Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
The local party should be thinking about their fellow constituents, not the party.
The job of an MP is to represent Kensington.
Neither Portillo or Rifkind had any interest - I only once saw Rifkind in 10 years of living here - he arrived late and left early from the annual Mayor's Service at St. Mary Abbot's
Safeseatitis, infests every party I'm afraid. If some more of your fellow constituents decided to vote for other parties, your local MP might give two hoots about th constituency. As it is a donkey with a blue rosette would win in K&C. This is one reason the seeming SLAB purge is so good for democracy, no safe seats up there !
"Jihadi unmasked Former LibDem Leader Sir Menzies Campbell MP"
I always thought there was something dodgy about him.
I still can't believe how stupid his question at his first PMQs as acting leader was.
Sir Menzies [...] asked why "one in five schools do not have a permanent head".
As Mr Blair's backbenchers pointed at the leaderless Lib Dems, the PM didn't miss the open goal gifted by Sir Menzies: "It can be difficult to find a permanent head of an organisation when the post is vacant - particularly if it is a failing organisation."
That article mentions Mark "too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper" Oaten...a name I'd not heard for so long I'd forgotten that I'd forgotten...
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
"Jihadi unmasked Former LibDem Leader Sir Menzies Campbell MP"
I always thought there was something dodgy about him.
I still can't believe how stupid his question at his first PMQs as acting leader was.
Sir Menzies [...] asked why "one in five schools do not have a permanent head".
As Mr Blair's backbenchers pointed at the leaderless Lib Dems, the PM didn't miss the open goal gifted by Sir Menzies: "It can be difficult to find a permanent head of an organisation when the post is vacant - particularly if it is a failing organisation."
That article mentions Mark "too disgusting to be described in a family newspaper" Oaten...a name I'd not heard for so long I'd forgotten that I'd forgotten...
Anything in the region of a 3-4% Con to Lab swing in the English marginals would be pretty normal. None of Lord Ashcroft's previous marginal polling in Conservative seats has tended to diverge too much from the national picture. I think this will be his first Con/Lab polling since the Greens have edged up as well.
I'm interested that so many of the PB commentariat are adamant that an MP's first obligation is to the constituency. If we had 650 super constituency MPs it is unlikely we'd have a coherent government. I'm sure it's unfashionable but I think an MP's obligations are: 1. Vote for or against legislation in a way that helps the country progress. An MPs primary job is to vote. 2. Provide some human material from which to resource the government 3. Do the necessary for their constituency
Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
A perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. Party before constituency or country. Shameful.
That's party politics for you. Same in any democracy in the world.
At least we've got FPTP which mitigates it, far worse in PR-nations where all that matters is being on the party list and forget about constituencies.
Agree entirely. That's why I oppose anything that increases party influence in the political system - not least PR.
Obviously different constituency, but fair point...I still struggling to get to grips with just how bad Labour are polling in Scotland, where constituencies like Midlothian that have been Labour since 1950's might actually vote for somebody else.
Obviously different constituency, but fair point...I still struggling to get to grips with just how bad Labour are polling in Scotland, where constituencies like Midlothian that have been Labour since 1950's might actually vote for somebody else.
So was everyone else including all the bookmakers for ages.
I believe he would have to win to become "another new idiot in parliament in a few weeks".
That isn't likely. But an 8000 SNP majority certainly is.
15% swing needed, 43% Yes vote. Looks tight to me. But the SNP perhaps favourites.
Remember that 43% of a turnout of 84% means Midlothian has a potential 30k voters to be targetted by the SNP. Obviously turnout will be lower but I can't see Labour holding up any significant number of their 18k votes in 2010 given the state of their party.
We already know that Liberal vote is annihilated and mainly going to the SNP (remember that 30% Liberal share in Glasgow North).
So we're looking at 20k SNP, 12k Labour, 1k Liberal, same Tory 5k based on a 63% turnout, if it's higher then it will be a higher SNP margin, IMO.
Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
The local party should be thinking about their fellow constituents, not the party.
The job of an MP is to represent Kensington.
