Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Four CON MPs to become peers – but no by-elections – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 27 in General
imageFour CON MPs to become peers – but no by-elections – politicalbetting.com

The Times is reporting that four current Tory MPs are to be made peers in the Johnson resignation honours list.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    Off topic. But Proper Political Betting Post. I’m going to have a few words and bold predictions on the US elections.

    Is polling different in the US? I understand UK polling is governed by a Council, and pollsters sign up agree rules to be followed. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/rules-and-practices-of-political-opinion-polls/

    Quite right too. If Opinion polls are biased it can be used to distort democratic elections. But if you are going to have rules, then you are going down the road of monitoring and policing.

    Are the rules, and monitoring and policing, across the pond robust enough? Put another way, are views and political bets being shaped by tracking successive polls from more highly and trusted pollsters, or is the head being turned by “interesting” polls from less highly and trusted and experienced pollsters? I’m suspicious of the small amount of polling in these mid terms from respected pollsters, and the large amount from, ahem, can we call them cowboys?

    On this basis I have a feeling the current balance in the Senate won’t go anywhere - 1 pick up for each side. Nor will the defeat for Democrats in the house be a large one - if red wave was ever on, Roe v Wade announcement in June aborted it prematurely.

    Despite the no change senate, I’m also predicting, because of so many obvious close races, another bout of the old Red Mirage - red leads with blue votes counted later.

    This is not to say it won’t be a concerning night for the democrats - Stacey Abrams has crashed and burned in her own fight, and Latino voting GOP will again be a thing - this will have to be analysed and correct lessons learned.

    And then the big one in two years. Should we presume the Republican Nomination is Trumps for the taking? With ever decreasing circles of problematic expensive legal proceedings getting closer to Trump, what about strong, ambitious challengers appealing to primary voters for a fresh start from it all?

    Nikki Haley. If she ran against him, how exactly would Trump and his fan club tackle her? She sounds like him, only without his baggage.

    https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/07/nikki-haley-suggests-deporting-raphael-warnock/
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    I feel guilty now the first post is off topic 🤦‍♀️ So I’ll do a On Topic post.

    Is it a Johnson wheeze, or is this a Sunak wheeze? This is exactly what Sunak wanted, avoiding by elections. Johnson likely don’t give a toss either way.

    I presume the MPs involved have been consulted and on board?

    Will the furious row also involve unhappy Tories, if this drags the king into endorsing this change in procedure and tradition?

    For all the fuss this could provoke, is this really a great affront to democracy, or wholly impractical way of doing things. Maybe it’s just me slow on the uptake, but what is so terribly bad about this needs a bit more clarifying.

    The idea PMs sacked in disgrace can create so many unelected voters in the upper house seems a lot more wrong.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    No Jacob Rees-Mogg, which is to JRM's credit.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    This shines a tricky light on the whole Lords appointment issue - for example - ex PMs going back 16 years are still awaiting formal nomination for peerages so its hardly unprecedented. Does a future PM have to be held to the nominations (or what if unsavoury stories a la Williamson come out about the waiting room Peers prior to their elevation). I've not seen the numbers recently but it does feel as though Peerages have become way too cosy with No 10 (one of the few things I agree with N Farage about).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047
    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313

    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?

    They might end up even more disinterested in their constituents than Boris Johnson currently demonstrates.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,047

    It should become the norm for any MPs elevated to the peerage by a departing PM to wait until dissolution before taking their seats. The voters put them in for a full term. Why have the need for them to vote again foisted on them?

    They might end up even more disinterested in their constituents than Boris Johnson currently demonstrates.
    They can always select their next candidate and have them work with the MP until the election.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,485
    I'm going out on a limb here:

    Today (Tuesday) will be a better than expected night for the Democrats.

    Why?

    Four things:

    (1) The mood music (& betting) is monumentally negative on the Dem chances. And if everyone is facing in one direction... well, one of two things is likely. Either the Dems are going to do much worse (and lose GA/AZ/NV and one of NH/CO), or they're going to do surprisingly well, and pick up PA, and only lose one of the three. (And maybe they pick up Wisconsin or North Carolina.)

    (2) The Dems actually have performed pretty well in Special Elections in the last four or five months, and those have tended to be pretty predictive.

    (3) The general assumption is that polling overstates the Dems. And my gut is that these things go in cycles.

    (4) There might well be a surge in voting (as in 2016) from historically low turnout groups - in particular younger women.

    So.

    I have a little snifter, by selling Republican majority. (Which can also payout in the event that the Republicans end up net +1 against the Dems, and also lose Utah.)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm going out on a limb here:

    Today (Tuesday) will be a better than expected night for the Democrats.

    Why?

    Four things:

    (1) The mood music (& betting) is monumentally negative on the Dem chances. And if everyone is facing in one direction... well, one of two things is likely. Either the Dems are going to do much worse (and lose GA/AZ/NV and one of NH/CO), or they're going to do surprisingly well, and pick up PA, and only lose one of the three. (And maybe they pick up Wisconsin or North Carolina.)

    (2) The Dems actually have performed pretty well in Special Elections in the last four or five months, and those have tended to be pretty predictive.

    (3) The general assumption is that polling overstates the Dems. And my gut is that these things go in cycles.

    (4) There might well be a surge in voting (as in 2016) from historically low turnout groups - in particular younger women.

    So.

    I have a little snifter, by selling Republican majority. (Which can also payout in the event that the Republicans end up net +1 against the Dems, and also lose Utah.)

