I'm the dehumanizing master, you better start your talking 'cos I get what I go after

[venta]

So, last night a controversial bill passed its third reading. This isn't obvious: even the BBC carries only a mashed-over story covering people's comment on what would happen if the bill were passed, with a sentence buried a couple of paragraphs in mentioning that it was passed last night by a majority of 142. Is there a rule about not reporting such stories until the Queen's corgi has formally licked it or something ?

As far as I can tell, via a friendly Guardian blog, the only people who showed up to the actual debate part were those who were against and Stephen Timms, the fantastically-titled Minister for Digital Britain; everyone else just trundled in at the end to vote with the Whips.

Can anyone tell me how to deduce which way my MP voted ? Public Whip doesn't seem to be having April yet.

Comments

[phlebas.livejournal.com]

Mine didn't vote either. Not that he'd have been voting on the right side, but I'd already half-composed the angry email about it...

[venta.livejournal.com]

From the communications I'd have from mine, I had been led to believe that he was against the bill. I foolishly thought he'd therefore be voting against it.

Still, I guess a half-hour train ride is a lot to take on to get to Westminster of an evening :(

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Do you want to know what your MP said about the entire thing pre-vote?

"For nearly twelve years, the Government has neglected this crucial area of our economy. We believe a huge amount needs to be done to give the UK a modern regulatory environment for the digital and creative industries. Whilst we welcome aspects of the bill there are other areas of great concern to us.
"We want to make sure that Britain has the most favourable intellectual framework in the world for innovators, digital content creators and high tech businesses. We recognise the need to tackle digital piracy and make it possible for people to buy and sell digital intellectual property online. However, it is vital that any anti-piracy measures promote new business models rather than holding innovation back. This must not be about propping up existing business models but creating an environment that allows new ones to develop. That is why we were opposed to the original clause 17 and are still opposed to clause 29 which props up ITV regional news with BBC Licence Fee payers money.
"The Government’s failure to introduce the Bill until the eleventh hour of this Parliament has given rise to considerable concern that we no longer have the time to scrutinise the many controversial and detailed measures outlined in their proposals. We fully appreciate these concerns. However in certain areas, including measures to allow website blocking in certain carefully proscribed circumstances, there has been substantial debate in the House of Lords. I also believe they should be debated in the House of Commons before we agree to them. Only if we are confident that they have been given the scrutiny that they deserve will we support them
"It is also worth pointing out that many of the fears about the Bill’s proposals are not entirely accurate. People won’t be disconnected from the internet without due process. And it will only be a small minority of people who consistently infringe copyright who are disconnected, not the average person who happens to have done so once or twice. Even then, they may be able to reconnect using another ISP immediately and without penalty.
"Please rest assured that my colleagues in the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport and Shadow Business, Innovation and Skills teams will do everything in their power to work towards legislation that strengthens our digital sector and provides the security that our businesses and consumers so desperately need."

I think that translates as "..."

[phlebas.livejournal.com]

That's a lot more coherent than the reply I got (and also more popular - googling suggests most of the Tory party have used identical wording). I got:

"Thank you for contacting me about the Digital Economy Bill.
"I appreciate that this particular section of the Bill has caused a great deal of concern amongst content creators and can assure you that it is something that my colleagues have been considering carefully to get right.
"From his conversations with the Government, my colleague Jeremy Hunt MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, believes that it is listening to some of the concerns raised by photographers. The Government has said that it will be bringing forward a whole host of changes to this clause for the Report Stage of the Bill. My colleagues will examine these changes closely and make sure they address each of your worries below.
"My Party and I are keen to move amendments that address the problem of people stripping out identifying information from a digital image. We want to clamp down on this and ensure that the Bill does not encourage such activities. We also want to see in the legislation specific requirements for a search for the rights holder and a system in place if that rights holder comes forward at a later date. In no way should this Bill actually harm content creators.
"I am very hopeful that we can get this right as sorting out the current system will unlock a whole host of content that can be used for the public good. I really believe that the BBC and British Library archives for instance will be much easier to access under these proposals.
"Thanks again for letting me know of your concerns. My colleagues and I will do all we can to make sure the Government takes these into account."

which doesn't even bother mentioning the disconnection thing I was asking about.

[lanfykins.livejournal.com]

Pah. I shan't be voting for him then.

Not that I was going to anyway, mind.

[venta.livejournal.com]

It seems I've been maligning (http://venta.livejournal.com/330404.html?thread=4824996#t4824996) my MP.

[shui-long.livejournal.com]

Surely it is next to impossible to malign a politician - at least in commenting on their politics, (complete absence of) credibility or (poor) value for taxpayers' money...