Neither Portillo or Rifkind had any interest - I only once saw Rifkind in 10 years of living here - he arrived late and left early from the annual Mayor's Service at St. Mary Abbot's
Safeseatitis, infests every party I'm afraid. If some more of your fellow constituents decided to vote for other parties, your local MP might give two hoots about th constituency. As it is a donkey with a blue rosette would win in K&C. This is one reason the seeming SLAB purge is so good for democracy, no safe seats up there !
I know - although it's not as safe as reputation has it (majority of only 9,000).
I'd rather have multi-member seats precisely to address this
I'm interested that so many of the PB commentariat are adamant that an MP's first obligation is to the constituency. If we had 650 super constituency MPs it is unlikely we'd have a coherent government. I'm sure it's unfashionable but I think an MP's obligations are: 1. Vote for or against legislation in a way that helps the country progress. An MPs primary job is to vote. 2. Provide some human material from which to resource the government 3. Do the necessary for their constituency
1. To represent the views of the constituency the MP was elected in 2. To hold the government to account and defend the best interests of the nation 3. To address the issues raised by their constituents and seek solutions as appropriate.
Personally I am less and less convinced that MPs should be members of the government because the payroll vote only rarely acts in any other way than in the vested interest of the Government and the Governing Party.
PS You think we have coherent government now? Interesting........
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
I'm interested that so many of the PB commentariat are adamant that an MP's first obligation is to the constituency. If we had 650 super constituency MPs it is unlikely we'd have a coherent government. I'm sure it's unfashionable but I think an MP's obligations are: 1. Vote for or against legislation in a way that helps the country progress. An MPs primary job is to vote. 2. Provide some human material from which to resource the government 3. Do the necessary for their constituency
You're missing the point of constituency responsibility. It's not the super-social-worker-big-council-representative role that @NickPalmer advocates.
It's to represent the interests of the constituency and the electorate in scrutinising and voting on government proposals. So not that different to your point 1
It's your point 2 that's the issue. I don't want an MP whose eyes are so focused on #10 that I never get to see them.
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
There's a serious issue beyond party political manoeuvring for the debates. It plays a significant role in the next election, and the decision on whether to proceed and, if so, how to proceed should not be something dictated by those with vested interests. That includes broadcasters. An overmighty broadcast media is as bad as an overmighty print media, and we should not have the likes of Sky, ITV and the BBC seeking to wag the democratic dog.
Some means needs to be found to tightly define those who ought to be invited. Of course, I'm happy for the debates not to go ahead, as they're horrendous, atrocious and despicable in almost every regard, but if they do occur they should be as fair as possible (and the worm must absolutely be scrapped).
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
Yes but they are not debates about a specific constituency or electoral area.
So the United Kingdom is not a specific electoral area? OK......
There is no one standing to be MP for the United Kingdom
Yes but the two protagonists in this particular debate are standing to be Prime Minister and form the Government of the United Kingdom. If this is about constituencies why doesn't it include all the parties that will be standing in most of the constituencies? You can't have it both ways (as you seem to want) which is I suspect why the rules are written the way they are!
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
WRT Lord Ashcroft, his polls have given an average lead of 1% to the Conservatives this year, equivalent to a swing of 3% from Con to Lab.
That's the benchmark we should use to see how the big two are doing in the marginal seats.
But no real consistency:
Ashcroft Nationals so far this year:
11th Jan = Con +6 18th Jan = Con +1 25th Jan = tie 1st Feb = tie 8th Feb = Con +3 15th Feb = Lab +1 22nd Feb = Lab +4 1st Mar = Con +3
They must be being done by different companies.
Perfectly understandable range of outcomes, sample wise. All the sorts of adjustments pollsters make reduces the variation (an error inherent in the polling) but risks replacing it with a new, pollster's error.
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
I told constituents that I thought that general better educational facilities were in all our interests, and it made sense to start in the areas with lowest attainment, which wasn't us. By and large, they went along with this, though I don't think it was ever especially salient (i.e. I mentioned it in a blog, nobody criticised it, and people mostly went "Meh").
I believe he would have to win to become "another new idiot in parliament in a few weeks".
