And another thing…

Well if that really is the best you can do…

It’s all about MPs protecting their own interests and sod how it looks to the rest of the country. People have a right to know exactly where their MPs live. Just as MPs and candidates have a right to know where their constituents live.

Perhaps you might also be in favour of Sir Fred Goodwin’s address being kept private?

I agree wholeheartidly Tom. Just because someone stands for public office, I don’t see why their right to privacy should be void.

If I need my MP for any reason I can write, telephone or e-mail the constituency office or westminister. Why do I need their home address or home phone number? That information is none of my damn business!

When any person leaves work and heads home their “off the clock”. Their home isn’t their workplace. It’s their own PRIVATE residence.

I’d love to see why that doesn’t apply to MP’s. I don’t think there is an argument that isn’t easily refuted.

Oh, and Iain Dale is so prone to, jumping to (the wrong) conclusions, overreaction and hyperbole, that his opinions on most things are fundementally flawed.

It does, in reality, seem quite sensible these days. Knowing where the MP lives doesn’t have to mean the full address, I can’t see a reason a private citizen should really know that.

Iain, I have designated my London home as my second home – my main home is in Glasgow, where I spend most of my time and where my family live. What, exactly, am I trying to cover up?

Why don’t you believe that I voted for this measure purely and exclusively because I am concerned about my family’s security? What is it about the way your mind works that you are not persuaded by that argument?

If I were a single man with no children, I would have absolutely no reservations about my home address being published on the ballot paper, but I would still have voted the way I did last night because others would still fear for their families’ safety.

And, as it happens, I don’t see why Sir Fred’s address, or yours or mine or anyone else’s should be published. With a bit of effort anyone’s address can be discovered, but that’s different from deliberately publishing them.

This is all a wind-up, isn’t it? You don’t actually believe what you’re saying, do you?

@Iain Dale
People have a right to know exactly where their MPs live.

Justify that, please.

Perhaps you might also be in favour of Sir Fred Goodwin’s address being kept private?

I can’t speak for Tom obviously, but I am. What possible reason could there be for Fred Goodwin’s address being made public knowledge? Perhaps you’re advocating that everyone be told where he lives so they can show up at his home with pitchforks?

Tom, I am not in the habit of writing things I do not believe. I do believe MPs’ addresses should be public and that they obey exactly the same data protection laws as everyone else.

I am surprised that you believe in one law for the plebs and another for the ruling classes.

When you’re up for public office your details should be in the public domain. That goes with the job and seems common sense to me.

The current political class seem to want less transparency in public office, but more transparency from the private citizen. You’ve got things the wrong way round haven’t you?

Now that you’ve commented on this issue/vote will you be providing your view on the proposed part-privitisation of the Royal Mail?

Sorry, I think I might be misunderstanding.

Candidates will still have to give their addresses to the returning officer. And this information will be publicly available, yes?

So the Bill only removes the addresses (which would be publicly available anyway) from the ballot papers?

So there really is no benefit from a security point of view. If someone wants to find out where you live, they can. But there is a benefit for those MPs who would prefer to hide from their constituents the fact that they do not live locally, given that this would not cross the minds of the majority of voters unless it was staring them in the face at the ballot box.

Incidentally, I am certainly not suggesting that you are one of these unscrupulous MPs.

Am I right?

There are some ignorant people on here. Sir Fred’s address is made public by virtue of the fact he is on the electoral roll. Just as mine is.

I want to know where my MP lives.

If he doesn’t like it, don’t become an MP

Simple as that.

Although I must admit, if I knew where you lived Tom, it wouldn’t be just the local cat shitting in your flowerbeds

Iain: “I am surprised you believe in one law for the plebe and another for the ruling classes.”

We, how exactly? Am I insisting that members of the public should publish their home addresses anywhere other than the electoral role?

And my name and address will, like yours and Sir Fred’s, continue to be on the register. And, like yours and Sir Fred’s, it will not have to be published anywhere else. You see, Iain, I think we should all be treated equally under the law. You clearly don’t. And you haven’t addressed the concerns of Carolyn and others in her position. Or are they just being silly and girly?

Tom, did you know that recently DEFRA published all the names and addresses of farmers who are in receipt of agricultural subsidies? Someone made a request under the freedom of information act and DEFRA was forced to comply.

I’m a farmer who gets such subsidies, so if the taxpayer requires that where I live and how much I get to be made public, why should you be any different?

As it happens I am a single man, but many farmers do have families. Do they not deserve the same protection you seek for yours?

Of course we farmers don’t get to make the rules ourselves. You however can do as you please with no comebacks. Well until next May/June anyway.

Actually, I thought that you opt to keep your entry on the electoral register private if you wanted to?

I’ve checked your record on the Electoral Regsiter and you seem to be

Tom Harris
Steve Beko House
Bojo Retirement Home
Shit Creek
Over the HIll
Glasgae

Yup, that’s you

And one of the more ignorant, Iain Dale, is you.

The fact that the names and and addresses of millions of people are published on the electoral roll does not mean that the name and address of an individual is public knowledge. Try identifying where my friend John Smith lives, for example, and you will see the point I make.

The fact than many thousands of people, properly registered to vote, are excluded from the published register for security reasons (women in refuge for example) is also missing from the Dale guide to election law.

Nor is it just Dale who needs to brush up of the RPA and subsequent legislation. The address submitted by any candidate on the nomination papers and on the consent to nomination are not ‘checked’ by the returning officer. They are published and available to challenge where the information contained materially affects the right of the candidate to stand in the election concerned.

And, of course, the major error which is repeated by all and sundry is in respect of the publishing the address of an MP on a ballot paper. When t comes to an election, there are no MPs. Parliament has been stood down, MPs offices shut up, staff in limbo and everyone seeking election is merely a candidate.

As far as the issue itself is concerned, I am a little bit of an agnostic when when it comes to the publishing of candidates’ addresses on ballot papers. Given that the right wing and the majority of the media (oops, same thing) will adopt the Dale ’self-serving MP’ line it’s probably falls into the ‘worthy but why bother?’ category of policy initiatives.

