Why do we need any more elected bodies TSE? Already too many with the councils, silly regional chambers and national governments. Not to mention EU reps.
We are extremely under-represented. Take the USA, for example. Not only a two-house federal congress but each State has two legislatures. In addition, countless, city, county, district councils, Mayors, Sheriffs, Dog-handlers..........
Are you sure Surbiton? I thought 'legislature' in America meant the complete congress, not the individual houses. Also, don't forget Nebraska is unicameral (OK, that's me being picky)!
Why do we need any more elected bodies TSE? Already too many with the councils, silly regional chambers and national governments. Not to mention EU reps.
We are extremely under-represented. Take the USA, for example. Not only a two-house federal congress but each State has two legislatures. In addition, countless, city, county, district councils, Mayors, Sheriffs, Dog-handlers..........
Are you sure Surbiton? I thought 'legislature' in America meant the complete congress, not the individual houses. Also, don't forget Nebraska is unicameral (OK, that's me being picky)!
OK. Two houses. For example, Obama was a State Senator before he became a US Senator.
As for the Lords it should be abolished. We have an elected chamber, it is the Commons, we don't need a second. If the Lords wish to serve a purpose as a revising chamber then it has a purpose, if they wish to play politics based on technicalities then leave that to the elected politicians.
Don't create hundreds of new Peers, just abolish the Lords completely.
You're assuming the HoC produces good legislation at the first attempt. This seems a rather odd assumption when you have utterly thick MPs sitting in safe seats, and MPs with brains who forget their brains and obey the party whip time and time again.
If anything, the latter deserve more excoriation than the former, who can't help being thick.
This is especially true at times when the government feels it can pass laws quickly without proper oversight because there is a weak opposition.
The answer, as I've said many times, is to convert the HoL into a House of Experts, with members being chosen by various sectors.
The only downside is that they'd probably show up the level of 'debate' in the HoC.
A House of Lords that is a revising chamber I can accept. It sort of already is thta, how appointments get made can be changed better.
But for stunts like this trying to block entirely financial measures based on a technicality rather than trying to revise laws ... that is absurd. Our elected chamber passed it already.
If we were to adopt the inane idea of some here and go for a PR HoL then it would have even worse quality MPs than our Commons already does. Lords solely there based on the strength of a party vote with no personal vote at all are just going to be party apparatchiks but worse with a so-called "mandate". Unacceptable.
Well, yes. Just because the HoL as it is currently set up is an unholy mess (so unholy, in fact, that I'm surprised the Bishops within have not performed an exorcism on it) does not mean that the second chamber is unnecessary.
We need to look at what it needs to do (which is not, as the parties think, to allow them to get their way) and reconstitute it so it can perform that job.
And I see no way that an elected HoL would allow it to reform laws more effectively. All we'll get is more of this crass politicking.
As much as possible (and it will never be full possible), politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. That's why I like the Crossbenchers so much.
Oh, and it's worth listening and reading some of the speeches in the HoL. They often put those in the HoC to shame.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
Events, dear boy, events!
Indeed.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
Events, dear boy, events!
Indeed.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Don’t forgwet Crosby. And it looks as though Osborne’s genuis is about to come a cropper.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Mr Clipp, be patient and bide your time. As I said on here a few days ago I'm sure Cameron would have preferred another coalition, he and Clegg are very close in so many respects, he used him alternately as a buffer and a comfort blanket. Now he's gone we'll see what this charlatan is made of.
I love the bitterness of Kippers. It is so heart warming.
We should harness it as a power source. Who needs nuclear energy.
I'm not bitter in the slightest, I worked hard for something I believe in and played a tiny part in forcing Cameron to promise a referendum against his wishes, I'm totally content.
The conservatives on here remind me of those people singing in 1997 when Blair was ordained, and we all know how that ended. It will go the same way for Cameron, it always does.
A very tiny part, Conservative rebels played the large part. Though your comparison with Blair in 1997 is bizarre. In 1997 had Blair said he was going to retire by the end of that Parliament?
I'm referring to the sycophants cheering Blair rather than Blair himself
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Mr Clipp, be patient and bide your time. As I said on here a few days ago I'm sure Cameron would have preferred another coalition, he and Clegg are very close in so many respects, he used him alternately as a buffer and a comfort blanket. Now he's gone we'll see what this charlatan is made of.
I love the bitterness of Kippers. It is so heart warming.
We should harness it as a power source. Who needs nuclear energy.
I'm not bitter in the slightest, I worked hard for something I believe in and played a tiny part in forcing Cameron to promise a referendum against his wishes, I'm totally content.
The conservatives on here remind me of those people singing in 1997 when Blair was ordained, and we all know how that ended. It will go the same way for Cameron, it always does.