That isn't likely. But an 8000 SNP majority certainly is.
It seems that there are only 99 members of the Labour Party there who are alive and kicking......
Interesting. It's the sort of area which has STILL got soi-disant miners' clubs - such as that at which Mr Brown made one of his interventions at Loanhead during indyref. Yet barring the odd opencast and Monktonhall, there hasn't been any serious mining for decades. In oher words, very much legacy Labour. But Labour lost control of the council for the first time in many, many decades at the last election.
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
That's not a good example, because the policy wasn't actively bad for the constituency. In that case you should obviously go for what's good for the country as a whole.
A better example would be something like HS2 - if the MP thinks it's a good thing for the country as a whole, but devastatingly bad for the constituency, then he or she should prioritise the constituency.
Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
The local party should be thinking about their fellow constituents, not the party.
The job of an MP is to represent Kensington.
Neither Portillo or Rifkind had any interest - I only once saw Rifkind in 10 years of living here - he arrived late and left early from the annual Mayor's Service at St. Mary Abbot's
This is all a bit too high and mighty. An MP can think about his constituents but his job is to manage the running of the whole country. By all means an MP can be held accountable, but Parliament has a dual purpose. I am not being party political here - it applies to whichever party. What good is it for K&C constituents if the Labour party are in power? What K&C need is a good Conservative PM. A socialist can by all means think about his own prejudices.
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
Yes but they are not debates about a specific constituency or electoral area.
So the United Kingdom is not a specific electoral area? OK......
There is no one standing to be MP for the United Kingdom
Yes but the two protagonists in this particular debate are standing to be Prime Minister and form the Government of the United Kingdom. If this is about constituencies why doesn't it include all the parties that will be standing in most of the constituencies? You can't have it both ways (as you seem to want) which is I suspect why the rules are written the way they are!
No, they are standing to be MPs for Witney and Doncaster North respectively.
The debates are entirely separate - there is an overarching requirement to be fair in allocating time, but legal precedent doesn't require that every party gets to participate in everything.
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
That's not a good example, because the policy wasn't actively bad for the constituency. In that case you should obviously go for what's good for the country as a whole.
A better example would be something like HS2 - if the MP thinks it's a good thing for the country as a whole, but devastatingly bad for the constituency, then he or she should prioritise the constituency.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
Which is why I back separation of powers.
But I don't see why my constituency's interests should be sacrificed so that you get to have a better PM
Martin Williams @Martin1Williams 7 mins7 minutes ago Trading in shares of #Rangers International Football Club plc suspended as WH Ireland, the club's nominated adviser resigns.
some 18,000 PMU fighters are providing the bulk of the troops for the assault.
The PMU are led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was labelled by the US as a "specially designated global terrorist" in 2009 for his part in attacks on US forces and other targets.
He and many other PMU commanders have worked intensively with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and continue to draw Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah advisers into their operations.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
I told constituents that I thought that general better educational facilities were in all our interests, and it made sense to start in the areas with lowest attainment, which wasn't us. By and large, they went along with this, though I don't think it was ever especially salient (i.e. I mentioned it in a blog, nobody criticised it, and people mostly went "Meh").
I'm not sure that's a good example, because most people buy into the concept of richer parts of the country supporting other parts.
A better example is the expansion of Heathrow: probably essential for the country as a whole, but very negative for a specific group of constituents and a highly salient issue. In the main, MPs seem to go with their constituents, which, on balance, is a good thing.
Mr. Nabavi, perhaps they mean 'bring your area into existence' (I believe the grammar would then be sound). If they're polling the future constituents of Atlantis South, or the Sea of Tranquillity, that would be a valid question to ask.
Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
The local party should be thinking about their fellow constituents, not the party.
The job of an MP is to represent Kensington.
Neither Portillo or Rifkind had any interest - I only once saw Rifkind in 10 years of living here - he arrived late and left early from the annual Mayor's Service at St. Mary Abbot's
This is all a bit too high and mighty. An MP can think about his constituents but his job is to manage the running of the whole country. By all means an MP can be held accountable, but Parliament has a dual purpose. I am not being party political here - it applies to whichever party. What good is it for K&C constituents if the Labour party are in power? What K&C need is a good Conservative PM. A socialist can by all means think about his own prejudices.