The Tories are desperate to keep pushing a time for change agenda in the absence of any Tory policy on anything of substance, and these petty little issues which have no real bearing on anything just feed the Tory machine.

On the whole I don’t think publishing names on ballot papers serves any useful purpose. Given that 99 point (lots of nines recurring) per cent of the electorate go to the polls to give voice to a decision already made, he space might be better used to make the name of the candidate or party or both a bit bigger.

The law has recently been changed to allow candidates to be identified on the ballot paper by the name they commonly know as, rather than their full name as shown on the nomination paper. If there is any need for an address on the ballot paper, which I doubt, then maybe a similar choice could be made available: to publish the address of any residence or none. People may draw an inference and vote accordingly. Or not.

I do not think their home addresses should be published unless they agree to it.

I am surprised to hear that there have been no incidents of MPs families being harrassed – or was that sarcasm? I know for a fact that a number of female SNP MSPs have been harrassed by anti-abortion campaigners in their homes, I would assume the same has happened to MSPs from other parties. For some reason it only seemed to be the women they went after. There are some scarey people out there.

I don’t agree that it is about there being one law for plebs and one for the ruling classes. It’s actually the same law for everyone – the police cannot offer you protection if you are being stalked or targeted by nutters. They will prioritise calls coming from your address but they can’t allocate officers to protect you. That is the case whether you are an elected member or not. Government ministers might get protection but no-one else does.

Unless someone has been at the receiving end of the kind of campaigners that think nothing of abusing people as baby killers in front of their own children I don’t think they know what they are talking about.

I agree with you Tom. I think as things are today you need to avoid total address details.
I have had to sack people and give warnings etc. So I never lived in the areas I worked,and my address was always private.
Everyone is entitles to some private life and a protection for themselves and family.

However if you want these details available to the general public its your choice.

These things were never as bad before Labour came to power though.

Is this the same Old Holborn who threw a fit recently about threats to his home and partner when somebody noticed that his personal details were available on the internet and some people might not like his views on the Israeli attacks on Gaza?

Jim H is right and Iain is right. We should all be entitled to the same levels of privacy. Who is to say that some obsessive will not turn up at Jim H’s place to argue about farm subsidies and his or her rights as a taxpayer. I’m serious – such things happen.

But I understand Tom’s argument about protecting his family from the incursions of people who may mean no harm but are thoughtless, and rude enough to turn up at his home unannounced, whether he is there or not. MPs have a higher profile than most of us and can expect to be at a higher risk of intrusive behaviour than most of us. Most people are well-intentioned but there is no way for family members to know their intentions when they appear at the door. Should I be entitled to know where my GP lives, or where any of my various psychiatrists live, in case I have a sudden need to discuss a problem of mine with them which is much more important than their private lives?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say I don’t know what the answer is.

I do think that Jim H makes a very good point. so perhaps yopu could pass on the same protection to the rest of us. It was always a concern of mine.

By the way the argument that a person’s address is public because they are on the electoral roll is very weak. Unless you know where a person lives in the first place you would have to search through every register for every constituency to find their name and then you don’t know if it is the person you are looking for or simply someone with the same name. The electoral register is generally used to verify if someone lives at a particular address not to find their address.

What bugs me about this is that MPs spend a fair amount of time carefully guarding and burnishing their own privacy rights, while at the same time waving through all sorts of legislation that erodes the rights of the rest of us.

Wouldn’t it be better if issues of this kinds (not to mention MPs’ salaries, pension rights, expenses and so forth) were determined by a body that is free of the taint of self interest and then MPs could get back to representing their constituents instead of themselves and their families?

Tom is absolutely right. When I was still a local councillor I had a similar situation with a constituent who despite receiving a great deal of help from both myself and ward colleagues (we resolved some issues, not others) came roud to my house on several occasions demanding that we do more. They chose me because I lived the closest. They were extremely abusive to my wife (who luckilly could cope as she was also a councillor.

As usual Iain Dale misses the salient point, although this time he is accompanied by others, sadly.

All of our names and our home addresses are on the electoral roll. That goes for MP’s too, and this is still the case.

The salient point is whether MP’s private home addresses should not only be on the electoral roll, but outright deliberately PUBLISHED.

Surely you can all see the distinction between your name and address being on a list somewhere, and being deliberately put in people’s faces?

Therefore, I ask again, just why should MP’s private home addresses be deliberately given to the public? Give me a reason? Tom has outlined a very sensible and common sense reason why they shouldn’t be (which I agree with), and all i’ve heard from Dale and Co in opposition is “well they should be because I say so”.

If you’re so indignant you’re going to have to do better than that.

Tom, if MPs are concerned about their family’s safety then they could always get a video entryphone for when the MP isn’t there, but in an emergency MPs ought to be available to their constituents which they wouldn’t be if there’s no way of contacting them outside of office hours…

Dear Tom,
I am a serving police officer and I serve in the community that I police. That’s the way most officers used to serve. Before mass transport, we used to be generally known within the community, who we are, where we are, our families and our friends. These days most officers live far far away from where they police. I think that sometimes they have less understanding and sympathy with the local community as a consequence. There is now a fear in my organisation, a clearly and often stated fear about those who we police finding out where we live. Is it the same for you?

The fear isn’t everywhere though. It is certainly still the case that local politicians on my council post their home addresses on the web. They post their phone numbers as well.Public visibility seems to come with their elected office. What is different locally between being an MP and a councillor?

I believe that it is a hallmark of true local accountability for a public servant that the public know where you are as well as how to contact you. Yes it comes with great problems and risks. Yes people come to your door at odd hours whether you are in or out. Yes one of my less pleasant nights was telling Mrs. Night that I was dealing with people who were organised, violent and liked threatening people after a petrol drenching. I absolutely get that your wife, at home alone with the children, will have found the experience of strangers at the door at best uncomfortable and at worst terrifying. I understand that some MP’s live under constant and real threats to the wellbeing of them and theirs. They get special protection and enhanced security just as I would if I needed it.