    I think you might be right
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913

    This shines a tricky light on the whole Lords appointment issue - for example - ex PMs going back 16 years are still awaiting formal nomination for peerages so its hardly unprecedented. Does a future PM have to be held to the nominations (or what if unsavoury stories a la Williamson come out about the waiting room Peers prior to their elevation). I've not seen the numbers recently but it does feel as though Peerages have become way too cosy with No 10 (one of the few things I agree with N Farage about).

    There’s a Peerage waiting for any of the former PMs, they would only need to make one phone call. The reason they don’t do it, is because a Peerage comes with the responsibility to declare one’s outside earnings in the same way as for MPs.

    We do know that the highest earning MP last year was Theresa May, who sell speeches in the £150k range and made over a million in 2021. Yes, it would be good to know Tony Blair’s sources of wealth.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    edited November 8
    Gavin Williamson is an appalling person.

    https://news.sky.com/story/gavin-williamson-strongly-rejects-telling-civil-servant-to-slit-your-throat-12741279

    What does he have on Sunak that the PM had to appoint a nasty, incompetent, piece of work like him back into Cabinet?

    I was prepared to give Sunak time after the Liz Truss fiasco but his appointments of Braverman and Williamson, together with his COP27 stance and U-turn, make me think he's a weak man. This was evidenced when he failed to take down Boris at the opportune time 12 months ago. The fact that he's now PM owes to chance and the Conservative Party's election of a dud predecessor.

    I think Sunak lacks political nous.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,403
    On topic. Anything which put the LD faces out of joint gets my vote😉😀
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    felix said:

    On topic. Anything which put the LD faces out of joint gets my vote😉😀

    On current polling had these by elections gone ahead labour should have gone hell for leather on all of them and stuff the Lib Dems. Labour should win them at a canter.
  • sbjme19sbjme19 Posts: 26
    Mid Beds? Surely the opposition would have a better chance in the other three seats, especially Reading.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    sbjme19 said:

    Mid Beds? Surely the opposition would have a better chance in the other three seats, especially Reading.

    On current polling. They have a chance in all 4. Shame it won’t happen.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,885
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    It's a bit of both but not on a major scale. As I mentioned, not something I can get too worked up about. So it probably wasn't worth your while replying really. Less is more and all that.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,421

    Off topic. But Proper Political Betting Post. I’m going to have a few words and bold predictions on the US elections.

    Is polling different in the US? I understand UK polling is governed by a Council, and pollsters sign up agree rules to be followed. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/rules-and-practices-of-political-opinion-polls/

    Quite right too. If Opinion polls are biased it can be used to distort democratic elections. But if you are going to have rules, then you are going down the road of monitoring and policing.

    Are the rules, and monitoring and policing, across the pond robust enough? Put another way, are views and political bets being shaped by tracking successive polls from more highly and trusted pollsters, or is the head being turned by “interesting” polls from less highly and trusted and experienced pollsters? I’m suspicious of the small amount of polling in these mid terms from respected pollsters, and the large amount from, ahem, can we call them cowboys?

    On this basis I have a feeling the current balance in the Senate won’t go anywhere - 1 pick up for each side. Nor will the defeat for Democrats in the house be a large one - if red wave was ever on, Roe v Wade announcement in June aborted it prematurely.

    Despite the no change senate, I’m also predicting, because of so many obvious close races, another bout of the old Red Mirage - red leads with blue votes counted later.

    This is not to say it won’t be a concerning night for the democrats - Stacey Abrams has crashed and burned in her own fight, and Latino voting GOP will again be a thing - this will have to be analysed and correct lessons learned.

    And then the big one in two years. Should we presume the Republican Nomination is Trumps for the taking? With ever decreasing circles of problematic expensive legal proceedings getting closer to Trump, what about strong, ambitious challengers appealing to primary voters for a fresh start from it all?

    Nikki Haley. If she ran against him, how exactly would Trump and his fan club tackle her? She sounds like him, only without his baggage.

    https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/07/nikki-haley-suggests-deporting-raphael-warnock/

    Nikki is great. Only partly batshit.

  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    edited November 8
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    It's a bit of both but not on a major scale. As I mentioned, not something I can get too worked up about. So it probably wasn't worth your while replying really. Less is more and all that.
    Wise words you should apply to your own posts.

    Anyway nonsense needs challenging. Deferring the peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption. It’s a ridiculous comment. I’m also amused at how many people online post they are not bothered about something and then continue to talk about what they are not bothered by. 😂😂😂😂
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    Leeds Uni students ‘occupy’ a lecture theatre to demand an end to stuff that triggers them.

    https://twitter.com/srleeds_/status/1589539176231612416?s=61&t=Q67cLepfr_N78NtIAYPa-g
  • rcs1000 said:

    I'm going out on a limb here:

    Today (Tuesday) will be a better than expected night for the Democrats.

    Why?

    Four things:

    (1) The mood music (& betting) is monumentally negative on the Dem chances. And if everyone is facing in one direction... well, one of two things is likely. Either the Dems are going to do much worse (and lose GA/AZ/NV and one of NH/CO), or they're going to do surprisingly well, and pick up PA, and only lose one of the three. (And maybe they pick up Wisconsin or North Carolina.)

    (2) The Dems actually have performed pretty well in Special Elections in the last four or five months, and those have tended to be pretty predictive.

    (3) The general assumption is that
    polling overstates the Dems. And my
    gut is that these things go in cycles.