No: they are the representative of their constituency in Westminster. They has no responsibility to the country as a whole unless they are ministers
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
I told constituents that I thought that general better educational facilities were in all our interests, and it made sense to start in the areas with lowest attainment, which wasn't us. By and large, they went along with this, though I don't think it was ever especially salient (i.e. I mentioned it in a blog, nobody criticised it, and people mostly went "Meh").
I'm not sure that's a good example, because most people buy into the concept of richer parts of the country supporting other parts.
A better example is the expansion of Heathrow: probably essential for the country as a whole, but very negative for a specific group of constituents and a highly salient issue. In the main, MPs seem to go with their constituents, which, on balance, is a good thing.
"In the main, MPs seem to go with their constituents, which, on balance, is a good thing."
And why not. There's 649 others to represent the rest of the country's interests.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
What do PBers feel that MPs should do if they are convinced that policy X will be good for the country but not for their constituency? Is the answer different if constituents feel strongly about it or not? In principle, good is good - but on the other hand, if you don't stand up for the constituency, nobody else will.
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
That's not a good example, because the policy wasn't actively bad for the constituency. In that case you should obviously go for what's good for the country as a whole.
A better example would be something like HS2 - if the MP thinks it's a good thing for the country as a whole, but devastatingly bad for the constituency, then he or she should prioritise the constituency.
I guess I have a grudging respect for those MP's who, when faced with that dilemma, go full pork-barrel and get the best possible deal for their constituents.
Well, unless all you get in return is an incredibly expensive tunnel.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
Dave seemed to be needling poor old Ed Balls.. was there a punch up?
Sadly it says much for Iain Dale's perspicacity these days that he thinks Ed Balls ''has a great sense of humour and in reality is a thoroughly nice guy''. His column does make one good point - ''Whoever wins Kensington should be someone who you could imagine in ten years’ time leading the Conservative Party and then the country.''
hell no!
I want an MP who will care about the constituency, not some favorite of David Cameron he wants to help up the greasy pole.
And then you will be complaining about the poor quality of some future PM/leader candidate list... The issue is not one of being a 'friend'... it is rather one of the executive coming from the legislature. There are enough thick tory backbenchers as it is who will rather grandstand and make the party unelectable. A seat like Kensington offers a good opportunity for the local party to actually think about the party. I do not think that is too selfish.
A perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. Party before constituency or country. Shameful.
That's party politics for you. Same in any democracy in the world.
At least we've got FPTP which mitigates it, far worse in PR-nations where all that matters is being on the party list and forget about constituencies.
Agree entirely. That's why I oppose anything that increases party influence in the political system - not least PR.
PR doesn't have to be party list, STV in multi member constituencies is best.
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
And in this respect Kensington offers the opportunity for the local party to select someone who has the potential to be a leader or minister. Not to be THE future leader, but someone who simply has that potential. Its a potential that might not lend itself to 'knockabout politics' or of being tied to a marginal constituency.
I shall try to post from the selection meeting
Do you have a date yet?
13th March, 7.15pm.
Excellent, thanks. Any news on the shortlist?
not that I've been told.
edit: 7.15 is the start time for the meeting, not decision time.
Apols if this has already been posted, made me laugh.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 5 hrs5 hours ago Cameron asks how many MPs are going to put Ed M on their leaflets. Scot Nats all put their hands up #pmqs #GE2015
If the other debates don't go ahead, I don't think Ofcom rules will allow the Sky head to head to go ahead either.
Not true - just have to allocate time - not format dependant.
Says nothing about time here:
6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
Now I take it that the 'item' in this case would be the debates. If no other debates take place then the Sky debate becomes the 'item'.
Yes but they are not debates about a specific constituency or electoral area.
So the United Kingdom is not a specific electoral area? OK......