What I don’t get is why you and your colleagues seem to have voted for blanket protection whether it is personally needed or not. Are you all so frightened of us?

You, me and the councillors all have an very unusual degree of visibility, empowerment and responsibility in the communities that we serve. Some of us chose to hide and some of us chose to live openly it’s a shame that MP’s don’t seem to have the courage to join us or the wisdom to see that living openly makes you a better and more accountable servant.

Why don’t we just dispense with elections and make you all just apply for the “post” of constituency MP? In fact, why bother with that even? Just have you lot call in favours in return for services rendered, as is the case with the midden that now passes for the House of Lords these days.

The point is, I want to know everything about the people who’ll be making laws that directly affect the way I live my life.

If you don’t get that – get a job and do something else.

We need a new political paragigm, this one has run its course.

@Sadie You can opt for it not to be on the version of the register that is sold, but it remains on the copy available to political parties.

I agree with you on this, Tom. The ballot paper will still reveal whether someone is local or not.

I suppose there is the expenses angle; my solution to this would be a rule that an MP’s main home is her/his constituency home (which must be in the constituency if any money is to be received) and their second home is in London – any MP within easy commuting distance of London would not get an 2nd home money.

The issue has become more worrying for MPs in recent years, because ballot papers are now posted in greater numbers to voters’ homes; there is a far greater opportunity to take note of the information contained in them now than there ever was when the only time you got the chance to peruse the ballot paper was for a few seconds in the polling booth.

Sorry Tom but how is postal votes more of an opportunity to take note of the information than ballot papers, as you clearly imply?

The voting booth not only helpfully provides a writing implement i.e. a pencil, which allows someone to quickly note down an address but does so without the person being interrupted.

It’s a process that wouldn’t take very long, and who in their right mind is going to disturb someone in a voting booth for spending a minute or two longer than they ’should’?

And that’s not forgetting technology i.e. camera phones to take a quick snapshot of the ballot paper.

Your justification that it’s become more worrying is rather weak.

Why do I find myself agreeing with Tom Harris? MP’s shouldn’t have to declare their address, above being on the electoral role.
It is only the expenses that makes this an issue. End expenses for second homes and its not an issue. Its the likes of ‘fiddler’ Smith that makes voters and tabloids want to know where the chief troughers live. A simple register of which constituency main homes belong in is sufficient. That, and a proper definition of main home. I.e where the family lives, children go to school or the house where capital gains tax is not applicable etc.

{fortunately it won’t happen. But it is good to bang on about trans-pear-ency from time to time. Sounds good and does no harm with the electorate. }

Sadie @ 12:32pm

Think again…

I think this discussion says a lot more about Iain Dale than anyone else.

He has clearly misunderstood even what the legislation says, jumped to his holier-than-thou conclusions and now isn’t big enough to own up to his own mistake.

I dont think he realises he already looks silly so not admitting to his mistake won’t add to that.

I also note one un-hinged contributor to this debate rather makes the case for not going out of your way to advertise your family’s whereabouts quite well.

I’m not at all sure that MPs and the general public should be treated exactly the same. MPs hold a privileged position in that they represent the public and must therefore maintain absolutely the highest accountability. Frankly, this move to hide, to set themselves apart from the masses they claim to represent does them great and serious harm.

To Tom and others of a nervous disposition; may I suggest taking up a simple 10 till 4 job in a charity shop somewhere? You can rest assured you won’t be troubled by the unwashed turning up on your doorstep with their irksome problems.

Chris, if I get something wrong, I readily say so. That is not the case here. I do not believe mps should have different obligations to the rest of us. I am a company director. My home address is available for all to view because of that. Quite right too. Company directors are just as liable as mps to have their windows smashed or their families abused. Tom’s arguments do not hold water.

@Jack Night

Thank you. That was the argument that I couldn’t think of for myself.

Jack’s right.

One rule for them. Another for us.

I shan’t be on the next census, that’s for sure, nor the electoral register.

Tom, have you had any problem before this, with your address being published?

Everyone should have the right to a private life. Tom & Co should ensure we have as well.
Mps do tend to think of themselves more that there voters.
They should not grant themselves privledges that they cannot offer to us.

Tom, the point is the relationship between government and individuals is horrendously skewed in the government’s favour.

The government is, for example, able to label me a terrorist in order to make sure that I am recycling correctly – yet I will now not be able to request my MPs address from the government. Yes, in this case I can still go through the traditional civilian channels to find your address, but if I have a matter relating to you as an MP you should be more accessible.

The argument is not abour your address, it is about the principal of transparency. I understand that you want to protect Tom Harris, husband and father, and your family, but that protection shouldn’t affect my ability to find out about you as an MP.

Tom, I think to call Iain Dale “girly” is WAY below the belt. It shows you have lost the argument (which you have).

I think the whole bunch of you MPs are the lowest of the low scum and this action of yours comes as no surprise.
(Actually, John Redwood is the only one who is not scum).

Bill Quango MP hits the nail on the head for me. This would be a non-issue but for the corrupt behaviour of some Memmbers of the House. Jacqui Smith is the perfect example of the hypocrisy we see.
What many politicians on both sides of the house fail to gasp is the enormous cynicism now felt about their behaviour. Forget the idea of changing the Law for Goodwin, Harriet wants to change it to exempt MPs further from the FOI act. It’s all about self -preservation and keeping the gravy train rolling. Yes it’s not all of you but most do nothing about it. Put the House in order, stop the cheats and liars – prosecute those who deserve it, stop hiding behind ‘the rules’ which are inadequate. Try yourselves in the Court of Public Opinion and see what the outcome is. I for one am sick to death of you destroying what I hold of value. You do not get it – as shown here.

Why is Iain so worked up about this? The arguments for publishing full addresses seem so weak compared to the increased physical risk to MPs and their families.

We will be told if they live in the constituency, which the only fact of relevance for voters. Any additional info is just more risk for no gain.

@Elizabeth Elliot-Pyle

Congratulations, you are the author of the stupidest comment i’ve read on this blog.

