voted moderately against the policy
by scoring 26.5% compared to the votes below
|House||Date||Subject||Mark Fisher||Policy vote|
|Commons||10 Jun 2008||Counter-Terrorism Bill — Disallow inquests without a jury in England and Wales — rejected||minority||Majority (strong)|
|Commons||10 Jun 2008||Counter Terrorism Bill — Lord Chief Justice to appoint "special coroners" — rejected||Majority||Majority|
|Commons||26 Jan 2009||Coroners and Justice Bill — Condemn the Coroners and Justice Bill — rejected||Majority||Majority|
|Commons||9 Nov 2009||Coroners and Justice Bill — Remove the power of the Lord Chancellor to suspend a coroner's investigation and inquest and replace it with an "inquiry" — rejected||minority||Majority (strong)|
|Commons||12 Nov 2009||Coroners and Justice Bill — Schedule 1 — Explicit Approval of Lord Chief Justice Required for Minister to Suspend Coroner's Inquiry -rejected||absent||Majority (strong)|
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||2||0||100|
|Less important votes (10 points)|
|MP voted with policy||2||20||20|
|MP voted against policy||0||0||0|
|Less important absentees (2 points)|
*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.