Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The House of Lords: UKIP’s backdoor into Westminster
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The House of Lords: UKIP’s backdoor into Westminster
If the Commons was once considered “The best Club in London” then the Lords must these days be the best retirement home. The nature of the role is such that working peerages tend to be awarded to those whose first career has either ended entirely or is at least winding down – so allowing them the time to work in the Upper House, as well as having provided the evidence to justify the award. Add in that awards are for life and inevitably, they’re an aged bunch:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Surely we can't continue with the present bloated, unwieldy HoL. Surely whoever wins, Lab, Con/LD or Lab/LD will try for reform again. Anyway, why shouldn't reasonably short-term MP's ….. in the Commons under say 15 years who are under 60 or so ……. find ordinary employment like the rest of us do when redundant? Even Lembit Opik seems to have done so!
Or, do something else in retirement other than politics. There are plenty of options, other than golf!
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2014/04/manchester-council-managed-to-spend-over-130000-on-ipads-last-year/
Yes vote 'would consign rest of the UK to permanent Conservative rule'
SCOTS have been urged to show solidarity and not "walk away" from the people of England and Wales on September 18 as a Yes vote would consign them to permanent Tory government, according to Brian Wilson, the ex-Labour Trade Minister.
The former Cunninghame North MP insisted Labour had "to do more in the months ahead" to save the Union.
He said: "It's very important for people in the rest of the United Kingdom to realise what is at stake here; it isn't just the Union but it is the prospect really of there ever being a Labour government again in what is left of the United Kingdom."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-vote-would-consign-rest-of-the-uk-to-permanent-conservative-rule.24062079
Apart from being rubbish, I'm not sure "Don't do it for yourselves, do it for the English" is the best approach to adopt.....(nor would the reverse be south of the border...)
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/04/the-hunt-for-2010-lib-dems-part-4.html
I shall be taking a breather for a day or two now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27167164
Ukip are toast. Not now but within a year.
Not black toast mind you...
In any case, why would you want motorbikes on cycle lanes when they go at or faster than other powered transport and can easily overtake? As someone who's only recently retaken up cycling, the last thing I want on cycle paths is a 650cc motorbike blasting past. (Well, ok, the last thing I'd want might be a 42-tonne truck or a tractor with big nasty spikes or Smaug or something, but you get the idea).
Another problem is whether cycle lines have been designed for motorbikes. Some scarcely seem to have been designed for cycles...
From skimming the 'net, the laws seem confusing to say the least. Motorbikes are not allowed in cycle lanes unless they are marked as such. Some cycle lines have dotted white lines near junctions, which motorbikes can pull into (but not drive along). Motorcycles are not allowed to pull forward past advanced stop lines (the cycle boxes you see before some junctions). Cycles lanes denoted fully by dotted white lines are advisory.
Goodness knows if I've got the above correct!
JJ: In Bedford we cyclists share bus lane usage with bikers. In my experience there is a sort of brotherhood between us and there are no problems I can see. But bus drivers are often bullys. Cars especially, and buses too, are a common enemy and must be watched always. Always.
Here the bureaucrats recently had a scheme to separate the lanes around a particular roundabout by means of raised curbs. Fortunately their twisted ignorance didn't get implemented because of pressure from the CTC and maybe bikers too. This may be the most egregious example of bureaucrats wasting the opportunity to do nothing. The scheme would clearly have caused accidents and injury. Really they need to try cycling some time. I think all car drivers ought to spend a week or two each year cycling.
I also disagree with the contention that UKIP will be toast within a year. What constitutes "toast" (don't say bread!)? Yes, they may fall back from their 12% or so but they have been a genuine factor in UK elections since they first made their breakthrough at the 1999 European elections, and have improved cycle by cycle. That won't continue indefinitely but there's no reason to assume a toast-like meltdown either.
For context, the 919k votes and 3.1% UK vote share won by UKIP were both the best for any fourth party at a general election since 1918 (counting electoral pacts such as the 1980s SDP-Liberal Alliance as a single electoral entity). Perhaps they shouldn't have their full 18 lords but not having been awarded any seems both mean and contrary to the spirit of the Coalition Agreement.