Tom never called Iain Dale “girly”. So not only can’t you read, but you went one stage further with a distasteful allegation based on nothing other than a manufactured situation in your head. Axe to grind much?

Perhaps someone could answer this for me. Is a publicly available record of the home addresses of publicans kept anywhere? I have no quarrel with any publicans, let me say.

They are people who regularly have to deal with the violently deranged in ways which the violently deranged may greatly resent.

Just wondering.

why did dale mention u

but not the guy who started it … his tory chum julian lewis

only asking

Well, it certainly seems that the vested interest groups are up in arms on this one.

Those attacking Mr. Dale are missing the point, but that is to be expected these days.

You see, we want change and the politicians don’t, but they know it’s coming. As a result they’re busily erecting barriers and pulling up ladders everywhere. They also know they’ve got a limited amount of time left. Things just cannot continue as they are, common sense tells even the most uninterested observer that.

The political elite has failed us. That failure is everywhere. Among other things, they’ve made us less safe, less independent, less well educated and now we’re in the process of watching them destroy the economic fabric of the country, making us all less well off.

We’ve seen that all the main parties are operating in a bubble, evidenced by the inability/unwillingness of the opposition to challenge the government on expenses sleaze. Against our clear wishes, there is a self serving consensus among the politicians on the EU, immigration, freedom and law and order. Despite the rhetoric, you could not get a fag paper between the three main parties on these issues. They know that the good times are over for normal people, for quite some time to come, they just don’t have the guts to tell us in clear terms, yet.

You see politics is all about proximity. What that means is that by and large, nobody really cares that much, until bad things start to happen to them or people they know – think unemployment, worthless pensions, rotten schools, repossession, bankruptcy, crime or even dodgy parking tickets. For many of us and people we know, these things and more will get closer and closer. When that happens, we should be able to look to those who govern or seek to govern us for leadership, protection and help. Instead, the politicians have been found wanting. Worse still, they’ve been found to be spending huge amounts to time, effort and OUR money insulating themselves from the mess they’ve made.

Ok, rant over. For now…

Interesting, your right to privacy which I don’t deny is something you hold dear.
Yet my right to privacy from government/state/police intrusion is something you deride.

I can be jailed for not supplying my encryption password, even if I don’t have one. All the police have to say is that they found an encrypted file (they don’t have to prove that it is encrypted as this isn’t possible).
I’m not allowed to forget a password either 2 years in gaol for that one) and I think you voted in favour plus time for whatever else can be added such as “perverting the course of justice”, “contempt of court” etc.

Government guidlines say that a 12 year old is competent to allow their personal data to be shared amongst state agencies. Law creation by the home office.

Goverment ignores ECHR rulings on DNA storage by the state.
Police can stop you filming them being violent to protesters.

Sorry Tom, I really don’t have much sympathy. Yes you have a right to privacy, but so do I and you would deny me my rights so why should I concern myself with yours?

Biter bit perchance?

@Jim Baxter
I would have thought that all licencees would have to give a home address when applying for their licence for police vetting.
So it should be in the licencing bodie’s (council’s) records, which are public as far as I recall.

We’re sinking deeper and deeper into an economic and financial mire, yet all our MPs can think about is self-serving legislation like this.

We’ve had it.

@Chris’ Wills

Thanks. That would have been my guess. Many publicans have to deal with seriously bad, seriously vindictive people every day and night of the week while their families wait for them. Yes, MPs may be targets, but what about the ordinary people in dangerous occupations who are also targets, just unknown to most of us? The rules should be the same for us all.

Mark M – most MPs are not in the Government. It’s not actually about the Government. It’s about individual elected members – MPs or MSPs or councillors.

It would be great if all of their personal details could be published without any concern but if people say I feel nervous about that then I do not see any necessity to force them to publish personal information unwillingly.

Snouts in the trough continued.

When will it end?

Your justification is pathetic.

For example:

“The candidate would then have an option of having his home address printed on the ballot form or simply the name of the parliamentary constituency in which he is registered. So electors will still be able to tell if their preferred candidate is “local” or not.”

No, electors won’t know. The returning officer will know, electors will not, as all the corrupt, sleazy MPs will not print their address.

Politicians should be very careful that they do not appear too “Marie Antoinette” to the very valid concerns of the constituents.

We all know how that ended up, and you will collectively have a very great responsibility in history if it happens here. Your names will be dirt.

Steve: “‘So electors will still be able to tell if their preferred candidate is “local” or not.’

No, electors won’t know. The returning officer will know, electors will not, as all the corrupt, sleazy MPs will not print their address.”

No Steve, if they can read, then they will be able to read the name of the constituency in which candidates reside. Of course, only those who can actually read will be able to do so, but maybe you can get your mum to read it to you.

@Iain Dale – “shameful vote”? Oh, shame on you. As the wife of a politician who usually tries at all costs to stay out of politics herself, I feel so strongly about what you wrote I feel I have to comment, especially when your blog is the only (other) political blog I read every day. This vote was never about MPs trying to have one rule for themselves and another rule for others, it was about a genuine concern over safety, for themselves, but primarily their families. The vote to remove MPs addresses from ballot papers (although not the name of the constituency in which they live) was not to prevent a terrorist attack as you say it was – I think there may be more high profile targets than a 3-bedroom semi in suburbia. Rather, the security issue is about no longer making it so easy to find out the home address of someone who you know will be in London all week, while their family – usually a wife and children – are at home alone. Already the comments are predictable – this vote proves all politicians are vile, dishonest, corrupt; if you don’t like it, don’t become a politician etc.. How much easier it is to stand on the sidelines shouting about everything that is wrong, instead of being the person who actually steps up to the plate and tries to make a difference. You say that one of your favourite books is ‘In The Arena’ by Richard Nixon. I was genuinely sad to read the vitriol you extended over this vote. When even thoughtful political commentators like you now make the automatic assumption that everything politicians do is dishonest, God only knows why anyone still wants to go into politics. Being alone all week with small children is far from my ideal, but I chose to marry my husband, and his job was part of the deal. I’m not looking for sympathy or special treatment, but at the same time why should my children and I be made vulnerable because people despise him and his job? As a man, and as a man who has no children, I can only assume you haven’t tried to imagine how intimidating it is for a woman to answer the door to strangers and admit that you and your young children are home alone, as I have had to do. One man has already left a comment saying that if he knew where we lived he would come round and shit in our garden. Well, I’ll sleep easy tonight then. Wanting to protect your family does not make you a bad person – even if you are an MP.

