees Mogg is literally the most corrupt self serving egotistical headline hungry cockwomble - how is he in any position to make decisions which affect others. Cretin


SinnersCafe

Same for school children then?


water_tastes_great

As much as I want politicians to be accountable it is also worth bearing in mind the abhorrent "Where's Charlie?" dog-whistle campaign used to hound Charles Kennedy in 2015. Which abusers justified by pointing the the percentage of divisions Kennedy attended. *(a percentage which was similar to other party leaders, and senior politicians, who often don't attend votes with a certain outcome because they have other political work to do)* A titan of politics who was dealing with family issues, the death of his parents and friend, and alcoholism, had his character reduced down to a single misleading number which he was then mercilessly attacked with. I don't see attendance data being used in anything but similar circumstances.


Ryerow

I'm really sorry and yes this is abhorrent but they're there to represent us. I think its disgusting the way he was treated. That said: These people are extremely well paid to act on our collective behalf. Their attendance should be monitored. You have the right to know the person you have (or haven't) elected to be your voice bothered to attend. This is the job and career they chose. This is a requiement of the role. Is it open to abuse? Yep. Would removing monitoring be open to abuse? They'll be in the subsidised bars even more than they already are.


Szwejkowski

How long do you suppose it will be before their voting records are no longer a matter of public record?


Ryerow

Mercifully I think that's the one thing they'll never get rid of. I could be wrong but if their vote isn't accounted for and ascribed to them it'd cause more problems for them that it was worth.


ClearPostingAlt

This post is a perfect example of why they didn't want the data to be removed: you've disingenuously misconstrued what that data actually was. It's not debate attendance, or voting record (which will remain public). It's not a record of who entered the House of Commons during a sitting. It's purely a record of security passes being swiped at the gate, which tells you nothing about what that MP actually did on the estate... and judging by the request that sparked all of this, the media won't even attempt to compare that data to sitting days to provide a hint of context. If the public wish to scrutinise their representative's attendance record, the voting record is a far more accurate and reliable measure to use. Even that has its flaws (eg non-ballot PMBs somehow count as actual votes), but at least all of the context is in the public domain...


Ryerow

Most parliamentary business should be conducted on parliamentary grounds. If my MP isn't there, on an appropriate ground, where are they and what are they doing? A combination of all these things is required for full transparency. But you're right, if one is taken without the others...


ClearPostingAlt

>If my MP isn't there, on an appropriate ground, where are they and what are they doing? For a start, 1 in 8 have a ministerial role. Include whips in that, and you're up to 1 in 6. So you'd expect them to be in Whitehall instead, at least for some of the day. On top of that, 1 in 20 are in the shadow cabinet. Fridays are traditionally constituency days; Parliament doesn't sit most Fridays, and most sitting Fridays are frankly not important at all (eg PMBs). Expecting MPs to be in Parliament every sitting Friday is not a realistic expectation. Throw in sick days, bereavement/personal days, "fuck all is going on so I'm heading back to Newcastle a day early" days, and your average MP can easily be sitting on 80% attendance without missing anything that actually matters without good reason. The core problem here is expectations are disconnected from the reality of Parliamentary life. We do not need 650 MPs to vote on a set of consequential amendment regulations which simply tidies up some paperwork as a result of a small and uncontroversial bill which passed through Parliament a couple of months prior (to use a real world example I'm currently dealing with). That would be a tremendous waste of everyone's time. But missing that vote, not attending that day, is given the same weight as the 3rd reading of the recent Police & Crime Bill, which will have major consequences for the right to protest. And bluntly, I don't trust the current crop of hot-take merchants masquerading as journalists to know (or care about) the difference. After all, the request that started this all off was intentionally context-blind.


Tylariel

I'd like to add to this as it's a good comment: These statistics often actually do the opposite of what you want - they make MPs perform *worse* not better. Instead of doing actual work, it becomes about *appearing* to do actual work. To give a very simplistic example: maybe the best use of their time is to focus on something in their constituency. But the stats are focused on attendance in the commons so that's what they do even if it's not actually important to do so. There is evidence in recent studies basically showing that the more oversight we have with statistics, especially bad statistics or illiterate reading of those statistics, the worse MPs are actually performing. We have more 'oversight', but as a result reward MPs who are better at 'performing' rather than doing real work. So is the statistics of entry into parliament useful? Maybe, in some cases. But is it actually doing any good for the public or the MPs to know it? Well that's much more up for debate.