If we are looking for a guiding principle for these minor parties, to weed out the electoral chaff from the permanent fixtures, perhaps their allocation should be based on their worst performance out of the last three elections?
It must be horrid to be a PeebieTory. Which do they want, a Labour opposition threatening their ill-gotten gains or a UKIP opposition exposing all their electoral lies? Perhaps they should just organise a military coup and be done with it...
On no occasion since 1945 would independence have changed the identity of the winning party and on only two occasions would it have converted a Labour majority into a hung parliament (1964 and October 1974). Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1945 (with a majority of 146, down from 143), in 1966 (77, down from 98), in 1997 (139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66).
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/why-scottish-independence-wouldnt-mean-permanent-majority-tories
Yesterday I was speaking to a early 70s life long labour voter in the central belt. A year ago he was a certain "no", now he's a very fixed "yes". I asked why the change, he explained at great length it was the farcically bad, patronising nature of the "no" campaign, with their endless scare stories that he said, "no one believes any more".
He also said that it was clear Milliband wasn't going to get over the line, and a "yes" vote was the only way to avoid a new tory government.
If people like this as voting "yes" then they'll win.
If they'd said "£130,000 on Dell laptops" it would not be a story. There are plenty of situations where iPads are sensible work tools.
I drive, cycle and walk, and I've seen terrible drivers, riders and pedestrians.
He has since left the party, but my understanding is that was because they were insufficiently anti Islamic or Powellite.
If the Scots vote for independence the whole edifice will be shaken and even the max Devo option would require the establishment of an English parliament bringing into focus the role of the Lords.
It is time for the Lords to be reformed and perhaps Peers should be elected like the regional MSPs in Scotland so a wide cross section would be elected at each general election. That would both real peers (i.e. hereditaries) and day-boys (i.e. life peers) could stand and be elected. Time we saw some new creations of hereditaries out with the royal family.
Incidentally I am available if cousin David wants to be 'Baron' before Easterross.
On a serious note, I do wish the SNP didn't have their silly policy of excluding nominations for Peerages when they nominate (and accept) other honours. The House of Lords would have been much richer if the likes of Winnie Ewing, George Reid, Margo MacDonald and others had been offered and accepted peerages.
This evening I will be singing in a world premier performance of Codebreaker. Codebreaker is an oratorio about the life of Alan Turing.
Highlights include Gordon Brown's apology set to music.
The piece was reviewed on the World Tonight on radio 4 last night around 10.25.
We are performing at the Barbican: http://www.barbican.org.uk/music/event-detail.asp?ID=15497
Tickets should be available on the door tonight if you are interested.
You didn't mention how the SNP's policy explains the underrepresentation of small parties in the HoL. Of course, the SNP refuse to accept peerages (an expulsion offence) or to appoint them [delegating 'civic' peerages to a civil servants' committee]. Logical in itself, if one is aiming to dissolve the UK, but also guaranteed to drive Scottish Labour even more berserk with its surprisingly simple yet powerful seizing of what many see as a height of the moral high ground.
Parties become extinct only when there is another party that better represents the interest group that is their supporters.
So, unless someone believes the Conservatives become (a) socially conservative, and (b) completely Eurosceptic, and therefore represent that interest group better than UKIP, then UKIP will continue to exist.
The party that is most in danger of losing its natural constituency to another is the Liberal Democrats: Cameron's Conservatives have a similar emphasis to the Orange Book liberals.
If you are the Conservative Party, the question is whether you win back two voters on the UKIP side for every one you lose on the Liberal Democrat side, or vice versa.
For British democracy as a whole, the question is if views and interests have fragmented so completely as to make getting 40% of the vote impossibly difficult. If so, we are all going to have to get used to more coalitions, whether we like it or not.
"Labour weren't [aren't] that dependent on the Scots for their majorities (far less so than in Harold Wilson's day, for example)"
The first part is true to an extent; the second is baloney. The only reason it made a difference in 1964 and the 1974 elections is because of the miniscule size of Labour's majorities: the net effect is a good deal greater now. The present government would have a very different complexion were it not for Scotland, for example.