I rarely agree with you Tom, but on this I do believe there is considerable merit for MP’s to be permitted to exclude their home address. However, at a time when your government has driven a coach and horses through the right to privacy of all British subjects, it is a bit rich to find MP’s whining about their own privacy.

So, whilst I am on your side in relation to this issue, I hope you will at least acknowledge the rank hypocrisy of MP’s.

Tom, why am I suddenly tempted to go up to your house in Glasgow and crap on your lawn?

if i recall correctly the address of the candidates did not appear on the constituency ballots at the 2007 scottish parliament elections. i remember being struck by this as the snp candidate in our area, west renfrewshire, lived in edinburgh and that was not stated on the ballot paper.

I agree with you too Tom. As I’ve said on Iain’s comments page, there are quite rational reasons for keeping MPs’ exact addresses secret. Any job that involves significant interaction with strangers carries an element of risk. It’s one reason why I use my maiden name for work but am on the electoral roll under my married name.

Surely a compromise could be found, where the first half of a post code is published, thereby answering all the legitimate questions about local candidates etc.

I would also add that some of the responses to both this and Iain’s thread illustrate your and Carolyn’s points very clearly: There are a lot of aggressive, bullying nutters out there.

“This vote was never about MPs trying to have one rule for themselves and another rule for others, it was about a genuine concern over safety, for themselves, but primarily their families”

Why now? What’s changed to make this necessary?

UK Voter – Perfectly expressed.

The Grim Reaper – How old are you?

@Carolyn (Harris)

Hear hear!

I asked the question earlier in this thread, and i’m still waiting for an answer. Given that both Tom and now his wife Carolyn have outlined very clear, understandable, common sense reasons for their home address not being deliberately published for all to see, can ANYONE give an equally clear, understandable and common sense reason why their home address should?

I’ve asked the question twice before, and STILL the only argument against them is “because I say so”. Wow, that convinces me! Seriously, surely with this many indignant people around at least ONE of you actually has a reason for your position?

“In the weeks following the 2005 general election….. and she was alone with the babies.”

Seems to me that you really ought to be explaining a few basic personal security moves to your beloved – like not divulging your own whereabouts to total strangers for a start – or possibly checking callers’ identities before answering the door. I don’t suppose for one moment that you’ll have considered resignation to spend more time with your family, though.

But what have you got to hide, anyway? All you or your nearest and dearest (or any other MPs) have to do is to simply tell unwanted callers to contact you at your office, in exactly the same way as we do with the various Jehovah’s Witnesses, double glazing salesemen, ‘tree surgeons’, erstwhile window cleaners, rag and bone men, tinkers, bob-a-job volunteers and so on who beat a path to our door.

A member of my family whose position in Parliament rendered him
particularly vulnerable put a notice on the front door indicating that callers would be seen by appointment only. That seemed to hold back the rampaging hordes quite effectively. Now how difficult is that?

Unfortunately today’s MPs seem to believe that they are under constant siege. If they’re that paranoid, why do they continue to be MPs? Nobody forces them to do so, and probably nobody will miss them when they’re gone.

Actually these people live in a cocoon. Perhaps they should compare their positions with those of – for example – the military, who not only are away from their homes for extended periods of time but who also are remarkably poorly paid and frequently in mortal danger. And their families are often housed in appalling accommodation, never mind all this garbage about second homes.

Frankly I’m very tired of all this ‘me me me’ stuff emanating from these ‘elected representatives’. No, I think MPs protest too much. They are live high on the hog – and wish to do even better. Do they have no shame? They certainly seem to have very little commonsense.

@John

It’s the ‘one rule for us’ that bothers me. I don’t think it does politics any good. I have no desire to know where an MP lives. Ideally they should have a home in the constituency they represent and nearly all do as far as I know. Just saying ‘I live in the constituency’ would be fine by me. I don’t know where Tom lives and I don’t want to. For all I know his house is 300 yards or three miles from mine. But if MPs’ addresses are to be private then we should look at why other people’s addresses have to be in the public domain, people whose privacy may also be intruded upon, to say the least, as a result.

I have to back up Carolyn here. I think that the public interest is served without disclosure of the exact home address. Normally I would be up there with people who say publish everything but there have to be limits when the safety and security of others is involved.

MPs have to be accessible to their constituents and that’s why they are given public funds to run an office in the constituency. It is completely inappropriate to publish details of a family home. What other job would require that?

@John,

Tom’s address has been available as long as he has been an MP. What’s changed – as I ask above – for him to wish to hide it?

So this was fine when the IRA was in full cry, fine when the Nazis and then Soviets were in full cry, fine in the wake of 9/11 and fine after the invasion of Iraq but, surprise, surprise, just as the issue of fiddling expenses on second homes kicks in it’s not fine any more.
I’m not surprised by the vote, but I’m surprised and disappointed you should have voted that way and then come up with such a weak and self-serving defence.
Dale is right. It is shameful.

@ Caron

So being an MP is just having some sort of ‘job’? OK, let’s look at the Terms and Conditions then, shall we? And while we’re at it, who’s going to vet the expenses? Annual Performance Review? Period of Notice? And so on….

“Am I insisting that members of the public should publish their home addresses anywhere other than the electoral role?” (Tom)

Your government is.

1. Companies House – the official, mandatory register of UK companies.

Freedom of Information Act gives a general, statutory right of access for the public to recorded information held by public authorities, and includes information held by Companies House. Among the information sold by Companies House:

Status Report – which includes *directors’ names and addresses*

2. “NHS patient records may be sold to private firms” Daily Mail online 21/9/09

“Hospital treatment records of millions of patients could be handed over to private companies…NHS chiefs plan to sell information including details of diagnosis, operations and medicines prescribed.”