    (4) There might well be a surge in voting (as in 2016) from historically low turnout groups - in particular younger women.

    So.

    I have a little snifter, by selling Republican majority. (Which can also payout in the event that the Republicans end up net +1 against the Dems, and also lose Utah.)

    On (4), the state data so far (certainly from Nevada, Georgia and NC) doesn't suggest a huge surge of younger voters, it's actually quite subdued. That may change on Election Day but, so far, it doesn't look to be surging .

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm going out on a limb here:

    Today (Tuesday) will be a better than expected night for the Democrats.

    Why?

    Four things:

    (1) The mood music (& betting) is monumentally negative on the Dem chances. And if everyone is facing in one direction... well, one of two things is likely. Either the Dems are going to do much worse (and lose GA/AZ/NV and one of NH/CO), or they're going to do surprisingly well, and pick up PA, and only lose one of the three. (And maybe they pick up Wisconsin or North Carolina.)

    (2) The Dems actually have performed pretty well in Special Elections in the last four or five months, and those have tended to be pretty predictive.

    (3) The general assumption is that polling overstates the Dems. And my gut is that these things go in cycles.

    (4) There might well be a surge in voting (as in 2016) from historically low turnout groups - in particular younger women.

    So.

    I have a little snifter, by selling Republican majority. (Which can also payout in the event that the Republicans end up net +1 against the Dems, and also lose Utah.)

    North carolina early vote data is horrific for the Dems
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,890
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    It's a bit of both but not on a major scale. As I mentioned, not something I can get too worked up about. So it probably wasn't worth your while replying really. Less is more and all that.
    Wise words you should apply to your own posts.

    Anyway nonsense needs challenging. Deferring the peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption. It’s a ridiculous comment. I’m also amused at how many people online post they are not bothered about something and then continue to talk about what they are not bothered by. 😂😂😂😂
    Given that a failed politician being allowed to appoint his pals as members of the legislature for life is about as corrupt a political concept as you can imagine, it's a bit difficult to assert that anything connected with the process isn't sleazy or corrupt!
  • Deferred peerages is King Charles III playing partisan politics to help out a political party.

    Republic Now!
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,235
    Chris said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    It's a bit of both but not on a major scale. As I mentioned, not something I can get too worked up about. So it probably wasn't worth your while replying really. Less is more and all that.
    Wise words you should apply to your own posts.

    Anyway nonsense needs challenging. Deferring the peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption. It’s a ridiculous comment. I’m also amused at how many people online post they are not bothered about something and then continue to talk about what they are not bothered by. 😂😂😂😂
    Given that a failed politician being allowed to appoint his pals as members of the legislature for life is about as corrupt a political concept as you can imagine, it's a bit difficult to assert that anything connected with the process isn't sleazy or corrupt!
    Not really, I just did and stand by what I said.

    The honours system as a whole needs reform.

    Heathener was talking about 4 people deferring their elevation to the lords as sleaze and corruption. It isn’t.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Chris said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    On topic, this is one area that I can't get too worked up about. Deferring the peerages until the General Election isn't great. But there are several worse examples of sleaze and corruption around at the moment.

    By-elections are fun and, as Mike Smithson has demonstrated, good betting opportunities.

    What I really want is a General Election. Time to reboot British politics.

    Deferring these peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption.
    It's a bit of both but not on a major scale. As I mentioned, not something I can get too worked up about. So it probably wasn't worth your while replying really. Less is more and all that.
    Wise words you should apply to your own posts.

    Anyway nonsense needs challenging. Deferring the peerages is neither sleaze nor corruption. It’s a ridiculous comment. I’m also amused at how many people online post they are not bothered about something and then continue to talk about what they are not bothered by. 😂😂😂😂
    Given that a failed politician being allowed to appoint his pals as members of the legislature for life is about as corrupt a political concept as you can imagine, it's a bit difficult to assert that anything connected with the process isn't sleazy or corrupt!
    If you cannot imagine anything more corrupt than that, then you have no imagination and zero knowledge of politics around the world. For one thing, I'd mention US presidential pardons as being one much more corrupt concept.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited November 8

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.

    The House of Lords has less democratic legitimacy than the European Parliament.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    https://twitter.com/Elaijuh/status/1589847042729291776?t=q-MFr9EoTjjdJJvlpRxq2Q&s=19

    Fucks sake. Blue shift in Pennsylvania will be loooooooooong
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
  • Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    I'd limit the senate to 250 or so members.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    Agree that the nomination of Lords by and ex-pm is not great democy, but given that Johnson has nominated these four, why should it make any difference if they take their place in the HoL now or in two years time? Much more important is that the constituents have an active MP. These four were elected for the parliametary term and if they continue their duties as MPs then great.

  • If this is indeed a wheeze, why would it be Boris's?

    He doesn't give a shit about the Conservative Party. Why would he care if it lost a few by-elections?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    In Kansas the key stat was the surge of female vote registrations followed by formerly non-voter participation.

    Looking at Target Smart data there is no surge of non-voter participation anywhere. Unless they are turning out on the day then young (and old) women are not saving the Dems
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Taz said:

    Leeds Uni students ‘occupy’ a lecture theatre to demand an end to stuff that triggers them.

    https://twitter.com/srleeds_/status/1589539176231612416?s=61&t=Q67cLepfr_N78NtIAYPa-g

    What happens if somebody declares that silly, self-indulgent protests trigger them?

