Tuesday, 26 March 2019

Which party has the most nasty incompetent ministers? (or shadow ministers)


The party that can vet prospective MPs and ministers for talent ought to get more votes in elections.

I don't think any of the big political parties quite gets this point and I don't know how voters or even party members or donors can make it true or important to the selection process.

That's all this post says, with evidence below, so I will change the subject to something topical - some online voting systems that might suit committees and societies, searched-out a decade ago and maybe no longer working

Free online vote systems come-&-go over time. Some of the sites that come-up on a Google search are government funded papers that never get to the point and list dozens of dud links. There are also free commercial sites, sometimes ugly with adverts or short-lived. Sites that offer surveys with roughly one vote per computer tend to come-up on the same google searches as these rarer voting sites that offer roughly one vote per code from the vote-holder's list, such as a reference on the electoral roll, a membership number, or a code that has been posted or emailed.
  • http://www1.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting : also via voting.sztaki.hu  Both temporally offline since June 2018 although still mentioned on https://dsd.sztaki.hu/products/voting so maybe they can say where to download the somewhere and whether it works on something like Windows or needs a free webserver or similar stack of programs around it to run.
  • Ballotbin.com was the next link found. Free so no excuse not to use.
  • Votefair.org third (fullranking.com for committee decision votes used to be attached). Free so no excuse not to use except looks. The site posts a link to the github site where you can download votefair ranking software free,  and to http://www.negotiationtool.com/ with useful points about negotiation on the same site and claims that it can help with selection of ministers by MPs or with employment disputes. I have not tested either claim
A web link about socks is run by the same group of companies as
Delib.co.uk/products_and_services/opinion-suite - an open source collection of deliberative software, whatever that is. There may be free versions but they must think that full time politicians have got more money than sense because one of the packaged products - My Election - has a price guide of £5,000.
A web link about socks is run by the same group of companies as
Delib.co.uk/products_and_services/opinion-suite - an open source collection of deliberative software, whatever that is. There may be free versions. Their ready set-up version - My Election - has a price guide of £5,000.

I don't ask you to read the rest of this post unless you believe that ministers are competent. It is a story like something out of That's Life with Estha Rantzen but it's here as evidence of the state of UK ministries and ministers for anyone in doubt, who has missed recent TV documentaries and has not tried to do business with the worst tax-funded agencies.




Independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/companies-house-fraud-whistleblower-prosecuting-kevin-brewer-vince-cable-a8307246.html is a story of extraordinary nastyness and incompetence reported in an official statement by Andrew Griffeths. MP ("a strong voice for Burton and Uttoxeter"), sponsored by JCB Escavators and Business Fore. You can read how he votes for Burton Uttoxeter and JCB Escavators on Theyworkforyou.com .

Last year my bad memory - damaged by an NHS mistake - landed me in trouble when I tried to rely on Companies House reminders to file my zero-turnover accounts. The reminder email told me that if I had four days to file accounts with an authentication code, that would take at least five days to provide.

I emailed Zac Goldsmith MP to ask him if he could please ask the minister for Companies House to write a thoughtful reply - not just a brush-off by a civil servant - about whether the system could be changed. The request was certainly passed-on; Zac Goldsmith is a helpful and well organised MP., and he confirmed passing-on the request. No reply came from the ministry. Luckily my appeal against a fine was granted at some cost to me and the civil service in time and hassle. It was an odd system by which you lodge an appeal, hear nothing for ages, and then get a letter saying "OK".

Today I received the same email again, with the same 4 day deadline and 5 day response time for providing authentication codes. Last year I think it took nine days for the code to reach the registered office. There's no reason to think it will be quicker this time.


You might experience issues with our online services on these dates.
6am to 8pm Monday 25 March.
10am Tuesday 26 March to 7am Wednesday 27 March.
We’re sorry for any inconvenience.

After a morning's search, I have found the code, which is lucky. The email says that the fine will be double if I do not submit my accounts in time, because I was late last year.