There is no one standing to be MP for the United Kingdom
Yes but the two protagonists in this particular debate are standing to be Prime Minister and form the Government of the United Kingdom. If this is about constituencies why doesn't it include all the parties that will be standing in most of the constituencies? You can't have it both ways (as you seem to want) which is I suspect why the rules are written the way they are!
No, they are standing to be MPs for Witney and Doncaster North respectively.
The debates are entirely separate - there is an overarching requirement to be fair in allocating time, but legal precedent doesn't require that every party gets to participate in everything.
Section 6.9 relates to local hustings, etc.
So why are they debating each other? Cameron should debate his Witney competitors then and Miliband should debate his Donny North competitors. You can't have it both ways! Furthermore show me where it says in the Ofcom rules that the debates are separate. The rules apply to all televised coverage as far as I am aware within the campaign period and that includes the debates.
Apols if this has already been posted, made me laugh.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 5 hrs5 hours ago Cameron asks how many MPs are going to put Ed M on their leaflets. Scot Nats all put their hands up #pmqs #GE2015
No reason for the targeted morons to vote SNP but they sure as hell hate that North London intellectual. Silly, negative , puerile, SNP.
Mr. Pulpstar, the Earl of Rockingham sounds like it should be Ozzy Osbourne's[sp] title. (Reminds me of the Edward III bio, which referred to, I think, the Countess of Champagne and Brie).
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Do you know if there is a nominal backup site for Parliament, if the first were bombed or something?
Dunno I just heard this place mentioned on the radio by some architect or other, looks a magnificent house at any rate hopefully someone will come along with the £47 million needed to buy and do it up.
some 18,000 PMU fighters are providing the bulk of the troops for the assault.
The PMU are led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was labelled by the US as a "specially designated global terrorist" in 2009 for his part in attacks on US forces and other targets.
He and many other PMU commanders have worked intensively with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and continue to draw Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah advisers into their operations.
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Not such a daft idea. Certainly not as crazy as spending £3 billion on the current building.
Sell the HoC to a private developer to restore, and move to a purpose built facility somewhere else. How much would a building with offices, meeting rooms, debating chambers and facilities for 5000 MPs, Lords and staff cost?
British Airways Waterside complex houses roughly that many, and was built in the late 90's for £200 million.
So why are they debating each other? Cameron should debate his Witney competitors then and Miliband should debate his Donny North competitors. You can't have it both ways! Furthermore show me where it says in the Ofcom rules that the debates are separate. The rules apply to all televised coverage as far as I am aware within the campaign period and that includes the debates.
They are debating each other because it is thought to, @MorrisDancer's concerns aside, to add something to the democratic process.
But they are not a debate between a candidates for a "constituency or electoral area".
Therefore rule 6.9 does not apply, but the general rules on overall balance of time allocated to each party does apply.
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
I think it would be an excellent site for Parliament.
An object lesson, every day, in the consequences of letting prejudice overwhelm judgement
From your link...
[Manny] Shinwell, intent on the destruction of the Fitzwilliams and "the privileged rich", decreed that the mining would continue to the back door of Wentworth, the family's East Front. What followed saw the mining of 99 acres (400,000 m2) of lawns and woods, the renowned formal gardens and the show-piece pink shale driveway (a by-product of the family's collieries). Ancient trees were uprooted and the debris of earth and rubble was piled 50 ft (15 m) high in front of the family's living quarters
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Do you know if there is a nominal backup site for Parliament, if the first were bombed or something?
I'm sure there is, I know several sites for other bits of government. However this one I don't! In the war, Stratford-upon-Avon was mooted, but even after the Commons chamber was bombed they stayed local.
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
I think that's a great idea, then refurbish Westminster for less money and turn it into an English Parliament for English MPs to debate English only laws!
If they move Parliament, they should make the MPs sit in a place that reminds them daily of the country's problems rather than somewhere that they could forget about them.
So why are they debating each other? Cameron should debate his Witney competitors then and Miliband should debate his Donny North competitors. You can't have it both ways! Furthermore show me where it says in the Ofcom rules that the debates are separate. The rules apply to all televised coverage as far as I am aware within the campaign period and that includes the debates.