    Will they protest on their behalf against their right to protest?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    An alternative solution might of course be to abolish the Lords but have proper devolution to England. Then we could just keep the Commons as a unicameral national chamber.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,421

    Deferred peerages is King Charles III playing partisan politics to help out a political party.

    Republic Now!

    No worse than the promise to create a hundred new peers to help the Liberals get their budget through

    Seriously though - I doubt this will be a commitment by the King. Just a political promise by the PM
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,824

    If this is indeed a wheeze, why would it be Boris's?

    He doesn't give a shit about the Conservative Party. Why would he care if it lost a few by-elections?

    The delay is the clue. That Johnson always intended to nominate a batch of his MP friends is general knowledge. The party didn't want the by-elections. This change in procedure is the agreed outcome.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    edited November 8

    Deferred peerages is King Charles III playing partisan politics to help out a political party.

    Republic Now!

    No worse than the promise to create a hundred new peers to help the Liberals get their budget through

    Seriously though - I doubt this will be a commitment by the King. Just a political promise by the PM
    It was 500 new peers. Would have been the largest ever single creation of peerages.

    Edit — and WTF is wrong with Vanilla this morning?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    I wouldn't replace it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,197
    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Indeed. We have the bishops, who were the celibate ones.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Taz said:

    Leeds Uni students ‘occupy’ a lecture theatre to demand an end to stuff that triggers them.

    https://twitter.com/srleeds_/status/1589539176231612416?s=61&t=Q67cLepfr_N78NtIAYPa-g

    Students have been occupying things since before many of us here were born.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited November 8
    .

    Deferred peerages is King Charles III playing partisan politics to help out a political party.

    Republic Now!

    No worse than the promise to create a hundred new peers to help the Liberals get their budget through

    Seriously though - I doubt this will be a commitment by the King. Just a political promise by the PM
    That was to ensure the will of the people was enacted and not blocked by our unelected rulers.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,301
    Alistair said:

    In Kansas the key stat was the surge of female vote registrations followed by formerly non-voter participation.

    Looking at Target Smart data there is no surge of non-voter participation anywhere. Unless they are turning out on the day then young (and old) women are not saving the Dems

    "Overall nationwide turnout is on track to be high for a midterm election, with more than 42 million Americans having voted early as of Monday afternoon, according to data analyzed by the U.S. Elections Project."

    “What we see in these competitive states are the Democrats are returning their ballots at a greater rate than Republicans,” McDonald told ABC News. “But if you look nationally, and you look at some of the states where there’s not these, these hot races are not happening — places like Florida or California — Democrats actually have a lower mail ballot return rate in those states.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-is-foreshadowing-as-we-head-into-election-day/ar-AA13R0MU
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,434
    rcs1000 said:

    I'm going out on a limb here:

    Today (Tuesday) will be a better than expected night for the Democrats.

    Why?

    Four things:

    (1) The mood music (& betting) is monumentally negative on the Dem chances. And if everyone is facing in one direction... well, one of two things is likely. Either the Dems are going to do much worse (and lose GA/AZ/NV and one of NH/CO), or they're going to do surprisingly well, and pick up PA, and only lose one of the three. (And maybe they pick up Wisconsin or North Carolina.)

    (2) The Dems actually have performed pretty well in Special Elections in the last four or five months, and those have tended to be pretty predictive.

    (3) The general assumption is that polling overstates the Dems. And my gut is that these things go in cycles.

    (4) There might well be a surge in voting (as in 2016) from historically low turnout groups - in particular younger women.

    So.

    I have a little snifter, by selling Republican majority. (Which can also payout in the event that the Republicans end up net +1 against the Dems, and also lose Utah.)

    I'd love it if you were right but I doubt it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,595
    edited November 8
    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Indeed. We have the bishops, who were the celibate ones.
    I think only ourselves and Iran are the only countries which have unelected clergy in our legislatures.

    Stellar company!

    (Honourable mention to Vatican City.)
  • I see Ross Kempsell is set to become the youngest ever life peer. FFS.

    Nut Nut must be happy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    I wouldn't replace it.
    So you think the Commons gets it right every time That the Lords fulfils no good function?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    ydoethur said:

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    Indeed. We have the bishops, who were the celibate ones.
    I think only ourselves and Iran are the only countries which have unelected clergy in our legislatures.

    Stellar company!

    (Honourable mention to Vatican City.)
    The ones in the Vatican are elected!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Alistair said:

    In Kansas the key stat was the surge of female vote registrations followed by formerly non-voter participation.

    Looking at Target Smart data there is no surge of non-voter participation anywhere. Unless they are turning out on the day then young (and old) women are not saving the Dems

    "Overall nationwide turnout is on track to be high for a midterm election, with more than 42 million Americans having voted early as of Monday afternoon, according to data analyzed by the U.S. Elections Project."

    “What we see in these competitive states are the Democrats are returning their ballots at a greater rate than Republicans,” McDonald told ABC News. “But if you look nationally, and you look at some of the states where there’s not these, these hot races are not happening — places like Florida or California — Democrats actually have a lower mail ballot return rate in those states.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-is-foreshadowing-as-we-head-into-election-day/ar-AA13R0MU
    Florida early voting numbers need a new rating beneath Horrific.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    edited November 8

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250
    New - Bonfire of 2,400 old EU laws suffers new setback, as 1,400 more found by the National Archives. The 2023 “sunset clause” on death row (to relief of Whitehall and biz). Sunak’s promise to review or shred them all within 100 days already gone https://enterprise-sharing.ft.com/redeem/d70f821d-067f-4bfe-afb3-21a8273fc922
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    IanB2 said:

    Coming back to the topic, we have no written constitution therefore no written "rules" as to how things are done, the rules effectively being "what has always been done".

