Suicide clause

There may well be some justification in the accusation that we’ve diluted The Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act with our contemplating the addition of Clause 4.

s.4 It shall be a defence under this Act to provide full and frank disclosure in relation to the misleading, dishonest or reckless act. Disclosure under this section shall limit the potential liability under this Act to disqualification from holding public office. Such disclosure shall be provided (as a public document) within a reasonable time of becoming aware of the misleading, dishonest or reckless act.

The long, drawn out (and amusing – Ed) process of trying to find an MP to support it has led to some truths coming home. Ultimately, the purpose is to plug the constitutional gap we discovered and prevent elected representatives from mis-leading us, mis-representing the facts etc.

As such, we figure giving the accused an opportunity to fall on their sword instead of clogging up the courts wasn’t a bad compromise. No doubt there’ll be further fine-tuning but at least the main clauses are starting to stick.

Full version to be posted tomorrow.

Summer Hols

Before you know it and Parliament’s in recess – Summer Hols ‘till October 8th. This has implications for us…

1. It’s not gonna be easy to get time with an MP, let alone find one to support our insanity of a Bill which will prevent them from lying. Still, we shall persist (and keep you posted).

2. Gordon’s got himself some time. Perhaps enough for us to forget about his green paper on constitutional reform - his stated intention of returning power “from the executive to Parliament” won’t be tested for a few months.

Meantime, we’ve been granted facetime with the head honchos in Parliament’s Bill Office to help us fine-tune the drafting of “the Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act” so we’re frantically trying to lick it into some form of respectability (as opposed to a barking mad statute hell-bent on sending MPs to Wormwood Scrubbs).

Once we're happy we'll post it for your delectation/feedback/general piss-taking.

A Hiatus

Apologies for the severe lack of posting recently.

We’re still here, but not alone. Broadcasters have taken an interest in our adventures. We’ll see how this pans out. Talk is cheap - money pay da rent.

Meantime, in pursuit of just the one MP who’ll support and introduce the Misrepresentation of the People’s Act, we’ve been battling our way through the occupants of Portcullis House and the Palace of Westminster.

We’re even on nodding terms with security.

This won’t last long.



We have much to tell, and promise to get back to posting more regularly as soon as time permits.

Don’t forget, you can always sign up to the RSS feed and get notified automatically when we post.

Goldsmith, Blair, Prescott and Bathurst

The Attorney General, is “keeper of the public interest” and supervisor of the Crown Prosecution Service. He’s also the legal advisor to the Government (when TB wanted to know if it’s legal to go to war with Iraq, it was the AG who said yes).

Couldn’t resist dragging up old bones (hat-tip to Theo Spark) this is the letter Lord Goldsmith won’t be writing to Blair over the “Cash for Honours” bizniz.

History repeating itself ? It’s also the sort of letter he wasn’t going to write to John Prescott, when our friend George Bathurst asked the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate his Prevention of Corruption Act breach.

For a taste of gov't stonewalling at genius level check out our interview with George...

One of the problems facing the Misrepresentation of the People Act, is you need to get the Attorney General’s go ahead to proceed with a prosecution. Most recently the Board at BAE were relieved to find out that the Attorney General deemed that it was not in the public interest to continue investigating claims of bribery and corruption by BAE.

So, if you want to prosecute someone in government, you need the blessing of - the governments legal advisor. Imagine if you wanted to take a company to court but to do so you needed their solicitors approval ?

We’ve asked for an interview with the man. We will be denied. Have no doubt.

...And God bless New Zealand

A tenuous connection we'll grant you, but this video (and a bunch of Aussie barstaff last night) reminded us that things are more straightforward down under. The Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act was originally inspired by an Australasian statute (the southern state of Australia to be precise). Simple and to the point, it makes it a criminal offence punishable by fine to lie, mislead or mis-represent in a general election campaign.

No doubt the Minister for Broadcasting and Education, Steve Mahary's behaviour in New Zealand's Parliament will serve as an inspiration to our own honourable elected representatives. You can hear it here (beautifully picked up by the mics), or watch the inevitable piss-take video...

The Miliband Cometh ?

Miliband occupies a special place at Ministry towers. The office being heavily split into predatory female admiration with a deep need to see him prostrate himself and a distinct male ambivalence.