“At least some of the information provided will not be anonymous. In other cases, although names will have been removed, postcodes will remain, giving enough information for the individual involved to be traced. Privacy campaigners described the development as ‘horrifying’ and warned it could lead to some patients withholding information from doctors”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1059203/NHS-patient-records-sold-private-firms.html

@Jim Baxter

I do see your point, but imagine this for a second. My address is deliberately published for all to see. Would anyone care? Would I be open to the possibility of visits to my home from all sorts of people asking for, or outright DEMANDING I help them? No, it’s very very unlikely.

Now how would that play out if I was an MP? How would that play out if I had a wife and a young family, and as a result of being an MP I was hardly ever home when people who had been deliberately made aware of my address came knocking?

That’s what i’m talking about, and that’s why I can see Tom and Carolyn’s point.

Tom’s address has been available as long as he has been an MP. What’s changed – as I ask above – for him to wish to hide it?

Personally, I think it was ridiculous that it was ever deliberately made available to the public. Therefore, this is a case of closing an obvious security hole for me. Do you really disagree with that? That you should have a right to know where your MP lives exactly, and that that right should trump the MP’s and his/her families safety?

@John,

It depends on the job you do doesn’t it? Yes, I can see Tom’s and Carolyn’s argument and very much sympathise with it, as I said in my first response on this thread. But I can see Jim H’s argument too, and Iain Dale’s.

As I say, what about people like publicans? Why should their home addresses be publicly available on some special register, apart from the electoral roll?

They too work in a high stress job, many of them anyway, and have to deal with a lot of awkward, very demanding characters. Or farmers, for that matter? Or any of us?

@ carolyn: Can farming families have the same protection that you want then? If not why not?

so on a Tuesday night in March, how many farmers (or any other company directors to answer Iain’s point) can we be sure are not at home?

Believe me I hold NO brief for MPs, but I do find the reaction to this shocking. Would be an interesting straw poll to see how many of the people attacking Tom have kids. This is a serious question, I have a feeling that my own views may have been different pre-family.

Stewart Cowan said “How old are you?”

That’s for me to know and you to wonder, isn’t it?

Cath,

I have six children AND I’m a much hated blogger AND I’m a company director

The 646 have put my unborn grandchildren in massive debt

646 people of which Tom is one. Amongst the 60,000,000 of us.

If anyone can change anything, it is them. If a child dies today because there is no kidney machine, they decided it. If a squaddie get’s blown to pieces in Helmand, they decided it. If a failed banker gets £50K a week pension, they decided it. If a Muslim is arrested and held for 42 days and then released after no charge, they decided it.

Is it really so remarkable for the 59,999,354 of us who have to live under their rules and pay through the nose for the priviledge to ask who the hell they are?

I don’t think so.

How can you and your fellow MPs be so out of touch with the mood of the country. The electorate despise the majority of MPs who appear only to be interested in themselves and what they can screw out of the system. We have an absolute right to know where our MPs live. If you don’t like it you don’t have to stand. Thank God there are still some principled Members who stand head and shoulders above the rest of you. Kate Hoey comes to mind.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Never forget that it was Tom’s new labour MP comrades who wanted to put the names and addresses of Army witnesses to the bloody sunday inquiry fiasco into the public domain. Nice one…

@ The Grim Reaper

I wonder about more than your age, matey, if you get the urge to start pooping in people’s gardens.

Sorry, this thread is deteriorating and I’m not helping.

The fact is that joe public’s privacy is under enormous threat and it is just one of the reasons that politicians are becoming so despised. Even I get slightly upset.

I couldn’t care less if MPs keep their addresses private. If I really want to see mine (we just argued last time – typical New Labour automaton, poor chap), I can visit his constituency office.

It’s the hypocrisy that stings.

I have responded to Carolyn’s comment on my blog in the form of an open letter. Here it is…

Dear Carolyn,

You’re right. using the word ’shameful’ was a bit OTT. But that’s what headlines are for I suppose. So, first point to you. But I am afraid that is where our agreement will end. I totally understand the desire for privacy. I also understand the desire to protect loved ones. Being in the public eye can be a nightmare and those who choose public service sacrifice a lot, and yes, their families often sacrifice more. It’s not fair, but that is the way it is. The experiences you and Tom relate are unpleasant in the extreme, but think about the alternative – where politicians are so remote from people that in the end people rebel against it. Politicians can be their own worst enemies. They may not intend to pass laws that are seen as creating one rule for most but a different one for them – but it happens too often.

Political candidates’ addresses have appeared on ballot papers for ever. There needs to be a very good reason indeed to change the system. Is it really any different from the public being able to access my address from Companies House? Why should MPs be treated any different from company directors? I can think of no good reason. Why should Sir Fred Goodwin’s personal address be public when an MP’s isn’t. I suspect Lady Goodwin might have similar thoughts to yourself at the moment. I wouldn’t blame her, but nor would I expect Companies House to change the rules.

You say that I “make the automatic assumption that everything politicians do is dishonest, God only knows why anyone still wants to go into politics” I do no such thing, and if you do indeed read my blog every day you will know that I constantly come under fire from my readers for defending politicians and politics as a profession. I think MPs deserve to be paid more, are entitled to a second home allowance and enough resources to run a properly resourced office. Most of my readers think they should be paid very little, should live in London in a £20 a night b&b and should type their own letters – and still have change out of a farthing.

You ask plaintively why on earth anyone should want to go into politics. I ask myself that question too. And increasingly, the wrong sort of people are going into politics – people with no experience, no hinterland, but an insatiable desire to be someone rather than believe in something. That is the system we have created. What we now have to do is deconstruct that system and improve the body politic. We won’t do that by changing the rules to make the system even less transparent than it already is.

