“That was the week that was” or TW3 was a satirical political programme in the days when Politicians needed the help of TV  programmes to have fun poked at them. Now we also have  Parliament Week and the broadcasting of events such as Prime Ministers and last nights Question Time. The despair of listening to Cameron, acting as if the failure of the CO-OP Bank was an isolated case and Conservative donors have not already destroyed many national banking institutions, and of Miliband failing to offer an apology for allowing his party to become so focused on winning  local and national elections, that the catalogue of problems emerging from Paul Flowers did not get addressed by people who knew about his failings but chose not to blow an appropriate whistle. Then we had the agony of watching Hunt and Khan on Question Time acting as if Punch and Judy needed some stand-ins on national TV, refusing to make any constructive comments because they are addicted to disagreement and contradiction. The fact that half the audience represented the people who always vote and need to be encouraged by one side to choose them, and the other half was made up of people who never vote and therefore need to be inspired, should have helped the two men and Olly Grender understand that an inclusive and engaging approach was what was needed. Perhaps, they will do better next year?

At a more local level, and being half way through the 6 week consultation period for part two of the lobbying (or gagging) bill, I can update this blog with how our 16 Sussex MPs have responded to my correspondence. Part two of the Bill refers to the controls intended for charities in their discussions with Parliamentarians. As I wrote previously two of the Sussex MPs do not support the Bill in its current form: Caroline Lucas (Green) voted against the third reading, and Stephen Lloyd (Lib Dem) abstained.

This leaves 14 MPs who voted for the third reading of the Bill, 13 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem, so all members of the coalition parties including three members of the Government. I have contacted them in a number of ways and so far (with 3 weeks to go) the response remains disappointing, but since last week there has been quite a bit of activity.

I have had a lot of twitter correspondence with Simon Kirby (Kemptown & Peacehaven) and he has promised a brief meeting in the next few weeks.

I have now had meaningful correspondence from three MPs, two of whom are Ministers. Francis Maude has sent me a brief statement which is wee bit ambiguous. I have asked for clarification and if I can share the text with others. Greg Barker who originally explained that he could not correspond with me at all, has now written a very nice letter explaining his position on the Bill which he is happy for me to share with his constituents. The third response came from backbench Peter Bottomley suggesting he thinks that concerns regarding the Bill are an over-reaction.

Three MPs have written explaining that they are willing to receive correspondence from constituents on this subject. This is no more than their contractual obligation but this response also makes it clear they don’t wish to hold a consultative or speculative meeting with constituents, and also that they don’t wish to make a statement explaining why they have voted as they have. Clearly I cannot tell if they would be more open with their views to a constituent. These MPs are Charles Hendry, Andrew Tyrie, Mike Weatherley.

Two MPs have written to explain that they cannot correspond with me, and whilst I have pointed out I am writing to find out how constituents who I work for can best engage with them over this matter Nick Gibb and Amber Rudd are continuing to explain that Parliamentary protocol prevents them from writing to me.

The remaining five MPs have not responded to my email or other correspondence in any way at all. They are Norman Baker, Nick Herbert, Tim Loughton, Henry Smith and Nicholas Soames. Of these Norman Baker is a Government Minister, the type of person who the Government statement claimed was going to consult widely!

This broad range of responses comes from people who all know that democracy is under pressure, and during democracy week might have seen this as a much needed opportunity to meet with constituents to explain their own decision making or at least be seen to consult on a matter of public policy that the Government has announced it is consulting on. This result is not a ringing endorsement for Parliamentary openness in Sussex, and perhaps proves that there are enough MPs and Ministers willing to satirise their own roles without a replacement for TW3!