To see this working, head to your live site.

Edited: Oct 09, 2020

Help me go after the MPs that didn't vote!

Hi All,

Following the abysmal voting last week, I have decided to write (by email) to all the cowardly 292 MPs who failed to put in their votes for such an important issue. The letter (attached) includes a link to the "Crimes Against Humanity" video by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich.

I will be signing it with my full name and address but will also need your support in the form of a list of names at the end of the letter (see examples at end of letter) I only need name and constituency. If you prefer to include your full name and address, that's fine. I am counting on getting 50+ names before I send it out sometime tomorrow. Remember, you can always add your partner's or friends and relatives names to give us more numbers. I am sure having this list at the end of the letter will make a difference (hmmmm). If you are comfortable with it, please send your names to tgeorcelin@gmail.com with subject matter 'Covid Act Extension'. I just want to ensure that these MPs cannot later plead ignorance.

Any comments/suggestions welcome.

I have now added a spread sheet with the MP details for those of you who would prefer to send selectively and/or use a modified template.

Best Regards

MickeyG

Template to MP failing to vote

.docx

Download DOCX • 16KB

MPs that did not cast vote in Cov19 Extension

.xls

Download XLS • 69KB

7 comments

7 Comments

MickeyG

Oct 30, 2020

Reply from my MP with comment on the conflict of interest response which I apparently failed to understand.

ALok rcvd 30102020

.jpg

Download JPG • 324KB

MickeyG

Oct 30, 2020

Another reply from an abstainee:

Re: Coronavirus Act (Case Ref: BB74891)

Inbox

Ben Bradshaw <ben.bradshaw.mp@parliament.uk>

5:10 PM (14 minutes ago)

to me

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email regarding the Coronavirus Act.

As I am sure you can appreciate, as you do not live in my constituency, you are not a constituent of mine. However, please find below the response that I have given constituents raising similar concerns.

Presented by the Government with a highly unsatisfactory all-or-nothing decision, you are right to note that the Labour Party did not oppose extension of these emergency measures last week, in the sole interest of keeping the public safe, halting the spread of the virus and protecting our NHS.

The shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, led Labour’s response in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) debate, and I echo his message to the Government that things cannot go on as they are. Announcements about measures have been made overnight, with no proper notice and no proper power of review, and Government Ministers have appeared on national media with absolutely no idea of what the rules are.

As you may be aware, my colleague and Labour’s shadow health secretary, Jonathan Ashworth MP, has repeatedly raised concerns about the two-year sunset clause in the absence of regular reviews and called for parliamentary votes on the renewal or revocation of the Bill (now Act) at regular intervals. As he says, “it is important that various measures in the Bill, some interfering with liberties and others deregulating standards, may be turned on and off.” His full statement, and involvement in the Second Reading can be found here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-03-23/debates/F4D06B4F-56CD-4B60-8306-BAB6D78AC7CF/CoronavirusBill.

Throughout this crisis, the Labour Party has led constructive opposition to this Conservative Government. There has been a catalogue of failings since March and the Labour Party has routinely called for clarity and consistency from Boris Johnson and his Government.

Sir Graham Brady’s tabled amendment to the renewal of the Coronavirus Act would have forced greater parliamentary scrutiny on any restrictions imposed and would require the Government to subject any changes to a debate and vote before it can be enforced. I and my colleagues in the Labour Party would have supported this amendment if it had been selected by the Speaker, and I am deeply disappointed at the compromise the Tory rebels came to with the Government. It is a meaningless non-concession, and these powers for a debate and vote only apply to ‘significant national measures’ and commits only to consult Parliament ‘wherever possible’. If you follow me on Twitter, you may be aware that I made clear my dismay at this outcome at the time:

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1311314545319841792?s=20

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1311318406218555392?s=20

More immediately, it is imperative that the Government sets out a comprehensive roadmap this winter in order to ensure that the strategy of localised lockdowns works more effectively than it has been doing. We are at a critical point in this crisis, and it is crucial that such severe restrictions on people’s liberty are be subjected to immediate parliamentary and democratic scrutiny, not months after they have been first enforced.

I can assure you that I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation remains in place only for as long as necessary, and that any emergency measures are in the public interest.

