Ms Candy Atherton MP, Falmouth and Camborne

voted strongly for the policy

Asylum System - More strict

by scoring 89.9% compared to the votes below

Why Majority/minority instead of Aye/No?
HouseDateSubjectMs Candy AthertonPolicy vote
Commons11 Jun 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Do not allow appeals against rejected asylum claims from within the UK if the claim is unfounded absentMajority
Commons11 Jun 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Allow earlier rights of appeal — rejected absentMajority
Commons12 Jun 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Allow the withdrawal of support from immigrants and asylum seekers in certain circumstances absentMajority
Commons12 Jun 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Do not penalise those who bring passengers to the UK without the necessary authority — rejected absentMajority
Commons12 Jun 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Third Reading absentMajority (strong)
Commons5 Nov 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Asylum seekers can be placed in accommodation centres even if there is no local school pace for dependent children MajorityMajority
Commons5 Nov 2002Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill — Refuse support to asylum seekers who make a late claim MajorityMajority
Commons17 Mar 2003Asylum (Designated States) Order 2003 MajorityMajority
Commons16 Jul 2003Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2003 MajorityMajority
Commons17 Dec 2003Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill — Decline to give a Second Reading — rejected MajorityMajority (strong)
Commons17 Dec 2003Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill — Second Reading MajorityMajority (strong)
Commons1 Mar 2004Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Burden of proof on prosecution rather than defendant in cases where immigrants to not have travel documents — rejected MajorityMajority
Commons1 Mar 2004Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Give support to failed asylum seekers and their families — rejected MajorityMajority
Commons1 Mar 2004Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Asylum appeals should be referred to a higher court — rejected MajorityMajority
Commons1 Mar 2004Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Give support to asylum seekers even when they make a late claim — rejected MajorityMajority
Commons1 Mar 2004Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Third Reading MajorityMajority (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 votesPointsOut of
Most important votes (50 points)   
MP voted with policy3150150
MP voted against policy000
MP absent12550
Less important votes (10 points)   
MP voted with policy88080
MP voted against policy000
Less important absentees (2 points)   
MP absent*448
Total:259288

*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.

agreement score
MP's points
total points
 = 
259
288
 = 89.9 %.


About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive