14 Comments

  1. There would appear to be more AGAINST than FOR!
    It needs to be clarified from the MP’s that have not indicated their position, where they stand.
    If majority AGAINST, it will give a mandate to stop closures.

    I urge everyone with MP’s that have not replied to get in touch with them and get them behind the campaign.

    I also would ask all those with MP’s FOR closures, to write to them and object to their stance.

    • Well said CJ. That is exactly right. This is an ideal opportunity for Members of Parliament to state once and for all whether they support the retention of MRCC’s or not. Views of particular interest would of course be from those MP’s with coastal constituencies regardless of whether or not they are directly affected by the closure plan but it is important that ALL elected representatives respond.

  2. This is an e-mail received 25/01/11 from an assistant to my MP Shaun Woodward (Lab) St Helens South & Whiston after I asked him to sign the EDM:

    Quote
    Dear Richard Lamb,

    Shaun Woodward thanks you for drawing his attention to EDM 1256 regarding coastguard station closures.

    There is a long standing convention which prevents members of the government and shadow ministers from signing EDMs. This is because they are used by backbench members to draw attention to an issue. As a member of the shadow cabinet, for this reason, Shaun hopes that you will understand why he will not sign it.

    However he has noted your concerns and will keep them in mind should any relevant considerations come before him. If you have any personal issues regarding the matter that you would like him to take up directly with the relevant minister, please let him know.

    With regards,
    Nathalie Spells

    Secretary, Shaun Woodward MP
    Unquote

    I can’t say if he is for or against and I guess the position is still the same.

    • Thanks for this Richard. Many Members of Parliament are excluded from signing EDM’s because of Parliamentary protocol so it is not uncommon to find that this is the case. However, if you ask your MP the direct question of whether they are “FOR or AGAINST the closure of maritime rescue & coordination centres” you should expect to recieve a response either way. Thanks as always for your support.

      • As David Cameron is on record as saying he is FOR the closures (no surprise there!) on the website, I see no reason why Shaun Woodward reckons he can’t say where he stands.
        I reckon this means that he’s either FOR (or at least, not against) the closures but doesn’t want to stand up & say so, particularly as so many nearby MPs (including his colleague, Dave Watts. (in St Helens North)) have gone on record as against.

  3. Have written to my local mp to try & prompt response/support from him, hopefully you’ll get more people doing the same, as it’s not fair/right to have this as an ongoing issue. The CG do far too important a job to be worrying over whether their station will be closed or not!

  4. Just a question – how does Ignored differ from Not answered?

    • Thanks for asking for clarification. Just to confirm first of all that EVERY MP has been emailed.

      Q IGNORED means that no response has been received after an MP has been emailed with the question on at least two occasions. If however they are active on twitter, the same direct question has also been put to them (in addition to the emails) and has still been ignored.

      For those with grey status’s stating Q NOT ANSWERED This means that to-date no response has been received from the emails sent out. We will of course proceed to update each of these status’s to Q IGNORED as time goes on. Hope this helps.

  5. Pingback: Responsibility and culpability | CoastguardSOS

  6. Pingback: Argyll News: Prime Minister apologises for ‘drafting error’ in Coastguard closure letter. | For Argyll

  7. Marthacatsmum

    I live in Worthing and I asked my MP Tim Loughton via Twitter whether he would be voting for or against. He basically told me off for asking him this question via Twitter and not via more conventional methods. I guess this means that he is avoiding answering the question. Surely a ‘coastal’ MP should be ensuring that our waters are safe for all our visitors who flock to the coast. It frightens me to think of the number of lives that are going to be sacrificed at the altar of economy/efficiency. I will let you know if a more conventional method actually works at provoking a response from my MP.

    • Hi Gail. Thank you for posting this. Your MP has a duty to respond to his constituents concerns and does not have a mandate for “telling you off” for asking a simple question via twitter – His response suggests arrogance QUOTE: ” if you are a constituent you could always try contacting me properly. It’s not difficult”. I would hope that you will contact him “properly” in order to ask the question again of whether he is FOR or AGAINST the closure of UK Coastguard rescue coordination centres and whilst he is at it perhaps he might wish to apologise for his arrogant tweet to you. – MP’s must realise that by going on social media such as twitter they inevitably will be asked questions by people who have legitimate concerns – Personally I would rather see them address those concerns than read some of the total drivel that some of them tweet. Finally, for info purposes, Tim Loughton MP has been asked on three occasions via email to respond to the Coastguard question – He has so far ignored the question. Please keep us posted :)

    • Why should he worry about a reply via twitter when his reply will be a matter of public record whatever medium he uses? It’s a bit cheeky of him; Twitter is a perfectly legitimate medium for a simple yes/no question to an MP.

  8. Pingback: Why the jewels in our crown will become poisoned chalices « thatspr

  9. Dai Wynne-Jones

    I have twittered Aidan Burley today. If I get a reply I will let you know. These needs stopping

  10. If it was a vote the not voted wouldn’t count so that a win for against then

  11. The Coastguard closure program is a legitimate cause for concern for all taxpayers. The private contract will cost the same, if not more by the time they are granted and provide only half the service that we had up until 2012. Therefore, the various elected representatives, known as M.P.s, have a duty to all of the taxpaying public to question the proposals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 3 = 11

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>