In the quest for an MP to support our bill we've already been turned down for an interview once, but hormonal levels in the office and the article he wrote for yesterday’s Telegraph has prompted us to make another request to find out if he intends to back up his rhetoric and see the light that shines in the Misrepresentation of the People Act. Here are a couple of key paragraphs ;

I'm in tune with the 'I can' generation

By David Miliband, Daily Telegraph 29^th March 07

"Politics requires many virtues - organisation, ideas, resolution, luck. But chief among them is the hardest to define: that elusive sense of being in tune with the times. Political parties succeed when they join their values to deep economic, social and cultural trends. I am convinced that a fourth election victory, and fundamental changes to the landscape of Britain, are possible precisely because a more demanding, educated, savvy population want the power and control that modern progressive politics can offer.

Since 1997, Britain has changed in some ways more fundamentally than new Labour promised. It is a different country - richer, fairer, more confident. I also think it is being driven forward by a new spirit. I call it the politics of "I can". The era of "I can" is the culmination of the long decline of deference and automatic authority. It is the late flowering of individual autonomy and control. It is, in other words, one of the founding ideas of left-of-centre politics: to put power in the hands of the people. In the "I can" era, people want to be players, not just spectators. They want to be contributors, not just consumers.”

Should he agree to the interview, it’ll be interesting to see what the female contingent will be wearing for the big day. They are a rum bunch, deviant and predatory in nature. We await his response.

Hat tip to Beau Bo D’or for the image

Straight from the "Yes Minister" manual.

In our quest to find an MP who’ll support the Misrepresentation of the People Act we keep hearing the same old thing… “give us some examples”, “where are the examples ?”

They’re almost daily for Chrissakes !!! Here's one from the weekend's Sunday Times ...

"Gerry Sutcliffe, the prisons minister ordered his civil servants to draw up a secret list of “negative” officials suspected of being opposed to legislation. Sutcliffe also wanted a list of officials who could be trusted to act as “positive champions” for the plans to privatise the probation service and be used to persuade rebellious Labour MPs to change their minds and avert a Commons defeat.

The e-mail was sent by Rachel Howell, Sutcliffe’s private secretary, on February 1 to senior Home Office officials as he faced a backbench rebellion against the government’s Offender Management (OM) Bill. If it was defeated, it could have threatened Sutcliffe’s ministerial career.

Last week Sir Alistair Graham, the watchdog responsible for overseeing standards in public life, identified Tony Blair’s politicisation of the service as one of the seven “mortal sins” that had undermined public trust in government. Tomorrow, the Commons’ public administration committee will call on the government to introduce new laws to protect the impartiality of the civil service.

Critics say that the e-mail breaches the ministerial code of conduct which sets out that ministers “have a duty to uphold the political impartiality of the civil service”.

It states: “Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes.”

When first asked if Sutcliffe had instructed his private office to draw up a list of chief probation officers who supported and opposed the bill, the Home Office said: “It is utterly untrue that he instructed his office to do this.”

However, when confronted with the text of the leaked e-mail, Sutcliffe altered his position. A spokeswoman later said: “There is no question the minister acted improperly or sought to undermine the political impartiality of his private office . . . It is normal to identify those supporting voices for proposed legislation.”

So, initial response was to deny it ever happened. Then, when confronted with the evidence, they changed their tune to, "this is perfectly acceptable behaviour".
The full article’s here.

"Yes Minister" is available on DVD from the Parliamentary Bookshop at Portcullis House.

Sir Alistair for the Misrepresentation of the People Act ?

Apologies to HSBC.

Amidst our quest to find an MP who'll support the Misrepresentation of the People Act, Sir Alistair Graham, outgoing and outspoken chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has agreed to an interview.

Over the years he's had his disagreements with the PM over policing Parliamentary standards...

HANSARD - 1 Dec 2004 : Column 624

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): On Monday, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life repeated the Committee's view that allegations against Ministers should be considered by members of an independent panel, drawn up in agreement with the Opposition, which would be ready to act whenever an allegation is made. That recommendation was originally made in April 2003, and the Prime Minister rejected it. Will he now reconsider it?

The Prime Minister: No, for the reasons that we gave at that time. We believe that it is better, if an allegation is made, to appoint people on an individual basis and not to have a standing panel. That is the right way to do it. In this instance, we have someone of unimpeachable integrity who will examine all the facts of the case and come to a conclusion.