 I imagine that the civil servants responsible for the story in The Independent are still in the same jobs and on the same high pay scales. The ministers for Companies House now seem to be Kelly Tollhurst working for Greg Clark, and they don't seem better than the dozens who have gone before.

On the same subject of government breaking-down, last night's Panorama was about some schools where trusts simply take the money for senior staff and bills can't be paid. The minister responsible gave a brief interview with a prepared brush-off statement.

Companies House

Your accounts are due

NONLEATHER DISTRIBUTION LTD | 10285177

Your accounts for 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018 are due
To avoid a penalty, we must receive acceptable accounts by
30 April 2019
Warning
Last year this company failed to deliver its accounts by the deadline.
If accounts are filed late this year, the late filing penalty will be doubled.
You must file accounts even if your company is dormant. You only need to send us one copy of your accounts.
Most companies save time and money by filing online
Choose an option that suits your business.
You'll need your company number and authentication code:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/company-authentication-codes-for-online-filing
2. If you use an agent or accountant to file your accounts
Contact your agent or accountant and encourage them to file online.
3. Use software filing
Choose a software provider that allows easy online filing:
https://www.gov.uk/company-filing-software
8 out of 10 companies file online
Check your company details using the Companies House service:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10285177
If your company's not trading and you want to remove it from the register, close your company:
https://www.gov.uk/closing-a-limited-company
To contact us, email enquiries@companieshouse.gov.uk
Yours faithfully,
John-Mark Frost
Head of Service Delivery


Guidance

Company authentication codes for online filing

How to request and manage the authentication code you'll need to file company information online.
The authentication code is a 6 digit alphanumeric code issued by us to each company. The code is used to authorise information filed online and is the equivalent of a company officer’s signature.
You’ll need a code to file your information on our online services or using third-party software.
Do not wait until you’re due to file to request your code and risk it being too late. Because of the high volumes of post, delivery could take longer than usual during busy periods.

How to get your code

Request your code now. It’s sent by post to your company’s registered office and can take up to 5 days to arrive.


Friday, 15 March 2019

Goldsmith voting on brexit march and april 2019



Goldsmith voting on Brexit: Q&A on his web site.


"I am on the record in saying that the PM’s deal is deeply flawed and I have not changed my mind. But – with a great deal of disappointment – I did vote for it last time because it is quite clear that under this Parliament and this Government the alternative to the PM’s deal will likely be far worse.
If I could identify an alternative – one that 

  • broadly reflects promises we were elected on and which has a 
  • realistic chance of being passed by Parliament, 
I will vote against this deal and embrace that alternative. But at this stage I cannot. I can only see months and probably years of wrangling, indecision, paralysis and delay. And I don’t believe our country can cope with that."
On twitter he writes about finding a majority in parliament for different types of leave like this:

  Retweeted
I don’t understand how these indicative votes can be regarded as meaningful, given that the Speaker has whittled them down to four versions of Remain. It’s like a Soviet “election” in which the only party on the ballot was the Communist Party.

The vote results below look different - you'll probably want to skip straight down to them.

One of the questions Zac lists is a request to "honour brexit", meaning to vote to leave anything the brexiteer objects to, because they define it as part of "European Union", or maybe because they say so tactically. That reflects how badly our journalists and government information machines have simplified the issue. Someone like Zak Goldsmith himself who believes there's no point being in the common market and saving billions of pounds on the un-reformable trade association called the EU still believes this is a position worth stating, without anticipating a reply or voting for a compromise or sitting in the commons chamber to hear the arguments. No wonder he gets emails from people who are even further to the right, using the same tactic.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business of the House (1 Apr 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-396-commons
Voted (no) against holding indicative Brexit votes later that day, and
proposing the same on Wednesday 3rd April (division #396; result was 322
aye, 277 no)

