Against ID cards? Not in principle and not in person

Following on from Andrew's propagation of Nosemonkey's fine work, these are the Tory MPs that were not present at the recent ID card vote. The vote that passed the damnable things by a margin of 25 votes:

David Davies (Monmouthshire), Quentin Davies (Grantham & Stamford), Roger Gale (North Thanet), Michael Gove (Surrey Heath), Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham), Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham), Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden), Michael Mates (East Hampshire), Richard Ottaway (Croydon South), Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex), Anthony Steen (Totnes), Gary Streeter (South West Devon), Ian Taylor (Esher & Walton), Edward Vaizey (Wantage), Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald), George Young (North West Hampshire).

As Andrew says, read 'em and weep.

I have sent the following to Peter Lilley MP:

Dear Peter,

The blogosphere is awash with the names of the Tory MPs that were
not present at the recent ID card vote in the commons. The vote that
passed the damnable things by 25 votes. Your name is on that list.

I let my membership of the Tory party lapse last year on the basis of
Tory support for these cards in principle and I see that, in spite of
subsequent talk, nothing has changed.

I am in your constituency and I am also the Chairman of the 1952
committee details of which can be found here:

http://www.theenglandproject.net/1952committee.html

Please let me know when a Conservative Party rises like a pheonix
from the ashes of the present shambles.

Many thanks.

I have received this response from Christine who was, apparently, personally asked by Peter Lilley to respond to my email:

Peter Lilley has asked me to thank you for your email. He voted against the ID Cards Bill at every stage prior to the Report Stage last night even when he was whipped to vote in favour. Last night, he left a dinner he was addressing to vote against the Bill at 9 'clock, but regrettably he did not manage to get back in time to do so at the 10 o'clock vote. I attach a copy of a recent pamphlet he wrote on the issue. I would be grateful if you could let me have your address in Mr Lilley's constituency.

I responded, holding off my dinner so that I might do so in a timely fashion:

It's a real shame he didn't make it to the vote on time. It's a question of priorities I guess.

As for my address I see no reason why it is necessary. Indeed, to remain anonymous seems to be a pre-requisite of political blogging these days. Most of us do not trust the state with sensitive information (hence our stand against ID cards) and, though you are in opposition, a general position of non-cooperation seems the order of the day.

However, if your request was based around the desire for me to prove that I am indeed a member of the constituency you should look no further than the list of invitees to a soon to happen "speak to your MP" house visit/dinner in Harpenden. I am on that list though I will not be attending.

I have also written Mr. Lilley numerous letters. Look to a letter of Peter's with a very terse response to one of my more polemic letters to him. I suspect it will be hard to see the woods for the trees.

I understand this is not absolute proof of anything, but it certainly has more of a provenance than the lies and half truths the government is feeding us about ID cards. If that's good enough for the House of Commons........

We feel very let down. Peter was too late to the vote. I would feel bad about that if I was an MP. I would certainly apologize rather than send a pamphlet.

(Blogged to 1952 committee members.)

Posted by John at October 19, 2005 03:19 PM | TrackBack