A very tiny part, Conservative rebels played the large part. Though your comparison with Blair in 1997 is bizarre. In 1997 had Blair said he was going to retire by the end of that Parliament?
I'm referring to the sycophants cheering Blair rather than Blair himself
Had Blair's final term ended in 2001 he'd have a somewhat different legacy now don't you think?
Let's look at it from the other side. The money dished out on these tax credits has to be earned by the hard working taxpayers. No concern for these people made poorer as a result as a result of higher taxes.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
Events, dear boy, events!
Indeed.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Don’t forgwet Crosby. And it looks as though Osborne’s genuis is about to come a cropper.
I wasn't one of Osborne's fans, back in 2012 I said he should be replaced by Ken Clarke, but he's grown on me.
That said, I'm unlikely to vote for him to be the next Tory leader.
Had Blair's final term ended in 2001 he'd have a somewhat different legacy now don't you think?
Indeed. It is striking how very few Prime Ministers have ever timed their exit correctly. Gladstone carried on for almost two decades after he had exhausted himself and used all his ideas. Chamberlain was maybe a special case. Churchill carried on at least two years, probably six years, too long. Thatcher would have been remembered much more fondly had she retired in 1986 (although some people would always have hated her). Blair - well, enough said really. Wilson, Derby and Salisbury quit when they could theoretically have carried on, but all three were ill at the time (Salisbury and Derby died soon afterwards) and Wilson, like Gladstone, achieved most of his best work by about 1969.
That leaves Baldwin as one of the few Prime Ministers who went at the right time and arguably the only one since Grey in 1834. Of course, it could be suggested that Baldwin would have been better off retiring in 1929 as well. Certainly his posthumous reputation would have been much enhanced!
I think Robert Blake, reflecting on Thatcher, summed it up rather too well: 'For a Prime Minister in good health, there is never a right time to retire.'
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Let's look at it from the other side. The money dished out on these tax credits has to be earned by the hard working taxpayers. No concern for these people made poorer as a result as a result of higher taxes.
Exactly who is made PROPORTIONATELY poorer as a result tof these taxes? Secondly you have obviously never had the experience, or seen others have the experience of living close to Micawbers tipping point and had an unexpected bill.
Speaking purely politically, I think that the Tories need to bury the issue, not inflate it. If they make a bunch of obscure changes that confuse the issue and then move on, I'm afraid people will sort of buy it if not directly affected. If the Government makes it a huge defining confrontation with zillions of new Lords or constitutional changes so as to force it through, Corbyn will reckon Christmas has come early, just as Mike implies.
Meanwhile, this is a very long but really good article on how the Liberals won. There are marked resemblances to some British aspects - Trudeau was selected in an open primary that brought in vast numbers of new members, went big on rejecting early austerity, and mobilised the youth vote in a way that hadn't been expected; they simply ignored the niqab issue. There are also major differences, but see for yourself:
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
As organised by Crosby, not by Osborne. Osborne was in charge of the GE2010 campaign - which is widely regarded as sub standard.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
As organised by Crosby, not by Osborne. Osborne was in charge of the GE2010 campaign - which is widely regarded as sub standard.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
Events, dear boy, events!
Indeed.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Don’t forgwet Crosby. And it looks as though Osborne’s genuis is about to come a cropper.
'Poor Lib Dems, the electorate got it wrong. Blah blah blah'.
Osborne's about to get lucky again. He gets to re-jig tax credits under cover of any rejection by the Lords, then toss a few grenades into the Upper chamber, and set the ball rolling for some serious reform.
This whole tax credits "debate" feels like a rerun of the bedroom tax, which all the policitos were convinced Labour were winning the argument etc etc etc.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Mr Clipp, be patient and bide your time. As I said on here a few days ago I'm sure Cameron would have preferred another coalition, he and Clegg are very close in so many respects, he used him alternately as a buffer and a comfort blanket. Now he's gone we'll see what this charlatan is made of.
I love the bitterness of Kippers. It is so heart warming.
We should harness it as a power source. Who needs nuclear energy.
I'm not bitter in the slightest, I worked hard for something I believe in and played a tiny part in forcing Cameron to promise a referendum against his wishes, I'm totally content.
The conservatives on here remind me of those people singing in 1997 when Blair was ordained, and we all know how that ended. It will go the same way for Cameron, it always does.
A very tiny part, Conservative rebels played the large part. Though your comparison with Blair in 1997 is bizarre. In 1997 had Blair said he was going to retire by the end of that Parliament?
I'm referring to the sycophants cheering Blair rather than Blair himself
Had Blair's final term ended in 2001 he'd have a somewhat different legacy now don't you think?