As for 'Labour can win without Scotland', yes, as Mike pointed out and as the 1997-2005 results make clear. But the task is bigger: Labour have to gain more seats with fewer available. It's rare for a party to gain more than sixty seats at an election so even adding another twelve to the list actually represents quite a challenge.
As for your second paragraph, what's that about? You're in danger of disappearing down a conspiracy black hole.
PS, I should credit Easterross for saying similar thing if not quite as stridently from the highlands.
That said, I'm not sure I accept the SNP's logic of taking part in the Commons but not in the Lords. Yes, an MP is for an electoral term whereas a peerage is for life but so what? On independence, it'd just become a courtesy title and even if it still theoretically allowed the peer to sit in a rUK Lords (I doubt it but it's possible), the SNP could impose a requirement for such peers to take 'leave of absence'.
Tory selection in Angus today so hope they pick the correct candidate.
That said, I accept that what actually matters and what's perceived to matter are two different things.
The posters have been rubbished, of course, but it does make one wonder.
Agree, the question is "yes' or "no", for Better Together to even start a conversation about Devomax would be an admission of defeat.
The problem with Westminister throwing resources and people at it is no one will listen anymore. In politics, you connect with people, then they listen to you. "no" has failed to connect. Milliband is a drag on them, Cameron is a drag on them, Clegg is a drag on them, Frange is a drag on them.
Labours 80s strategy of english = tory is killing them 30 years later.
A cobbled together Devomax plan is unlikely to work. Almost every Scottish Labour voter I have seen interviewed on TV news programmes up here in the past few days have said the Miliband posturing is too little too late and they just don't believe Labour will offer anything the Scots either want or would accept.
One thing almost all, if not all Scottish PBers agree is that it is working class Scottish Labour voters in the sprawling housing estates in Central Scotland who will determine the outcome of the IndyRef and all the anecdotal evidence is they are moving more and more towards YES. I have never hid my utter contempt for Gordon Brown but he was most definitely Scottish which is why Labour had one of its best Scottish results in 2010. Ed Milibland on the other hand is seen as another posh boy from the Home Counties with little knowledge and no understanding of the Scots. The TV news coverage yesterday showed how awkward he looked and felt among the SLAB 'great and the good'.
On the impact of Scottish independence on Labour, who can say, really? Mightn't an independent Scots government have bought off Mick McGahey at the end of '73, and so denying the NUM leadership (Scargill's writ didn't run beyond Yorkshire then) a majority for strike action in England? And in '64 a hung Parliament might merely have produced Wilson's overall majority sooner...
The past is a guide to the future, but only of sorts.
An aspect of the "would Labour win without Scotland" debate is funding. Not only will Labour lose c40 MPs when Scotland leaves the UK but as Scotland is more heavily dependent on the public sector, disproportionately there must be a much higher trade union membership in Scotland and they all chip in their cash to the Labour coffers.
Sean T encouraged Ed and chums to pile cash and effort into saving the Union. The problem is Labour doesn't have any cash. Having jumped from the Coop Bank, probably before it was pushed, it has sold itself to the Unity Bank which I understand is trade union owned. Just how much money does Labour have and would Ed and chums really think about spending any of it on a probable lost cause in Scotland when people like Ed Balls know their own seats wouldn't take much to dislodge, given how close the polls currently are!
The financial transaction tax is cunningly designed to destroy the UK's only world leading industry whilst making money for the rest of Europe at the same time.
Of course the UK will continue fighting against the tax, but it will expose how foreigners are able and quite happy to think up laws that are very hostile to our economic well being.
Absolute manna from heaven for Farage.
These aren't always signposted very well, but with a map can provide good low traffic alternatives to the main roads.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/2012/4/17439413.JPG
With English breakfast tea.
Cameron would not, and should not, have to resign. He hasn't made a stupid military blunder, lied to Parliament or committed some sort of offence. What could he do differently? Refuse the referendum after the SNP won a majority? Deny devolution itself? He was not responsible for that stupid act of Labour.
What a success.