They are debating each other because it is thought to, @MorrisDancer's concerns aside, to add something to the democratic process.
But they are not a debate between a candidates for a "constituency or electoral area".
Therefore rule 6.9 does not apply, but the general rules on overall balance of time allocated to each party does apply.
An according to who do the rules not apply? You because they do not suit your worldview? Back to the rules. This covers your point.
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.
The United kingdom is clearly a 'wider election region'.
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Do you know if there is a nominal backup site for Parliament, if the first were bombed or something?
I'm sure there is, I know several sites for other bits of government. However this one I don't! In the war, Stratford-upon-Avon was mooted, but even after the Commons chamber was bombed they stayed local.
I believe Lambeth Town Hall was used during the war. In the Civil War, the Royalist parliament met in Christ Church Oxford, but it was a whole lot smaller (but maybe that is a hint).
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Do you know if there is a nominal backup site for Parliament, if the first were bombed or something?
I'm sure there is, I know several sites for other bits of government. However this one I don't! In the war, Stratford-upon-Avon was mooted, but even after the Commons chamber was bombed they stayed local.
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
Do you know if there is a nominal backup site for Parliament, if the first were bombed or something?
I'm sure there is, I know several sites for other bits of government. However this one I don't! In the war, Stratford-upon-Avon was mooted, but even after the Commons chamber was bombed they stayed local.
I believe Lambeth Town Hall was used during the war. In the Civil War, the Royalist parliament met in Christ Church Oxford, but it was a whole lot smaller (but maybe that is a hint).
How can Lambeth Town Hall fit in all the MPs and Peers, makes you wonder how big the council was
Comments
Ashcroft Nationals so far this year:
11th Jan = Con +6
18th Jan = Con +1
25th Jan = tie
1st Feb = tie
8th Feb = Con +3
15th Feb = Lab +1
22nd Feb = Lab +4
1st Mar = Con +3
http://labourlist.org/2015/03/kenny-young-selected-as-labours-candidate-for-midlothian/
Most famous for and all round disaster...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/apr/14/gordon-and-sarah-royal-treatment
1. Vote for or against legislation in a way that helps the country progress. An MPs primary job is to vote.
2. Provide some human material from which to resource the government
3. Do the necessary for their constituency
That isn't likely. But an 8000 SNP majority certainly is.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/02/coatbridge-chryston-bellshill/
We already know that Liberal vote is annihilated and mainly going to the SNP (remember that 30% Liberal share in Glasgow North).
So we're looking at 20k SNP, 12k Labour, 1k Liberal, same Tory 5k based on a 63% turnout, if it's higher then it will be a higher SNP margin, IMO.
I'd rather have multi-member seats precisely to address this
2. To hold the government to account and defend the best interests of the nation
3. To address the issues raised by their constituents and seek solutions as appropriate.
Personally I am less and less convinced that MPs should be members of the government because the payroll vote only rarely acts in any other way than in the vested interest of the Government and the Governing Party.
PS You think we have coherent government now? Interesting........
http://uk.businessinsider.com/ukip-general-election-snp-2015-3
It's to represent the interests of the constituency and the electorate in scrutinising and voting on government proposals. So not that different to your point 1
It's your point 2 that's the issue. I don't want an MP whose eyes are so focused on #10 that I never get to see them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/george-galloway-demanding-5000-from-twitter-users-over-antisemitism-libel-10077205.html
There's a serious issue beyond party political manoeuvring for the debates. It plays a significant role in the next election, and the decision on whether to proceed and, if so, how to proceed should not be something dictated by those with vested interests. That includes broadcasters. An overmighty broadcast media is as bad as an overmighty print media, and we should not have the likes of Sky, ITV and the BBC seeking to wag the democratic dog.
Some means needs to be found to tightly define those who ought to be invited. Of course, I'm happy for the debates not to go ahead, as they're horrendous, atrocious and despicable in almost every regard, but if they do occur they should be as fair as possible (and the worm must absolutely be scrapped).