I have never been an MP, but I have worked for MPs and know exactly what they have to contend with. I have also been a candidate – an openly gay candidate in a very conservative area. I don’t need anyone to tell me about abuse from the electorate. The silent phone calls. The threats pushed through a letter box. The anonymous green ink letters. It shouldn’t come with the territory but it does. Yes, why would anyone go into politics? I’ve been ‘In the Arena’. Much of me would like to be in it again. But I too have seen the effect it has on people close to you. My partner is like you – more comfortable out of the public eye. My mother uses every opportunity to urge me not to do it again. But I’m like Tom. I can’t get rid of the political virus. We both see things which make us angry and we want to change. And that can only be done at the sharp end – not by writing, not by blogging, not by broadcasting. But by being ‘in the arena’.

MPs’ families have a rough deal in many ways, especially where there are young children. I appreciate that. And I would not wish to do anything to make their lives even tougher. But if someone wants to ‘have a go’ they will find out their address no matter if it is publicly available or not. The change in the rules voted on last night will make no difference to the nutters. All it does is give further grist to the mill of those who think that MPs are already featherbedded and remote from the very people they are supposed to represent.

Someone on my blog, or maybe it was Tom’s, expressed the doubt that if I were an MP I would have voted against this change. I can assure them I would have. At the last election, I could see which way the wind was blowing and I issued a ten point (rather pompously titled) Pledge of Integrity. I thought the electorate deserved to know how I would conduct myself if I were elected. I’ll list it here…

* never to solicit or accept a company directorship while serving as an MP
* to publish in detail any expense I reclaim while in the pursuit of my parliamentary duties
* to tell people my real views even when I know they will disagree with me
* never knowingly to claim credit for something when the credit is not mine
* never to employ any member of my family in my parliamentary office
* to live in the constituency (as I do now) and make my main home among the community I serve
* never to promise what I know I cannot deliver
* never to waste taxpayers’ money by tabling pointless Early Day Motions or asking Parliamentary Questions for the sake of it
* never to use taxpayers’ money via the Parliamentary Office Cost Allowance to promote party political activity
A fat lot of good it did me. But if I ever stood again, I’d do something similar. But what an indictment of our politics that a candidate should have to do such a thing. If our politics worked, most of that would be taken as read.

So, Carolyn, I am sorry if you felt my words were too strong, but I care deeply about transparency in politics and can’t pretend that I think that last nights vote was a step in the right direction, because I don’t.

Yours Ever

Iain
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-letter-to-carolyn-mrs-tom-harris.html

I see MP’s and “celebrities” children are to be screened off the Contact Point database, ie their addresses will not be shown. Unlike the rest of us whose children’s details are to be made readily available to 400,000 jobsworths, workers for fake charities and assorted hangers on.

Apparently anyone can apply to have their children’s address hidden so I’ll be doing that. As should everyone else. At least it should keep them busy when we contest their “reasons” for letting the unknown 400,000 have access to our children’s details.

Simon: “I see MP’s and “celebrities” children are to be screened off the Contact Point database, ie their addresses will not be shown.”

Simon, I don’t doubt what you’re saying, because it’s been said on this site by others, but can you source that information for me? I ask in a genuine spirit of enquiry – I’d like to check it out.

Thanks

@ Carolyn 4.25 pm

I sympathise with your wish to keep your address out of the public domain in order to protect yourself and your children. It seems to me common sense that measures should be put in place to give you that protection.

What puzzles me, however, is why Tom and the government appear to believe that vulnerability and the associated need for privacy is unique to the families of politicians, celebrities, the very wealthy and those in certain prescribed occupations.

I’m a severely to profoundly deaf single parent and company director. Both I and my unsocial working hours are quite well known in my town. Attacks on business people and those with disabilities are all too common. Yet our government takes the view that its not just quite acceptable but mandatory that directors’ names and addresses should be published by Companies House and made publicly available to all at the click of a keyboard.

Yet I’m not asking for special privileges. Why the heck should the security and relative peace of mind that privacy affords be the exclusive preserve of politicians, celebs, business people or those with disabilities alone?

Privacy and security isn’t an elitist privilege, it’s a right. All pensioners, all hard working people – everybody – we must all have that same right too.

Yet the personal health data and names and addresses of the millions of us who are not exempt from such intrusion in our privacy may be sold by the government.

Why are MPs, who are so protective of their own and their families’ privacy, incapable of making that leap of imagination which would enable them to empathise with all of us from whom they are progressively removing the right to private lives?

Aren’t MPs, the wealthy and celebs given exemption in respect of the sex offenders register too? I’m sure I saw a reference to that.

Carolyn,

Is your age given on Tom’s electoral documentation? Nope. If it were, might you be tiny bit miffed at the unecessary intrusion into your life?

Even my date of birth is published and publicly available on the Companies’ House Register. What gives Tom and co the right to decree the publication of that?

Sign of the times maybe?

So, MPs consider that the atmosphere in the country is getting heated and that they are exposing themselves to public abuse by continuing the status quo.

Perhaps you should view the situation you and other MPs have created and hang your head in shame. If there is an increasing danger then you have yourselves to blame.

Don’t legislate your way out of a tight spot, look at the causes and judge how good a Labour government has been for this country.

Shame on you all.

Tom is absolutely right, and none of the arguments thrown at him thus far stand up to serious scrutiny.

http://www.lettersfromatory.com/2009/03/04/tom-harris-is-right-mps-should-not-have-to-tell-us-where-they-live/

Iain writes

“Political candidates’ addresses have appeared on ballot papers for ever. There needs to be a very good reason indeed to change the system”

And I ask – again – what has changed, Tom, for this to be necessary, when it hasn’t been for however long?

What has changed? Pray, do tell.

I’m happy to see that our local MP, voted AGAINST this.