    What has always been done is that a retiring PM gets the opportunity to make a batch of people into peers at the point of their retirement, and these people then become peers, there and then.

    The Conservatives are now effectively changing the rules such that, in the case of serving politicians, their appointment can be deferred until the end of their elected term. This will almost certainly become a permanent change in procedure, since what governing party would want to volunteer to defend a set of by-elections?

    The most obvious effect of this change is that there'll now be fewer by-elections.

    The second effect will be that a greater proportion of people nominated to the upper house through this route will be serving MPs (and therefore correspondingly fewer from other walks of life, on the assumption that the retiring PM has in mind a figure of how many to appoint in total). In the past, the prospect of tricky by-elections will have acted as a brake on a retiring PM sending too many of his or her friends on the green benches straight to the red benches; this brake has now been removed.

    The third effect is that the electors of the affected constituencies have someone who is guaranteed a plumb job as one of our lawmakers, for life, and therefore little incentive to 'go the extra mile' in their current role. At the extreme, they could simply follow Johnson into a series of beach holidays and let their constituents go hang. Of course, most MPs will have more sense of duty than Johnson does (they could hardly have less!), but which of us could say - if we were guaranteed a plumb lifetime paid role in our field, starting in a couple of years' time, that it wouldn't affect our attitude and approach to our current role?

    Having a by-election right away gave the electors the opportunity to choose someone fresh to represent us, now that our chosen representative is effectively retiring from the arena. That opportunity is now taken away.

    Excellent comment, Ian.
    In sharp contrast to all the 'nothing to see here' posts.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,301
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    In Kansas the key stat was the surge of female vote registrations followed by formerly non-voter participation.

    Looking at Target Smart data there is no surge of non-voter participation anywhere. Unless they are turning out on the day then young (and old) women are not saving the Dems

    "Overall nationwide turnout is on track to be high for a midterm election, with more than 42 million Americans having voted early as of Monday afternoon, according to data analyzed by the U.S. Elections Project."

    “What we see in these competitive states are the Democrats are returning their ballots at a greater rate than Republicans,” McDonald told ABC News. “But if you look nationally, and you look at some of the states where there’s not these, these hot races are not happening — places like Florida or California — Democrats actually have a lower mail ballot return rate in those states.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-voter-turnout-is-foreshadowing-as-we-head-into-election-day/ar-AA13R0MU
    Florida early voting numbers need a new rating beneath Horrific.
    "In total, about 4.8 million people had already voted in Florida, a third of registered voters in the state." Republicans beating Democrats in this case.
    However Florida isn't that competitive and "What we see in these competitive states are the Democrats are returning their ballots at a greater rate than Republicans,"
    The mix of those voting will be important, will young people vote more than usual, will women, will minorities?
    So, we shall see in the next few days whether that is making enough of a difference.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,250

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.

    And Dan Hannan
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,402
    Sandpit said:

    This shines a tricky light on the whole Lords appointment issue - for example - ex PMs going back 16 years are still awaiting formal nomination for peerages so its hardly unprecedented. Does a future PM have to be held to the nominations (or what if unsavoury stories a la Williamson come out about the waiting room Peers prior to their elevation). I've not seen the numbers recently but it does feel as though Peerages have become way too cosy with No 10 (one of the few things I agree with N Farage about).

    There’s a Peerage waiting for any of the former PMs, they would only need to make one phone call. The reason they don’t do it, is because a Peerage comes with the responsibility to declare one’s outside earnings in the same way as for MPs.

    We do know that the highest earning MP last year was Theresa May, who sell speeches in the £150k range and made over a million in 2021. Yes, it would be good to know Tony Blair’s sources of wealth.
    The reason is more likely that John Major turned down a peerage. That much is known. It is likely that Blair and Brown did not want one on ideological grounds. (Blair's company's assets are known, and that is all any parliamentary declaration would show, so we can ignore that as a motive.) Theresa May, as we can see, remains active in the Commons, and Boris hopes for a comeback. It is too soon for Liz Truss, so that leaves only David Cameron whose wishes are unknown, although since his wealth and his family's involvement in the Panama Papers have already been reported, as has his Greensill deal, what else could there be to hide?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    I wouldn't replace it.
    So you think the Commons gets it right every time That the Lords fulfils no good function?
    I don't think the Commons should pass poorly drafted laws in the first place, expecting others to tidy up their mess.

    NZ is Unicameral. Works fine.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    Scott_xP said:

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.

    And Dan Hannan
    He is a genuinely world-beating expert at being a twat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.

    And Dan Hannan
    He is a genuinely world-beating expert at being a twat.
    There was already a goodly amount of such expertise in the Lords prior to his elevation, though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,358
    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,857

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,275
    Kingston disappears under new boundary proposals released at midnight.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903

    Sandpit said:

    This shines a tricky light on the whole Lords appointment issue - for example - ex PMs going back 16 years are still awaiting formal nomination for peerages so its hardly unprecedented. Does a future PM have to be held to the nominations (or what if unsavoury stories a la Williamson come out about the waiting room Peers prior to their elevation). I've not seen the numbers recently but it does feel as though Peerages have become way too cosy with No 10 (one of the few things I agree with N Farage about).