With very best wishes,

Ben Bradshaw MP

MickeyG

Oct 19, 2020

Just received this from Speaker of the House as he was no the list of non-voters:

Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP <hoylel@parliament.uk>4:40 PM (19 minutes ago) to me

Many thanks for your e-mail regarding the Coronavirus Act 2020. I have received numerous e-mails on this subject combined with e-mails regarding the amendments proposed to the Act. I fully understand people’s concerns over the extraordinary powers currently used by the government in response to the Covid-19 outbreak and the restriction this places on our civil liberties. These measures do not sit comfortably with me and should only be in place for the absolute minimum time necessary. Unfortunately as Speaker of the House of Commons I can not vote on legislation but I firmly believe that such measures should be debated fully and the government should ensure that Parliament is always allowed time to debate and approve such measures. Whilst I was unable to take the amendments proposed ahead of the debate (for the reasons outlined below) I was keen to express my concern about the government’s actions and help bring about a shift in the government’s approach. Regards Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP “I wish to make a statement about this House’s scrutiny of delegated powers during the pandemic, and on the selection of amendments to the motion relating to the Coronavirus Act 2020 later today. The way in which the Government have exercised their powers to make secondary legislation during this crisis has been totally unsatisfactory. All too often, important statutory instruments have been published a matter of hours before they come into force, and some explanations why important measures have come into effect before they can be laid before this House have been unconvincing; this shows a total disregard for the House. The Government must make greater efforts to prepare measures more quickly, so that this House can debate and decide upon the most significant measures at the earliest possible point. The use of made affirmative statutory instruments under the urgency procedure gives rise to particular concern. I will give very sympathetic consideration to applications for urgent questions or emergency debates in such cases, requiring Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to justify the use of such powers. I hope that all hon. Members will have a chance to express their views through substantive amendable motions on scrutiny of delegated powers, or on the operation of the Coronavirus Act 2020, or both. I turn now to the motion to be considered later today, which invites the House to make a narrow, binary choice as to whether the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should or should not expire. Unfortunately, as it is only a 90-minute debate as a proceeding under an Act under Standing Order No. 16, I am disappointed that I cannot give additional time to discuss the issues. I know some Members will be disappointed. When I became Speaker, I made it clear that I would take decisions on matters relating to procedure guided by professional advice. I have concluded, on the basis of advice that I have received, that any amendment to the motion before the House risks giving rise to uncertainty about the decision the House has taken. This then risks decisions that are rightly the responsibility of Parliament ultimately being determined by the courts. Lack of clarity in such important matters risks undermining the rule of law. I have therefore decided not to select any of the amendments to the motion.” ________________________________________ From: Speaker's Office Sent: 12 October 2020 09:32 To: HOYLE, Lindsay Subject: FW: Our disappointment in you not voting One of the signatories of this email is from Chorley – happy to handle here but thought you might want to reply? Let me know either way. Ta, Kate

Gery W

Oct 19, 2020

Replying to

@MickeyG Interesting..............very interesting!....................

Wren

Oct 10, 2020

Hi Mickey, wrote to Diana Abbott before the vote asking her to vote to repeal, here is her response:

And here is my response to her:

MickeyG

Oct 10, 2020

Replying to

@Wren Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your reply to Diane Abbot has just made my day. I couldn't agree with you more. These MPs are absolutely shameless and cowardly and think we are foolish enough to believe the excuses they come up with. Given the importance of this vote, even if she was on her death bed, as a representative of her constituents, if she really wanted to, would have found a way to exercise her vote. Anyway, I will be sending the letter (described at the top of this post) to all the 292 MPs who failed to vote and Diane Abbot is at the top of the list.

I think we should consider mass-mailing a questionnaire to these same MPs asking them why they did not vote.

I was beginning to wonder whether there was something in the water in Parliament (lol), however, after 292 MPs abstained from voting last week, one begins to wonder. It is evident that there is a hidden government, but are ALL these MPs forgetting that they too have families and children and grandchildren, and parents/grandparents that will be affected? Are they ALL compromised? Are they ALL under some kind of threat? Are they ALL that naive? or, are they ALL just greedy? Do they ALL expect to be "Exempt" from the NWO? Are they ALL just cowards that they would sacrifice their own? And yet, the handful of those that are fighting back (out of the 24 "NO" voters) seem to be very clear about the agenda and standing vigorously against it. The mind boggles. Why don't they just resign, which would be the more honorable thing to do?

Wren

Oct 10, 2020

Replying to

@MickeyG I think they are overwhelmingly corrupt, and the rest are spineless, with a few exceptions. But whatever the case, how can any of them even attempt to justify denying their constituents representation? It is their job. Diane's lack of motivation to do her job is tangibly contributing to the growing number of unemployed, yet she will still get a pay rise, while the rest of us are lucky if we manage to hang on to our livelihoods for the time being, under increasingly untenable conditions, at work, at home, and everywhere else.

Forum Help Video