Mr. Howard: Let me tell the House what Sir Alistair Graham, the man appointed by the Prime Minister to chair this important Committee, said a couple of days ago:

"The Committee was disappointed that the current Government did not take the opportunity to put this mechanism in place, particularly as it provides speedy and independent investigation of allegations against Ministers. Current events demonstrate the continuing practical relevance of adopting these recommendations."

The Prime Minister said that he wanted the highest standards in public life. He appointed the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Committee has made clear recommendations. Why has not the Prime Minister accepted them?

The Prime Minister: We did not accept this recommendation because we believe that it is better to appoint people on an individual, case-by-case basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the speed of the inquiry's being set up, but the allegations were made on the Sunday in the newspapers, and that day, at the insistence of the Home Secretary, somebody was appointed to examine them. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that Sir Alan Budd is a man of independence and unimpeachable integrity. He will have the opportunity to look at the facts of the case and to make those facts known to the public. I cannot see what is wrong with that way of proceeding.

He talks the talk and his press office indicated he was ready to spill the beans on standards and accountability. Will he be in favour of the act ? We're taking bets. Naturally, we'll keep you posted.

Freedom of Information Act update

The trials and tribulations of Maurice Frankel, the man (without a knighthood) behind the Freedom of Information Act and part inspiration for our decision to press ahead with The Misrepresentation of the People Act is once more being put through the government grinder in an attempt to castrate it. The full story is here.

Some of the glorious info we'd be without if we didn't have the FOI is here.

Some gloriously hypocritical past Goverment quotes on the importance of the FOI Act follow for your delectation. Please note the latest of these is from April '98. It wasn't until seven years later the Act came into effect (despite having been part of the Labour party manifesto for a record 6 times). We're reliably informed by our friends in the civil service that the week before it's implementation their shredders were working overtime ;

"Information is power and any Government’s attitude about sharing information with the people says a great deal about how it views power itself and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it” Tony Blair, speech at Campaign for Freedom of Information Act Awards, March 25, 1996

“We need a Freedom of Information Act that ensures not only a presumption in favour of disclosure, but also that the public interest defence must be available where there is a question mark over the illegitimate disclosure of information by civil servants . . .” Gordon Brown, Charter 88 Sovereignty Lecture, March 9, 1992

“We want to break down the barriers that may make the individual see the State in terms of Kafka’s Castle” Jack Straw, Annual Consitutution Unit Lecture, October 27, 1999

“We promised to make Britain a world beacon by creating a model freedom of information regime . . . Government should adequately and actively take the lead in promoting openness. We should be ready to open our doors, our files, our databases, so that the British people know what is being said and done in their name.” Lord Irvine of Lairg, Speech to the Campaign for Freedom of Information Awards, April 28, 1998

“We remain fully committed to freedom of information, to promoting a radical change across Government in the way Government conduct business, and to a new relationship between Government and the citizens they serve.” Lord Williams of Mostyn, Attorney General 1999-2001, Lords’ debate, February 10, 1999

“The rock on which [partnership between people and Government] is founded is trust and without openness and transparency in our dealings with the British people there will be no trust.” Peter Mandelson, quoted in The Times, November 20, 1997

Hat-tip to The Times for these.

Our interview with the man in the hot-seat...



The "out-takes" and behind the scenes jiggery pokery...

The Misrepresentation of the People Act (Mk 2)

After much too-ing and fro-ing over the mens rea required for an offence we seem to have agreed that recklessness to the truth by one of our elected representatives should constitute an offence and therefore the defences in Section 3 shouldn't include "had no intent to deceive or conceal".

Any further suggestions gratefully received. The revised Act follows ;

The Misrepresentation of the People Act

A

Bill

to

Ensure honesty, transparency and accountability from

the representatives of the People and their employees.

---

The obligation for honesty and transparency in matters of government by those elected to represent the People and their employees is absolute. They act on behalf of the People, their sovereignty flows from the people and is conditional upon such honesty and transparency.

S.1 Where an elected representative of the people or an agent employed on their behalf recklessly or with intent to deceive, publishes or causes to be published in their employment in office, a statement or account which to their knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, they shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

S.2 It shall be an offence under this Act for a representative of the people, or agent employed on their behalf to –

1. Publish a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or

2. Dishonestly conceal any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast published by him, or

3. Recklessly publish (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material manner.

S.3 It shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under section 2 of this Act to show that at the time of the offence he -

1. did not know, or could not have been reasonably expected to know that his act or conduct would create an impression that was false or misleading, or

2. had no part in causing or permitting the publication of the statement or any part thereof, or

3. could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate or misleading, or

4. took all due care to ensure the accuracy of the statement, or

5. acted in the interest of National Security.