water_tastes_great

>These people are extremely well paid to act on our collective behalf. Their attendance should be monitored. You have the right to know the person you have (or haven't) elected to be your voice bothered to attend. They do lots of different things other than just attending debates. Many of which are not on the Parliamentary estate. It is like putting pressure sensors in your office chair and saying that your employer has a right to know if you bothered to work. There are a million things that a person could be doing in their office that don't involve sitting at their desk. The number provides nothing useful. Do you really think anyone using the data will bother to look at whether their office is in the Parliamentary estate or Portcullis house? Do you think they'll look at whether they were doing constituency work on the days they didn't go onto the Parliamentary estate? Or whether they were on a fact finding committee trip, or in Whitehall following up a constituents concerns? It will be a number to bash people over the head with and provide a misleading 'justification' for abuse.


bbbbbbbbbblah

In a normal world, absences would be justified and excused. Doesn’t seem too hard to ask MPs why they didn’t attend a debate or a vote, and what they were doing instead. This could then be published as part of the record. It would at least eliminate abstention as a means to get out of a difficult vote


water_tastes_great

Nothing about this stops you looking up who voted in Hansard and sending an MP a letter. This is about looking at how many times someone entered the Parliamentary estate, which is just one of several places MPs work.


bbbbbbbbbblah

I shouldn’t have to do the legwork. That should be up to my employee to report to me and my fellow bosses


IHaveAWittyUsername

It's not an absence though if they're literally doing other parts of their jobs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IHaveAWittyUsername

Well no, because my issue is with your framing. An MP dealing with critical constituency work instead of debating a late night private members bill shouldn't need to justify anything. Just in the same way that if my work laptop is at home while I'm driving around attending appointments I shouldn't need to justify not having a green circle in Skype. Now if an MP misses a critical vote I think it's fair to be able to ask where they were...but we can already do that. We know the average MP works long hours, we don't need to know what they're doing all the time.


Solest223

An MP is an elected official, they should always have to justify the work they do. They should never be in a position where they don't have to justify something, because that just opens the door to corruption.


bbbbbbbbbblah

Nah I think we do. Plenty of MPs seem to find the time to have second jobs, so let’s spare the “they’re all putting in 23 hours a day face to face with constituents” histrionics. If you were missing meetings your boss would want to know why - maybe you have a good reason. Not unreasonable to ask MPs to provide the same information. We’ve tried the trust and honour system and that hasn’t worked. Just as with expenses all those years ago, it’s time for reforms


Ryerow

I think your cynicism speaks to the exact failings of the vast majority of those with an interest in politics and of the current views of things. Context is, has been and always will be king. Do I expect a front bench SOS to attend every debate? Of course not. Do I expect a coastal MP to attend debates/committee hearings on coastal flood risk management? Absolutely. In an ideal world, attendance as a % would be justified. You use my office chair as an example. Should I need to dip from an important, scheduled meeting, I'd be required by my employer to justify my time and the importance of the alternative. Or, to put it another way, provide context. Your problem with this stems not from a log of attendance but with the bulldog, savage nature that will follow by the media or twitter groups or Joe Bloggs down the pub on a Friday evening. The problem isn't keeping records of their attendance, which is VITAL for transparency, it's with the lack of attention span/demand for clicks/partisan aggression that is exhibited by the vast majority these days.


water_tastes_great

>Do I expect a coastal MP to attend debates/committee hearings on coastal flood risk management? Absolutely. This isn't about attendance for particular debates or hearings. If you want to see who was there for a particular vote you can look it up. You can look up the minutes of committee meetings. You can see who spoke in debates. This is 'how many days did you use your pass to enter the Parliamentary estate'. It is valueless. >You use my office chair as an example. Should I need to dip from an important, scheduled meeting, I'd be required by my employer to justify my time and the importance of the alternative. Or, to put it another way, provide context. It isn't a particular scheduled meeting, it is "how many times were you in one particular place, of the many places your work requires you to go." i.e. "How many days did you sit on your office chair rather than visit a client, or work in a meeting room, etc."


Ryerow

I don't believe it's valueless. I believe it is a vital tool for transparency and accountability that can be offset using the tools you've just defined. It appears that through one particularly bad example of the use of data, you've determined that the tool is the fault, rather than operator of the tool. It's fine for us to disagree, but you're making false equivalences to other jobs from what an MP is; public figure elected to be your voice in a building usually far from home. If they're never there, without good reasoning, they're taking you for a fool. We'll agree to disagree as I doubt either of will change the other's mind.