That is a pretty strong argument for separatating the executive from the legislature. But since we are a parliamentary democracy that is what you get. It's the prospect of executive power that motivates the serious players not the prospect of spending their lives as lobby fodder.
BBC: Stepbrother charged with Becky Watts murder
I had an example like this when I was an MP - Blair announced the launch of school rebuilding with substantial new resources, prioritised at poorer constituencies. It was clear that my fairly prosperous constituency would benefit late, if ever, so some of our tax money was going to help kids elsewhere.
I told constituents that I thought that general better educational facilities were in all our interests, and it made sense to start in the areas with lowest attainment, which wasn't us. By and large, they went along with this, though I don't think it was ever especially salient (i.e. I mentioned it in a blog, nobody criticised it, and people mostly went "Meh").
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31733898
A better example would be something like HS2 - if the MP thinks it's a good thing for the country as a whole, but devastatingly bad for the constituency, then he or she should prioritise the constituency.
What good is it for K&C constituents if the Labour party are in power? What K&C need is a good Conservative PM. A socialist can by all means think about his own prejudices.
The debates are entirely separate - there is an overarching requirement to be fair in allocating time, but legal precedent doesn't require that every party gets to participate in everything.
Section 6.9 relates to local hustings, etc.
But I don't see why my constituency's interests should be sacrificed so that you get to have a better PM
Martin Williams @Martin1Williams 7 mins7 minutes ago
Trading in shares of #Rangers International Football Club plc suspended as WH Ireland, the club's nominated adviser resigns.
Can Iraq's army dislodge Islamic State?
some 18,000 PMU fighters are providing the bulk of the troops for the assault.
The PMU are led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was labelled by the US as a "specially designated global terrorist" in 2009 for his part in attacks on US forces and other targets.
He and many other PMU commanders have worked intensively with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and continue to draw Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah advisers into their operations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31723327
A better example is the expansion of Heathrow: probably essential for the country as a whole, but very negative for a specific group of constituents and a highly salient issue. In the main, MPs seem to go with their constituents, which, on balance, is a good thing.
And why not. There's 649 others to represent the rest of the country's interests.
Well, unless all you get in return is an incredibly expensive tunnel.
edit: 7.15 is the start time for the meeting, not decision time.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 5 hrs5 hours ago
Cameron asks how many MPs are going to put Ed M on their leaflets. Scot Nats all put their hands up #pmqs #GE2015
I am launching my new polling at this evening's @ConHome event at 6pm and the data will be on http://LordAshcroftPolls.com after the presentation
So sometime a bit after 6 (maybe 6.45?). Unless it leaks early, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Woodhouse
Historic setting and probably could be turned into the parliament for under a hundred million
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11449430/Passenger-flying-to-Middle-East-caught-with-500000-cash-hidden-in-suitcase.html
I am sure some Russian oligarch would be keen for the chance to own the second British parliament.
Sell the HoC to a private developer to restore, and move to a purpose built facility somewhere else. How much would a building with offices, meeting rooms, debating chambers and facilities for 5000 MPs, Lords and staff cost?
British Airways Waterside complex houses roughly that many, and was built in the late 90's for £200 million.
But they are not a debate between a candidates for a "constituency or electoral area".
Therefore rule 6.9 does not apply, but the general rules on overall balance of time allocated to each party does apply.
An object lesson, every day, in the consequences of letting prejudice overwhelm judgement
From your link...
[Manny] Shinwell, intent on the destruction of the Fitzwilliams and "the privileged rich", decreed that the mining would continue to the back door of Wentworth, the family's East Front. What followed saw the mining of 99 acres (400,000 m2) of lawns and woods, the renowned formal gardens and the show-piece pink shale driveway (a by-product of the family's collieries). Ancient trees were uprooted and the debris of earth and rubble was piled 50 ft (15 m) high in front of the family's living quarters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31730249
Maybe Middlesbrough or Wolverhampton.
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.
The United kingdom is clearly a 'wider election region'.
In a few years, we'll probably be making policy via wiki edit.
And you claim to be a Yorkshireman!
Plus I work in Manchester, I don't want a load of Southerners coming up to Yorkshire and ruining it.