S.4 Where a person causes any wasteful employment by knowingly making to a person a false report tending to show an offence has been committed, or tending to show he has information material to any police enquiry, he shall be liable for this offence on indictment only.

S.5 A person guilty of an offence of misrepresenting the people under this Act shall be liable upon summary conviction and or indictment and or be disqualified forthwith from standing as an elected representative of the people or their agent.

Peter Bottomley, Round 2

You'll remember from Monday our boisterous allegations to Karen Buck that Mr Blair lied over his voting record on the fox hunting ban.

Peter (amongst other statements over institutionalised lying) kindly points out Mr Blair's memory of events around the Bill for a fox-hunting ban isn't the same as public records.

Some would call this lying.

He also admits a Minister determined to be evasive is a very difficult animal to hold to account for an MP, let alone a member of the public.

Just as we thought we were going to make a home run... we didn't even get to first base.



So far we've a 100% record. Everyone we've spoken to says honesty's an absolute requirement, admits there's a gap in accountability, but won't bite at the Misrepresentation of the People Act.

We've noticed the portrait of his wife seems to have horns on her forehead. We're assured by our tech bods this a trick of the light - not divine light.

Lie about how we vote ? That's misleading.

Our elected representatives in Parliament are there to legislate on our behalf, in our name. Hence the Misrepresentation of the People Act.

We haven’t quite finished with the Honourable Karen Buck MP (Lab) and her voting record. Forgive us, but it’s very relevant to the dust up we had in this interview over a certain Mr Blair.

She wasn’t against the Misrepresentation of the People Act - but feels without evidence of a problem why bother legislating ? She said "legislation for legislation’s sake is one of the problems she sometimes has with the government".

Is she referring to the 18 times she went against the government out of the last 2,163 votes in 10 years (0.8%) ?

Does that mean if we proved more than 0.8% of statements by our elected representatives are misleading, misrepresentative or plain lies – she would accept this was “sometimes a problem”.

Anyone care to do the Maths ?

Talking of voting records… As you saw, our intrepid interviewer got over-excited and accused Mr Blair of lying about his voting record at General Election time. For this, we unreservedly apologise. Legally we cannot defend this accusation (nor do we intend to – Ed).

Ms Buck says she’s baffled as to why anyone would lie over “something that’s a matter of public record”.

By Ms Buck’s standards, you only need to have voted twice out of six opportunities to be able to say you voted “against the war in Iraq”. If you accept this measure, we’re of the opinion you’d have voted in at least three of the subsequent eleven votes for an inquiry into the war. Ms Buck didn’t vote for any of them.

So, according to Karen Buck, it’s fine to say you voted against the war in Iraq if you voted in 2 out of 17 votes (6%).

We wonder if this standard would stack up with the electorate (or in a court of law) ?

Your humble servant would like to propose the following motion for debate ;

"the wording of motions in the House of Commons is deliberately constructed to allow our elected representatives to say they’ve voted one way, leading the electorate to believe this is a statement of principle, when in fact an examination of all the votes on any issue in question may lead us to a very different conclusion." DISCUSS.

As for the fox-hunting ban, the facts of the matter follow ;

In a House of Commons Debate, 9 July 1997, he said "I have voted before in favour of a ban on fox hunting and I shall continue to do so,". The following November, on the 28th, there was a 2nd reading for the ban. He failed to vote at it. The following year, there were 4 votes. Blair was absent from them all.

The second “lie” we refer to was on 30 May 2001, just before the General Election. Blair said to BBC TV’s Question Time, “We had a free vote on hunting… I happened to vote in favour of a ban.”

In fact on the 20th December 2000 he had voted simply in favour of an “options bill” to be read on the 17th Jan.

This Bill gave 3 choices ;

1) A total ban
2) Introduce licensing
3) No change

On the 17th Jan 2001, when the time came to actually vote on these 3 options, Mr Blair wasn’t there.

During the same spiel on Question Time (and elsewhere), he stated the bill to ban fox-hunting was blocked in the House of Lords. I beg to differ, and Peter Bottomley MP also had some fairly strong opinions on this. We’ll be posting that shortly.