Plus they all have a common American identity, and virtually all Americans have a mindset that that stands for the principles of liberty, republicanism, constitutionalism and individual rights. The problem we have with Scotland is that British identity has collapsed, on both sides of the border. That has been the result of governments of both stripes being afraid to speak up for Britishness in anything but the most wishy-washy terms, and only rarely at that.
If we had a clearly voiced argument by our leaders of what Britain stood for - the rule of law, common law, constitutionalism, religious freedom, parliamentary democracy, etc - we might never have got to this point. But then we might start asking more questions about how the EU and government authoritarianism are eroding these, and it might upset certain immigrant groups that don't sign up for these, so they don't want to.
But he had just been trounced at Yorktown. Cameron hasn't been
Full fiscal independence would be so close to independence anyway that it will mean the final step is even easier a few years down the road. You can't call yourself a common country and not have any common debate about the level of taxation and spending. Switzerland, the USA, Canada and all the other successful federations don't have that.
The FTT is an enhanced co-operation thing, isn't it? Doesn't that mean it won't apply to the UK?
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20020/cycling/13/cycle_routes_and_maps (*)
From my village of Cambourne, there's an off-road bridleway that takes me all the way to Coton and the university that's a great ride in summer. It beats the Madingley Road grind (especially now there's road works with the Cambridge west development).
But fortunately I don't have to do it too often.
(*) It's good to see them using Open Street Map for their maps as well.
I'm trying to find a candidate list for my local council. Is there a typical heading this would be under?
I've found the EU Parliament candidate list under "statements of parties and individual candidates".
Con ........ 305 (- 8)
Lab ......... 285 (+6)
LibDem .... 32 (+2)
Others ..... 28* (nc)
Total ...... 650
* Assuming the total of 28 seats shown as being won by "Others" include 18 for NI, 8 for the SNP and 2 for Plaid Cymru, his estimate for UKIP and the Greens, etc appears to be decidedly modest.
Until that is a large chunk of UK territory and resources secedes. Never mind who will be the lender of last resort in Scotland, how about in a UK where the bed of sand our economy floats on gets swept away. Western economies are in a far worse state than 07/08 kept alive only by unified central bank actions in blowing warm air into the corpse. Upset this illusion and we scare investors, they flee, others suddenly realise that their confidence was a trick and we lose a bank or two, then a sovereign or two and the whole thing comes down.
The Spanish get this - an out vote in Catalonia would impolode the Spanish corpse so they've declared the vote unconstitutional. We don't have that luxury, so instead we seem to be hoping the vote will go away if we ignore it, and anyway if the Scotch are silly enough to go its a Tory England forever hussah! Nope, it's that last bit of plastic on Buckaroo's back, it kicks, we all fall down.
Correct, but the tax will apply when at least one member state is participating in it. So if a British broker deals with a German company, the tax is applicable, as far as I can see.
business will flood to Singapore and New York, even though the UK is not part of this agreement.
I'll pop down to the civic offices and see. Thanks again. :-)
Commodities are often priced in dollars, so (at the moment) the exchange rate is moving in our favour.
Commodity pricing is very volatile. Growth in China (faster/slower) has much more impact on iron & steel pricing. Misguided green policies and weather events drive food prices. Geopolitical concerns and global economic growth are the major driver of oil prices.
Nothing to do with the "exchange rate against commodities". Which doesn't actually *exist* as a concept.
The HoL was not meant to be a retirement home for ex-ministers/MPs and as a reliable revising chamber (who hold the Executive to account) should revert to a membership composed of people with a wide variety of expertise and experience who have been used to running and managing things and for whom political alignment is their last priority and not their first.
Struggling to follow you there, old boy. A week's rent is charged in sterling so exchange rates make no difference. Commodities don't have their own currency they are priced in a nation's currency, usually US dollars. Sterling is not going down against the USD, quite the reverse in fact. It currently stands not for short of $1.70. In the not so distant past if has been as low as close to parity and we survived that without the economy let alone civil society collapsing.
I think you might be just a tad over the top in predicting catastrophe if Scotland goes it own way.