Nadine Dorries

Nadine Dorries is the MP for Mid Bedfordshire. What questions would you like her to answer before the General Election? as

Format: I suggest we break up individual issues by header until we get closer to our choice of priorities. Big issues/events may need their own page if discussion goes into any length. I've also added some notation to Sue's earl entries, but not being a big Wiki user I'm only guessing it will work. Tim Ireland

The Bercow vendetta

Why does she think it is acceptable that someone who is a Member of Parliament, can publically mock and disrespect the Speaker of the House John Bercow and his wife Sally. I find her tweets regarding both Bercows as childish, bitchy and speaking as one of her constituents myself, embarassing. Sue Cullen

Stephen Rhodes

What was your true relationship with Independent candidate Stephen Rhodes and what made you publically end that relationship with him on Twitter? Seems a very odd way of responding to his announcement that he is standing for Luton South. As a friend, surely encouragement would have been more appropriate? Sue Cullen

Employment of any/all three daughters

Can you please explain to us why it is reported that you have just employed your third daughter Cassandra, just before the dissolution of Parliament, afterwhich the rules would forbid it? We are interested to know in what capacity Cassandra is to be employed, what qualifies her for the position and what salary she is to be paid. Can you tell us how the interview process took place, how many other candidates applied for this position, when and where it was advertised etc. We are also interested in you answering the same questions but in regard instead to your other two daughters, Phillippa and Jennifer. Sue Cullen

Hand of Hope

Nadine Dorries put forward a known urban myth as evidence during the abortion debate, and when this was challenged she implied that the surgeon involved had changed his story under duress. [1] She also suggested that the 'torn' flesh was proof that a foetus had thrust its hand out of a womb to grasps the doctor's digit. This is not something that can be defended then dismissed as a mere difference of opinion, as Dorries showed her scientific ignorance and betrayed her reliance on faith while claiming that her campaign was a matter of science rather than faith (e.g. Nadine Dorries, who claims expertise in early life due to her past status as a nurse, reveals in this exchange that she doesn't even know how a placenta works). Similarly, the absurd reversal of reality where she talks of violent 'pro abortionist' forces cannot pass without comment. Out of all the issues Dorries has sought to pass by without further comment, this one is the most telling IMO, and it touches on the not-unrelated matter of bringing proposed legislative changes to the House that were drafted and worded by fundamentalists. Tim Ireland

The only valid claim she makes is "disproved" in a recent study [2], leaving the argument for dropping to 20 weeks virtually discredited from every possible angle. With so much evidence stacked against her argument, I'd like to know how she would justify such a change (without bring religious beliefs into the debate) (added by Chris Mou)

Human Rights

I would like to know more about Nadines commitment to Human Rights.

There are many reasons why people turn to burglary, and crime in general. So some clarification about her statement that "When you break into someones house to do harm, you leave every right you have at the door"[3].

Does losing all you right include your right to life? Your right to a fair trial? Your right to pay your debt to society and continue through your life as an upstanding, positively contributing member of society? Sim-O

Turnout for vote on formation of Welsh Assembly

During a recent Twitter "debate" with Harris Nadine incorrectly claimed that The turnout for a vote on the formation of a Welsh Assembly was around 35% [4]. When confronted with multiple sources claiming otherwise [5] [6] [7] Nadine regressed to the arguing style of an 8 year old, using lines such as "Hellooo o- you now have to say 'yes, you are right' that's a woman thing !"!" [8] and "No, no, no, sorry, you are grasping @ straws now.. just admit you are wrong ! Or watch QT and your wannabe leader failing!" [9]. I'd like to know why, as is the case on so many occasions when faced with irrefutable evidence against her point, is she so unwilling to admit she is wrong? Even on subjects that aren't even that important. I'd also like to know if she believes that saving face is more important to retaining credibility, as demonstrated in this case. Chris Mou