In the meantime, we ask you, did Tony Blair lie about the way he voted just before a general election ?

The MPs : Round 1, Peter Bottomley

Our grey hair count has tripled since we began doing the rounds of MPs. Trying to get support for the Misrepresentation of the People Act has been a learning curve to say the least.

One of our first appointments was with Peter Bottomley. Given yesterday's brief dip into the murky waters of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and Elizabeth Filkin's time in that position (see Martin Bell's interview yesterday), we felt it worth giving Peter's comments on this subject an air (before we get to the meat of the matter). He sat alongside Martin on the Committee for Standards and Privileges, was at the epicentre of the Filkin controversy and not shy about the issues.

Sadly, the edit room door is locked tight. The bastards drip-feed us the news slower than Chinese water torture.

From what little we've heard (ears pressed hard against the cutting room door) we like the cut of his jib...

"There's a system which I shall call explicitly organised lying by 10 Downing Street. And they will openly say things which are untrue"

"This is the first Prime Minister that I've ever heard of who will apparently say things which are untrue to get away from 24 hours of embarassment."

From a respected, sitting MP - Statements like this make us giddy with anticipation.

To strike gold on our first outing and find a credible MP willing to propose the Act would be too easy, and in any case, if he'd've said YES, we'd know from the smiles in the edit suite.

We've been promised the edit for the "Filkin" stuff tomorrow. The Misrepresentation of the People Act the day after. If either come along earlier - we'll be posting.

Today we have an interview with Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, she sits in the House of Lords, heads up the Power Inquiry (an independent think tank on democracy) and is certainly on par with our resident motherlode of constitutional law - Professor Conor Gearty. Her thoughts on the lack of legal redress we have against our elected representatives when they lie will be seminal - but sadly just "thoughts", whereas....

...Tomorrow we're seeing the man who can put such thoughts into practice - the real deal - Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Here's hoping he hasn't seen any previous posts of ours - especially the recently discovered footage of him fooling around when he shared a flat (and a girlfriend - Ed) with Tony Blair.

Irreverent ? Disrespectful ? Moi ?

the Party Whip and the Career MP

A good article from yesterday's First Post covering the rise of the Careerus Parliamentarianus - another genotype in the opposite vein to Rogus Parliamentarianus.

MPs towing the party line can at least look forward to the prospect of ministerial and cabinet positions. If you don't follow the party whip you're pretty much stuck as a backbench MP - and without another income/career your job prospects aren't exactly gonna be great.

All the same, it'll be fun asking them to support the Misrepresentation of the People Act ...

Ministry of Truth : Do you believe in honesty, transparency and accountability ?

MP : Absolutely, it's the foundation of our democracy.

Ministry of Truth : Did you know there's no law which requires these from an MP and allows the electorate to legally hold them to account for lying ?

MP : Yes, but there are Parliamentary bodies and commissioners that handle this.

Ministry of Truth : Precisely, they all report to either Parliament or the PM - you can't be judge and jury in your own trial. Even Sir Philip Mawer (the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) admitted there's a gap.

MP : Did he ? I seem to remember his predecessor mentioning that. I think you'll find our system delivers the most honest and accountable government anywhere in the world.

Ministry of Truth : That's not the point. You're representing our sovereignty and there's no form of independent legal redress for us to hold our elected representatives to account.

MP : That would undermine the very basic principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Ministry of Truth : Exactly, it's our sovereignty and we've drafted a bill which enshrines the honesty and accountability of our elected representatives in law, it's called the Misrepresentation of the People Act - will you propose it for us in Parliament ?

MP : Is that the time ? Blimey, I've a constituency meeting to get to.

the Rogue MP (rogus parliamentarianus)

From left to right they are ;

Adam Price | Bob Marshall-Andrews | Norman Baker

Parliament's usual suspects.

Whoever we speak to - friends, politicos, media-types - the same names keep coming up.

"Everyone else 'll feed you the same line,"but we are accountable."

"If anyone's going to support a bill called "the Misrepresentation of the People Act" - it's one of these guys - they'll just get it.".

There are distinct types of MP. Parliamentarians, constituency MPs, rebels, party animals... the list goes on. Basically it denotes a mindset, an attitude toward their role.

One of the joys of our current system is that the responsibilities of an MP aren't defined anywhere. There's no job description. Technically they're our elected representatives in the legislature. They represent our sovereignty and as such are in Parliament to legislate on our behalf, in our interest. Professor Conor Gearty (the motherlode of constitutional law) put it very neatly when we spoke to him.