    There’s a Peerage waiting for any of the former PMs, they would only need to make one phone call. The reason they don’t do it, is because a Peerage comes with the responsibility to declare one’s outside earnings in the same way as for MPs.

    We do know that the highest earning MP last year was Theresa May, who sell speeches in the £150k range and made over a million in 2021. Yes, it would be good to know Tony Blair’s sources of wealth.
    The reason is more likely that John Major turned down a peerage. That much is known. It is likely that Blair and Brown did not want one on ideological grounds. (Blair's company's assets are known, and that is all any parliamentary declaration would show, so we can ignore that as a motive.) Theresa May, as we can see, remains active in the Commons, and Boris hopes for a comeback. It is too soon for Liz Truss, so that leaves only David Cameron whose wishes are unknown, although since his wealth and his family's involvement in the Panama Papers have already been reported, as has his Greensill deal, what else could there be to hide?
    The consistent refusal of Macmillan to take a peerage* didn't stop the elevation of Home or Wilson in 1974 and 1983 respectively. Nor did Heath's refusal have a bearing on Thatcher's peerage.

    I think it's much more likely that nobody has nominated anyone apart from Major, who declined. Blair was extremely unpopular on leaving office and Brown wanted him out of public view, especially given the cash for peerages scandal that was reverberating at the time. Brown himself left office under a cloud that's never really lifted. May didn't like Cameron and got rid of pretty much all his placemen, the likes of Osborne and Morgan, as soon as she could - why would she want him in the Lords? Similarly, Johnson and May can't stand each other, Johnson left at a moment the government couldn't afford a by-election (and clearly still cherished hopes of a comeback) and Truss, well...

    The Garter is a different story, where it's rumoured Philip's personal opposition to Blair being knighted led to a bed-block for other candidates.

    *until 1984, that is.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    edited November 8
    The Lords is weird. It’s a strange notion to combine political patronage (reward for loyalty), commemoration of a pastiche of British history ( a less lifelike Madame Tussaud’s) and detailed expert scrutiny of current legislation.

    It’s doesn’t really do any of its roles well.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
    You could choose the members of any second house by lottery, and that would be as good as any method.

    A revising chamber needs access to experts. They don't have to be in the chamber.

    Also no real expert would consent to having many hours of their time wasted, sitting around a second chamber & listening to a load of wank.

    Experts (if they are actually expert at anything) need to keep their skills honed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    I wouldn't replace it.
    So you think the Commons gets it right every time That the Lords fulfils no good function?
    I don't think the Commons should pass poorly drafted laws in the first place, expecting others to tidy up their mess.

    (Snip).
    That's a fine ambition. What in the last few hundred years of history makes you believe that the Commons will not occasionally pass poorly-draft laws, especially when a party has a humongous majority?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It’s an improvement on the Lords, I’ll give it that, but it’s also a system that gives disproportionate power to the middle classes. And, at present, it only has 10 independent members out of 60. Political parties have plenty of power still. ( Independents have 19 out of 160 seats in the Irish lower house anyway, and that’s under a popular vote using STV.)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,065

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
    You could choose the members of any second house by lottery, and that would be as good as any method.

    A revising chamber needs access to experts. They don't have to be in the chamber.

    Also no real expert would consent to having many hours of their time wasted, sitting around a second chamber & listening to a load of wank.

    Experts (if they are actually expert at anything) need to keep their skills honed.
    They do at the moment. There are lots of experts in the Lords, some of whom are crossbenchers. Baroness Black of Strome is one example. Baroness Hale of Richmond another. There are plenty.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Never a Senate.

    We're not the fucking Romans.

    And none of those fancy foreign sauces with garlic and stuff. Blech.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,663

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
    You could choose the members of any second house by lottery, and that would be as good as any method.

    A revising chamber needs access to experts. They don't have to be in the chamber.

    Also no real expert would consent to having many hours of their time wasted, sitting around a second chamber & listening to a load of wank.

    Experts (if they are actually expert at anything) need to keep their skills honed.
    They do at the moment. There are lots of experts in the Lords, some of whom are crossbenchers. Baroness Black of Strome is one example. Baroness Hale of Richmond another. There are plenty.
    Appointments are not made on expertise, or to add expertise, they are done to reward cronies, timekeepers and donors. Any expertise is accidental.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    edited November 8
    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,616
    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,631
    Heathener said:

    Gavin Williamson is an appalling person.

    https://news.sky.com/story/gavin-williamson-strongly-rejects-telling-civil-servant-to-slit-your-throat-12741279

    What does he have on Sunak that the PM had to appoint a nasty, incompetent, piece of work like him back into Cabinet?

    I was prepared to give Sunak time after the Liz Truss fiasco but his appointments of Braverman and Williamson, together with his COP27 stance and U-turn, make me think he's a weak man. This was evidenced when he failed to take down Boris at the opportune time 12 months ago. The fact that he's now PM owes to chance and the Conservative Party's election of a dud predecessor.

    I think Sunak lacks political nous.

    Like all former Whips he will have an extensive black book with the means to pressurise, threaten and cajole MPs. Unlike many other former Whips I suspect he is willing to use that as a threat to get his way with the current PM. Yet another example of how perverted our Parliamentary system has become through the existence of the Whips
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,553
    edited November 8
    The uncertainty re the mid-terms is the younger vote and gender gap . I wouldn’t assume anything from the early vote as it’s possible post covid that more younger people might turn out on Election Day .

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
    You could choose the members of any second house by lottery, and that would be as good as any method.

    A revising chamber needs access to experts. They don't have to be in the chamber.