The whole MP home address issue has been a talking point locally in the Midlands and I am yet to find anybody, local residents included, that disagree with your points. A number of people have drawn a parallel that I haven’t yet seen on the blogs, which is the “Away Day Robberies” against the Wives and Girlfriends of football players whilst they’re playing away games. In the society we live in today it’s not a leap of extra-ordinary imagination to see politicians being targeted in this way too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1153762/Manchester-United-WAG-threatened-knife-Away-Day-thieves-target-stars-2m-mansion.html

Tom,

There is an article in the Times here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5812022.ece

Also DCSF guidance here:
http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/wwwfileroot/microsites/childrensservices/mcs_ContactPoint_Guidance_version_11.pdf

Look here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072182_en_5#sch2
for a list of “Persons who may permit access to the database (“national partners”)”. It’s basically any Tom Dick or Harry, from KIDS, the charity (???) to “an administrator” in a school which one assumes would mean the even the caretaker who is no doubt an administrator nowadays. Wasn’t Ian Huntley a caretaker?

Put together the track record for incompetence with data security and the lax access conditions for Contact Point and wait……………

I’m with Tom 100% on this. I’m a candidate in an NUS National Executive Election. In the opening stages of my campaign I had to publicly list my address on my campaign site so that people could post their nomination forms.

My campaign very nearly got derailed when I got a call a few days later advising me to remove the address from it and step up the security because they had grounds to believe I was not safe. I am a Jewish Society officer and had led a noisy campaign against anti-semitism on campus, to the ire of Islamists. The chap who called me (who was in a position to know) warned me that the campaign had made me enemies, and continuing to list my address would put me in danger. I promptly removed it.

It’s a sad fact, but if you take a stand for something you believe in, there will be some disaffected nutter who wants to do you harm. There’s no reason to give them an open goal. There is absolutely NO need for MPs’ addresses to be public. Journos will still find those abusing housing allowances: it’s not like Politicians will stop leaking.

Or perhaps we should just spend more Taxpayers’ money on Kevlar and policemen?

I think it’s a bit rich Tom, and Caroline, to be moaning about this when you say quite clearly “They weren’t at all threatening”. Well then what’s the bloody problem?

John said “I agree wholeheartidly Tom. Just because someone stands for public office, I don’t see why their right to privacy should be void.”

I presume John that you are one of Drapers paid stooges? What ‘right to privacy’???

I disagree completely, this is hypocrisy of the highest order. This Labour government introduces law after law, snooping on OUR private lives, and at every step of the way exclude themselves from the same oversight.

This should be the other way round, we’re just plebs, we don’t need to be constantly spied on as we’re not in a position to cause any real harm. MPs are the ones who can cause harm and who need oversight. What Jack Straw said recently really exposed what politicians think of us. And believe me Tom that will come back to haunt your party in 437 days.

That this was voted for by politicians on both sides dissapoints me hugely but doesn’t surprise me at all.

“Why don’t you believe that I voted for this measure purely and exclusively because I am concerned about my family’s security? What is it about the way your mind works that you are not persuaded by that argument?”

I reiterate Iains question. What’s changed? This information was published when the IRA troubles were going on. Whats different now?

Are you subtly admitting that Gordon has created a situation where the majority of the populace of this country would attack a Labour MP or their family if given the chance?

Sorry Tom, I literally hate Labour more than words can say, but I would never resort to violence against you or your family, that would be ludicrous. (Well, unless Gordon does implement the Civil contingencies act, all bets are off then!). Your experience seems to suggest the rest of the populace thinks the same, otherwise given Labour’s record you would surely have been attacked already?!

Z.

Incidentally MY missus doesn’t like it very much when strange people come to the door when she’s in the house on her own. Do you know what she does about it? She doesn’t open the smegging door if she’s not expecting anyone. simple. No law changes required.

@ Benjamin Grey

“The chap who called me (who was in a position to know) warned me that the campaign had made me enemies, and continuing to list my address would put me in danger. I promptly removed it.”

Your choice. And your choice to stand. And your choice to knowingly raise your profile on campus and here, too.

Are you looking for trouble?

But you say you ‘had to’ list your address. Is that so? Were you not allowed to use an accommodation address?

Care to hazard a guess as to how many incidents of such ‘intimidation’ of MPs there may have been over, say, the last five years? Care to guess how many prosecutions there may have been under the plentiful existing legislation?

Why do MPs merit any greater protection than company directors at Huntingdon Life Sciences (for example)?

Generations of MPs have faced this issue and not buckled, even (as was pointed out above) when the IRA posed an actual ongoing threat. Why is the current crop so craven and incapable of standing up for democracy?

Well, the answer is that they are mostly right-wingers like Tom here who view “the people” as a vast and undifferentiated threat and regard security and privacy as a one-way street where they are guarded and given special laws. Meanwhile an enormous network of cameras and databases is constructed to keep the lower orders under control (which is why CCTVs everywhere has had no effect on crime: they’re not intended to in much the same way as prison guards are not actually supposed to be doing the same job as the police). Democracy is not something these MPs actually value – the 30 year rule is another example in the news recently of how they protect themselves from accountability but there are many others.

Parliament – specifically and particularly the HoC – has run its course and it is clearly beyond reform given the grip of vested interests. Time to scrap it and start again with something that works.

Feel Iain has started something here which he can’t sensibly now finish – but is going to stick with it out of pride.

The knee-jerk reaction of all of us at the moment when we hear anything about MPs expenses is to wonder (or in some cases assume) if people are on the make.

But the truth is, tom’s explanation is very strong. And the only basis on which you could possibly reject would be some truly weird ideology.

Becoming an MP should not mean putting your family at risk and I can certainly see how many MPs would feel that pubilshing their address did exactly that.

Of course, though, we need a system for knowing the area in which MPs live (and ideally where they grew up and where they studied and everything else about them)

“the only basis on which you could possibly reject [Tom's argument] would be some truly weird ideology”

Rhetoric. Like the originating article and many of the comments. The cause of safety is a transparently emotive ploy, there is no way to robustly argue that MPs’ safety would be increased or decreased in a general sense by the disclosure of their addresses. Certainly in respect of terrorist or criminal threat it would be unaltered. I direct your interest to previous posts.

The root issue is accountability. Twenty years ago we talked about sleaze corrupting government. Today it is government’s cynicism in regard of the electorate. It is hard to push aside the sense that all one hears in politics is slightly clever people dissembling.