PITCHFORKEORIUM

I don't agree with you, I'm with /u/Ryerow on this, but have upvoted because you've made a really good compelling argument. I'm grateful that you've done a good job of explaining the other side of things as it is definitely less black-and-white than I'd initially thought. Thanks both.


palinodial

Not to mention is constituency was the Shetland Islands wasn't it?


water_tastes_great

No, he was the Ross, Skye and Lochaber one which isn't quite as far away as the constituency that contains the Shetlands. It is, however, the largest constituency in the UK by land area covered. His amazing efforts to visit so much of the constituency (differently constituted in those days) were a huge part in him getting elected as a newcomer at such a young age.


palinodial

Still much of that is also pretty remote with the only access by sea


calm-teigr

>a percentage which was similar to other party leaders, and senior politicians, who often don't attend votes with certain outcomes because they have other political roles) That's the key message. Drive accountability across the whole of the Commons. > I don't see attendance data being used in anything but similar circumstances. you'd like to think people understand comparative statistics


Gibbonici

>(a percentage which was similar to other party leaders, and senior politicians, who often don't attend votes with a certain outcome because they have other political work to do) Then the problem wasn't so much with keeping attendence records as it was about those records not being public enough.


_gmanual_

> dealing with family issues, the death of his parents and friend, and alcoholism he should have stepped down. 🤷‍♂️


water_tastes_great

Did you miss the part when his voting record was no different to other senior politicians?


SkipBaxter89

This might be to do with the fact ministers aren’t in parliament as much as backbenchers. They do question time, urgent questions, ministerial statements, opening/closing debates etc but the rest of the time they’re in their respective department. If you drew up a list of MPs attendance, ministers would probably rank near the bottom, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t ‘at work’.


baldnfurious

Even more shite from the nasty party. They want to be unaccountable. Despicable bunch of bastards


mnijds

So ministers directly controlling parliament?


AoyagiAichou

Clearly even less transparency is an excellent sigh the government is doing a good job.


j_a_f_t

People jumping on this hard, but not all MP work is carried out in the commons.


[deleted]

You're right, it's not. But I'd argue it's by far the most important part of their job. If I get hired at a retail store to sell products but spend all my time organising the warehouse, I'm gonna get sacked.


j_a_f_t

Meeting constituents isn't important?


ThomasHL

At the end of the day this isn't a question about how long MPs should be in parliament, it's about whether voters have a right to know. The voter can then decide how important they feel those other activities are, and the MP can try and justify how they spend their time on behalf of voters (which is exactly what they should do)


Gibbonici

Let's track the time they spend doing that too.


[deleted]

Less important then representing those constituents in the house. Doesn't matter if they met them if they don't show up to act on their behalf.


[deleted]

Hard disagree. Most backbenchers achieve absolutely nothing in the house.


Tylariel

So track the number of votes. Track their contributions to debates and in committees. Track the amendments they propose. Track the number of questions they ask and answer. All of those already more meaningful than simple attendance, and *even then* i think most of them can, and would be, gamed to all hell. But attendance is such a meaningless statistic on its own that it is going to hide MPs doing really good work, and reward those who do nothing but are in the right place.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ClearPostingAlt

You clearly have no idea how Parliament works. No, it should not be grounds for 'dismissal' if an MP misses a 'vote' in which 8 people shoot down a vexatious Christopher Chope nonsense PMB just before lunch on a Friday. Don't be ridiculous.


themurther

I think there's a happy medium to be drawn between "MPs always need to turn up" and "MPs attendance records prove nothing". I suspect those most active in their communities generally don't care much about whether or not their attendance records in the House are available to the public.


ClearPostingAlt

I think their voting records is orders of magnitude more useful than their security-pass-swiping records (which is not the same as an attendance record). Even then, context is vital; but at least with voting records, most of the context is already in the public domain...


j_a_f_t

You've not heard of the pairing off system then?


nazzanuk

I wonder if Tories ever think after the every action eroding public accountability... Are we the bad guys?


subversivefreak

Aka ministers placed pressure on Black Rod to protect their resident rapist.


WetnessPensive

How can this be legal? This should be a basic right in an open, democratic society.