    Also no real expert would consent to having many hours of their time wasted, sitting around a second chamber & listening to a load of wank.

    Experts (if they are actually expert at anything) need to keep their skills honed.
    They do at the moment. There are lots of experts in the Lords, some of whom are crossbenchers. Baroness Black of Strome is one example. Baroness Hale of Richmond another. There are plenty.
    Baroness Black of Strome (according to wiki) is President of St John's College, Oxford.

    That is her full-time job. Maintaining her professional skills & research in forensic anthropology, running an Oxford College & sorting out the quarrels of the Fellows will take all her time.

    I am sure she is intellectually very able, but the suggestion that she is regularly attending the HoL to revise bills is just bonkers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,903
    On a serious note if Kingston is abolished would that leave the Liberal Democrats in with a real chance of being the first UK party to lose consecutive leaders' seats at elections since the Liberals in 1945?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,631
    Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,365
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Insofar as any credence should be given to the great replacement theory, these numbers display what a pile of paranoid, self deceiving bullshit it is.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    If I have underestimated unicameralism, my apologies to the New Zealands of the world. The Wikipedia page I’m looking at says about half of the world’s legislatures are unicameral. It’s a difficult thing to count, because what counts? North Korea is listed as having a unicameral legislature, but North Korea clearly isn’t a democracy.

    Unicameral legislatures are commoner in the smaller countries of the world. So I will try to save some face by saying I meant most counties weighted by population!

    I would like to question the categorisations in the website you offer. The German second house is effectively indirectly elected. Representatives are appointed by state governments and state governments are elected. It’s nothing like the House of Lords.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    The upper house in Germany is not appointed.
    The Budesrat consists of members/ministers from the states, which have been elected in the state elections. The people who are present at the sessions are usually representataives of the state governments, but that is mainly for practical reasons, and they are still politically aligned to make up of state government. It should definately be in the indirectly elected category.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Jonathan said:

    @JosiasJessop Do we not need better, stronger, more grounded political parties? At the moment they’re vulnerable to manipulation and take over by intensely focused and unrepresentative minorities. Having a strong group of elder statesmen and stateswomen keep them grounded.

    No, we need exactly the opposite; weaker parties with less opportunity to threaten and bribe MPs. The less power the party system has over MPs, the harder it is for a small clique to take control and force others to do their bidding.
    Appointment to the Lords gives political parties a goody they can hand out to loyal supporters. Abolish that if you want to weaken parties.

    Introduce voting systems that allow for infra-party choice, be that STV (plenty of independents in Ireland) or something else.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,426
    IanB2 said:

    Coming back to the topic, we have no written constitution therefore no written "rules" as to how things are done, the rules effectively being "what has always been done".

    What has always been done is that a retiring PM gets the opportunity to make a batch of people into peers at the point of their retirement, and these people then become peers, there and then.

    The Conservatives are now effectively changing the rules such that, in the case of serving politicians, their appointment can be deferred until the end of their elected term. This will almost certainly become a permanent change in procedure, since what governing party would want to volunteer to defend a set of by-elections?

    The most obvious effect of this change is that there'll now be fewer by-elections.

    The second effect will be that a greater proportion of people nominated to the upper house through this route will be serving MPs (and therefore correspondingly fewer from other walks of life, on the assumption that the retiring PM has in mind a figure of how many to appoint in total). In the past, the prospect of tricky by-elections will have acted as a brake on a retiring PM sending too many of his or her friends on the green benches straight to the red benches; this brake has now been removed.

    The third effect is that the electors of the affected constituencies have someone who is guaranteed a plumb job as one of our lawmakers, for life, and therefore little incentive to 'go the extra mile' in their current role. At the extreme, they could simply follow Johnson into a series of beach holidays and let their constituents go hang. Of course, most MPs will have more sense of duty than Johnson does (they could hardly have less!), but which of us could say - if we were guaranteed a plumb lifetime paid role in our field, starting in a couple of years' time, that it wouldn't affect our attitude and approach to our current role?

    Having a by-election right away gave the electors the opportunity to choose someone fresh to represent us, now that our chosen representative is effectively retiring from the arena. That opportunity is now taken away.

    Your third effect is applicable to any MP who has decided not to stand again, not just those who expect or hope to get into the HoL.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,631

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    No, not really.



    https://campaigncommonsense.com/resources/overestimating-demographics-new-ccs-poll-by-yougov/

    Slightly misleading table to the extent that it uses both 0% (taxpayers earning more than £1M) and 'less than 1%' (Transgender and Jewish) for the same small but non-zero value. Differentiating in that way gives the impression on face value is that there are no taxpayers earning more than £1M which is clearly not the case.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,160
    Law-making is central to Holyrood’s very existence.

    Yet, in recent years, we have witnessed a series of bad laws passing through the Scottish Parliament, only to be later struck down or amended in the courts, repealed in parliament or simply not enacted. The “named person” scheme, a central part of the Children and Young People Act. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. The Railway Policing Act.

    The latest of these inadequate, incompetent laws is the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament.


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/bad-laws-written-in-flimsy-terms-undermine-the-founding-purpose-of-holyrood-susan-dalgety-3905976

  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    "and they work just fine"

    Really?

    An elected HoL / second chamber would just give yet more power to political parties. I want political parties to have less power.

    As someone said the other week, the Irish system seems a reasonable model.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seanad_Éireann
    It looks a God-awful model -- rampant cronyism.

