Sir Sydney Chapman MP, Chipping Barnet
voted ambiguously on the policy
Protesting near Parliament - Restrict
by scoring 41.7% compared to the votes below
| House | Date | Subject | Sir Sydney Chapman | Policy vote |
| Commons | 7 Dec 2004 | Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill — Timetable | minority | Majority |
| Commons | 3 Feb 2005 | Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill — Timetable — Third reading | minority | Majority |
| Commons | 7 Feb 2005 | Serious Organized Crime and Police Bill -- Demonstrating without authorisation in a designated area | absent | Majority (strong) |
| Commons | 7 Feb 2005 | Serious Organized Crime and Police Bill -- Authorisation for demonstrations in a designated area | absent | Majority (strong) |
How the number is calculated
The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.
Questions about this formula can be discussed on the forum.
| No of votes | Points | Out of | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Most important votes (50 points) | |||
| MP voted with policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MP absent | 2 | 50 | 100 |
| Less important votes (10 points) | |||
| MP voted with policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 2 | 0 | 20 |
| Less important absentees (2 points) | |||
| MP absent* | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total: | 50 | 120 | |
*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference. | |||
total points
120