An MP is supposed to spend his time scrutinising legislation, either governing or holding the government to account (that's a whole different Post). We elect them for their judgement, their opinion - not as a mouthpiece. In days gone by constituency work would be seen as acting like a glorified social worker - technically for your local councillor to do.

With the rise of the party and party whip (basically - the party controlling which way an MP should vote) - in many cases the MP spends his time dealing with constituents and is only in Parliament to do his party's bidding in the chamber. Ask most MPs about the details of legislation and they'd have about as much idea as you and I - the party figures it out for them. That may be OK with you if you're comfortable with your party's official line - it may not.

However, there's a breed of MPs that somehow manage to spend time with their constituents and won't necessarily tow the party line. The above line-up are at the head of the class in this group, particularly Bob Marshall Andrews - he's Labour.

You can look up your MP and check out their voting record here. If they have a decent track record of independent thinking - let us know.

We're working our way through the register and getting diary dates for as many who'll see us.

Doing the Parliamentary Dance

If finding an MP to support the bill isn’t hard enough, getting a bill like this through Parliament is next to impossible. If you don’t believe us - check out what Maurice Frankel (the man behind the Freedom of Information Act) has to say about it.

The stats on non-government bills aren’t good. Since 1983 a total of 2,451 have been attempted, of which 277 made it through. Needless to say - none of them were attempting to make lying by our elected representatives a statutory offence.

Here are the stages a bill has to go through - once (if !!! - Ed) we find an MP.

1. First Reading - the title of the Bill is read out and copies of it are printed.

2. Second Reading - the House debates the general principles contained in a bill.

3. Committee Stage - the House subjects the Bill to a line by line examination and amends where necessary.

4. Report Stage - the Bill that’s been amended during the Committee Stage is reviewed. 5. Third Reading, here the House looks at and debates the final version of the Bill.

6. Lords Stages - similar to the various stages of the Commons. Both Houses of Parliament must agree on the final text of the Bill.

7. Royal Assent - the Crown formally assents to the Bill in order for it to pass into law.

( http://www.parliament.uk/works/newproc.cfm )

Our one consolation is the fun we’ll have asking MPs if they believe in honesty and accountability to the electorate - then asking if they’ll support a bill enforcing it.

Again, keep e-mailing/posting suggestions if you think you know an MP who'll put up or shut up.

Finding an MP

No turning back now. Parliament's back from recess (have you ever had a look at the Parliamentary Timetable ? - they get half term, whitsun, easter, summer holidays...). E-mailed/phoned requests for interviews have been made. The search is on for an MP who'll propose "The Misrepresentation of the People Act".

The way MPs staff answer the phone is giving us an interesting insight into the MPs they're working for. We're compiling a chart of MPs office misery. Norman Bakers office seems the most chirpy - must be something in the water. Alternatively, it could be what Peter Oborne had to say about him this Sunday.

The Act itself is getting minor tweaks as we speak. Rather than re-post each time we change a comma, we'll update the first post. Keep any suggestions/comments coming.

Again, any suggestions for MPs who'd support this, let us know.

Maurice Frankel - Post Mortem

Maurice laid it out in no uncertain terms getting legislation passed is no mean feat - Clement Freud MP bribed to miss a vote, Thatcher cutting backroom deals with the government… little wonder it took 30 years to get his Freedom of Information Act through. – doubly so when you’re not in Government. Triple that if the Gov’s gonna do everything it can to block you.

Nevertheless – it’s starting to feel like we’re compelled to give it a go. Besides, it is a really good name – “The Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act”.

We’re gonna have to find ourselves an MP. One who believe’s honesty’s the best policy and is willing to propose a Bill for it.

Any ideas who that might be ? You can look up your MP, see their voting record, contact them etc. on www.theyworkforyou.com .

Meantime, we’ll be putting the final touches to our Act before going out there to make complete twats of ourselves.

Chicken Falconer ?

Spent most of yesterday cooling our heels. Lord Falconer's had to re-schedule.

Probably for the best. Gives us a bit more time to prepare.

Had plenty of time to focus on the Bill. It's based in a raft of existing legislation and starting to shape up nicely. Even got a snappy title, "The Misrepresentation of the Peoples Act".

Heh, heh, heh.