    As wiki opines, "In practice the nominees are party members, often, though not always, failed or aspiring Dáil candidates"
    And what do you think an elected second chamber would have? Candidates who were failed MPs, or even worse, sub Jared O'Mara-candidates.

    A revising chamber needs experts. The HoL as-is actually does have a fair few experts.
    You could choose the members of any second house by lottery, and that would be as good as any method.

    A revising chamber needs access to experts. They don't have to be in the chamber.

    Also no real expert would consent to having many hours of their time wasted, sitting around a second chamber & listening to a load of wank.

    Experts (if they are actually expert at anything) need to keep their skills honed.
    They do at the moment. There are lots of experts in the Lords, some of whom are crossbenchers. Baroness Black of Strome is one example. Baroness Hale of Richmond another. There are plenty.
    Appointments are not made on expertise, or to add expertise, they are done to reward cronies, timekeepers and donors. Any expertise is accidental.
    That last claim would be an interesting one to try and demonstrate with a list of crossbench peers in your other hand.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,857
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Some eye watering numbers in this poll.
    Is the British electorate any more clued up ?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jh_swanson/status/1589363886607962114
    The obsession with supposed Jewish power in the United States seems important to contextualize in light of the fact that Americans somehow estimate that 30% of Americans are Jewish.

    Do these numbers account for US politics, or is it the other way round ?

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/03/15/americans-misestimate-small-subgroups-population
    ...When people’s average perceptions of group sizes are compared to actual population estimates, an intriguing pattern emerges: Americans tend to vastly overestimate the size of minority groups. This holds for sexual minorities, including the proportion of gays and lesbians (estimate: 30%, true: 3%), bisexuals (estimate: 29%, true: 4%), and people who are transgender (estimate: 21%, true: 0.6%).

    It also applies to religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%) and Jewish Americans (estimate: 30%, true: 2%). And we find the same sorts of overestimates for racial and ethnic minorities, such as Native Americans (estimate: 27%, true: 1%), Asian Americans (estimate: 29%, true: 6%), and Black Americans (estimate: 41%, true: 12%)...
    Also from your link:

    "Although there is some question-by-question variability, the results from our survey show that inaccurate perceptions of group size are not limited to the types of socially charged group divisions typically explored in similar studies: race, religion, sexuality, education, and income. Americans are equally likely to misestimate the size of less widely discussed groups, such as adults who are left-handed. While respondents estimated that 34% of U.S. adults are left-handed, the real estimate lies closer to 10-12%. Similar misperceptions are found regarding the proportion of American adults who own a pet, have read a book in the past year, or reside in various cities or states. This suggests that errors in judgment are not due to the specific context surrounding a certain group."

    And:

    "Why is demographic math so difficult? One recent meta-study suggests that when people are asked to make an estimation they are uncertain about, such as the size of a population, they tend to rescale their perceptions in a rational manner. When a person’s lived experience suggests an extreme value — such as a small proportion of people who are Jewish or a large proportion of people who are Christian — they often assume, reasonably, that their experiences are biased. In response, they adjust their prior estimate of a group’s size accordingly by shifting it closer to what they perceive to be the mean group size (that is, 50%). This can facilitate misestimation in surveys, such as ours, which don’t require people to make tradeoffs by constraining the sum of group proportions within a certain category to 100%.

    This reasoning process — referred to as uncertainty-based rescaling — leads people to systematically overestimate the size of small values and underestimate the size of large values. It also explains why estimates of populations closer to 0% (e.g., LGBT people, Muslims, and Native Americans) and populations closer to 100% (e.g., adults with a high school degree or who own a car) are less accurate than estimates of populations that are closer to 50%, such as the percentage of American adults who are married or have a child."

    At the bottom they also have a chart of median estimates, which are more accurate than the mean estimates.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,631

    Before worrying about the House of Lords, we should do something about the amount of power ministers have to create law and regulation without any legislative scrutiny whatsoever. There has been a massive power grab by the Executive over recent years and it runs entirely contrary to the principles of a properly functioning Parliamentary democracy.

    Indeed. If, like me, you opposed the EU because of antipathy to the idea of laws/regulations being passed that are not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny then having that power moved from the EU to the Executive is really not much of an improvement.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,913
    kamski said:

    Foxy said:

    The Lords needs abolishing.

    We should not be governed by lifelong appointments of cronies.

    What would you replace it with?
    A directly and wholly elected senate.
    Which then risks upsetting the primacy of the commons. And who will be put up for election? Political cronies. In fact, the representatives will probably be of a wore quality than we get in the Commons.

    We need *fewer* political cronies in the second chamber, not more.
    Most countries in the world have elected second houses and they work fine. I fail to see what is so unique about the UK that an elected second house would be so problematic for us.
    Do most countries in the world have elected second chambers? According to Wikipedia most legislatures are unicameral.

    And according to this from Jan 2022:

    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/

    Out of "all 82 countries classed by Freedom House as Free Democracies"
    15 have directly elected upper houses (eg US or Italy)
    7 indirectly elected (eg France or Austria)
    12 appointed (eg UK or Germany)
    48 unicameral (New Zealand or Finland)
    How many of the unicameral legislators have an elected President or Head of State, with the genuine (as opposed to theoretical) option to veto legislation? That can act as a check on poor legislation, as the President’s office can send poor legislation back for re-consideration.

    As always with the debate about the Lords, the starting point has to be the question of what the Lords is *for*. Once we’ve decided what it’s for, we can discuss how it should be formed.
This discussion has been closed.