Eu: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) (1 Apr 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-397-commons
Voted (no) against instructing the Government to (1) ensure that any
Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU
must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and
comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU; (2) enshrine this
objective in primary legislation.
(C, Customs Union) (division #397;
result was 273 aye, 276 no)

Eu: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) (1 Apr 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-398-commons
Voted (no) against directing the government to renegotiate the Political
Declaration to say e.g. that the UK will accede to the EFTA,  enter the
EFTA Pillar of the EEA, agree relevant protocols relating to
frictionless agri-food trade across the UK/EU border, and enter a
comprehensive customs arrangement
(D, Common Market 2.0) (division #398;
result was 261 aye, 282 no)

Eu: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) (1 Apr 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-399-commons
Voted (no) against saying “this House will not allow in this
Parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal
agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until
they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a
confirmatory public vote.
” (E, Confirmatory public vote) (division
#399; result was 280 aye, 292 no)

Eu: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) (1 Apr 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-04-01-400-commons
Voted (no) against saying that, if time to exit day grows close, the
government must try to extend Article 50; if that fails, ask the House
to approve No Deal; if the House does not, revoke Article 50; if
revocation happens, hold an inquiry within three months; any referendum
question would be on whether to trigger Article 50 and renegotiate that
model
(G, Parliamentary supremacy) (division #400; result was 191 aye,
292 no)








Business of the House (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-385-commons
Voted
no (division #385; result was 331 aye, 287 no) - this was on taking party politics out of the debate and testing options for support, called B D H J K L

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (B) - No Deal (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-386-commons
Voted aye (division #386; result was 160 aye, 400 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (D) - Common Market 2.0 (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-387-commons
Voted no (division #387; result was 188 aye, 283 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (H) - EFTA and EEA (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-388-commons
Voted no (division #388; result was 65 aye, 377 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (J) - Customs Union (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-389-commons
Voted no (division #389; result was 264 aye, 272 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (K) - Labour's alternative plan (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-390-commons
Voted no (division #390; result was 237 aye, 307 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (L) - Revocation to avoid no deal (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-391-commons
Voted no (division #391; result was 184 aye, 293 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (M) - Confirmatory public vote (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-392-commons
Voted no (division #392; result was 268 aye, 295 no)

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship Votes - Motion (O) - Contingent preferential arrangements (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-393-commons
Voted aye (division #393; result was 139 aye, 422 no)

EU Exit Day Amendment (27 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-27-394-commons
Voted no (division #394; result was 439 aye, 104 no)

====================


Business of the House (Today) - UK's Withdrawal from the European Union (14 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-14-361-commons
Voted (no) against amending Hilary Benn’s amendment to fix an Article
50 extension to 30th June (division #361; result was 311 aye, 314 no)

Business of the House (Today) - UK's Withdrawal from the European Union (14 Mar 2019)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2019-03-14-362-commons
Voted (no) against amending the main motion to allow debate on a
cross-party motion on 20th March “to enable the House of Commons to
find a way forward that can command majority support”. (division #362;
result was 312 aye, 314 no)

The amendment would have required a "series of indicative votes" to find-out what sorts of Brexit the majority of MPs will to vote for, and has been suggested for months by Kenneth Clark. It was proposed by Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn. Michial Barnier, chief brexit negotiator for the European Commission, has also asked for a UK majority for one form of Brexit or another to be found before there is an extension.

Theyworkforyou.com summery of Zac Goldmsith's voting record - which doesn't give him credit for a private members bill on female mutilation or for committee work is on the link below - links to sections are on the left


Theyworkforyou.com/mp/24911/zac_goldsmith/richmond_park/vote

It seems polite to mention that Zac Goldsmith helped me get evidence or informed opinions published by the environmental audit committee clerks, who ignored what I sent-in at first. They did publish it in wonky blue with a vital diagram missing and broken links, and they published all evidence in a way not to be indexed by search engines while asking those who had sent it in to promote it on social media, but at least the people published it one way or another.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/sustainability-of-the-fashion-industry-17-19/publications/