Possibly but again your comparison is flawed, Cameron has completed 6 months of a tory govt, lets judge him after a full term. Reading an earlier post of yours you seem concerned about the IN campaign, Cameron's whole legacy will now be based on what happens in the referendum.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
Events, dear boy, events!
Indeed.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Don’t forgwet Crosby. And it looks as though Osborne’s genuis is about to come a cropper.
Osborne's about to get lucky again. He gets to re-jig tax credits under cover of any rejection by the Lords, then toss a few grenades into the Upper chamber, and set the ball rolling for some serious reform.
Serious reform of the Lords, as an idea, would be popular. What was done might or might not be!
No indication of whether it is very bad or not yet, but any strong earthquake in such a poor area can be catastrophic. And if it was felt as far away as New Delhi...
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Taking into account the government's proposed changes to tax credits, the minimum wage and income tax allowances, how do you think it will impact on the following groups? People who are not working, and living on benefits
The changes to tax credits are a good thing and should go ahead 21 The changes to tax credits are a bad thing, but given the deficit and the need to cut spending should go ahead 16 The changes to tax credits are a bad thing and should be cancelled, the money can be found elsewhere 37
The changes to tax credits are a good thing and should go ahead 21 The changes to tax credits are a bad thing, but given the deficit and the need to cut spending should go ahead 16 The changes to tax credits are a bad thing and should be cancelled, the money can be found elsewhere 37
37 (proceed) v 37 (cancel)
Did we also not learn from Uncle Crosby, that all this kind of polling is utter bollocks anyway.
Taking into account the government's proposed changes to tax credits, the minimum wage and income tax allowances, how do you think it will impact on the following groups? People who are not working, and living on benefits
45%
Reality = None on these people will be worse off.
Trouble is, that’s eventually. The tax credit loss will be immediate.
Let's look at it from the other side. The money dished out on these tax credits has to be earned by the hard working taxpayers. No concern for these people made poorer as a result as a result of higher taxes.
Exactly who is made PROPORTIONATELY poorer as a result tof these taxes? Secondly you have obviously never had the experience, or seen others have the experience of living close to Micawbers tipping point and had an unexpected bill.
1) the tax payer 2) yes I have personally in both ways.
In regard to (2) it was for a few years over which I was paying for my own training to better myself and my families prospects. Meanwhile others were down the pub every night.
I have over also over many years volunteered and helped at the front line on soup kitchens and help centres in my area. I have taught people to read, helped them with forms, assisted write CV's etc etc.
You?......
So take your left wing " I am holier than thou" crap and shove it. You lot ARE the problem not the solution.
BBC says "Powerful earthquake strikes northern Pakistan, tremors felt as widely as northern India and Afghanistan”. Possibly actually worse in Afghanistan according to http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/
Let's look at it from the other side. The money dished out on these tax credits has to be earned by the hard working taxpayers. No concern for these people made poorer as a result as a result of higher taxes.
Exactly who is made PROPORTIONATELY poorer as a result tof these taxes? Secondly you have obviously never had the experience, or seen others have the experience of living close to Micawbers tipping point and had an unexpected bill.
1) the tax payer 2) yes I have personally in both ways.
In regard to (2) it was for a few years over which I was paying for my own training to better myself and my families prospects. Meanwhile others were down the pub every night.
I have over also over many years volunteered and helped at the front line on soup kitchens and help centres in my area. I have taught people to read, helped them with forms, assisted write CV's etc etc.
You?......
So take your left wing " I am holier than thou" crap and shove it. You lot ARE the problem not the solution.
Anyone... absolutely anyone but Labour ...
Worked with the CAB for many years.
However, I’m not going to indulge in simple abuse. It’s vulgar and pointless.
Let's look at it from the other side. The money dished out on these tax credits has to be earned by the hard working taxpayers. No concern for these people made poorer as a result as a result of higher taxes.
Exactly who is made PROPORTIONATELY poorer as a result tof these taxes? Secondly you have obviously never had the experience, or seen others have the experience of living close to Micawbers tipping point and had an unexpected bill.
1) the tax payer 2) yes I have personally in both ways.
In regard to (2) it was for a few years over which I was paying for my own training to better myself and my families prospects. Meanwhile others were down the pub every night.
I have over also over many years volunteered and helped at the front line on soup kitchens and help centres in my area. I have taught people to read, helped them with forms, assisted write CV's etc etc.
You?......
So take your left wing " I am holier than thou" crap and shove it. You lot ARE the problem not the solution.
Anyone... absolutely anyone but Labour ...
Worked with the CAB for many years.
However, I’m not going to indulge in simple abuse. It’s vulgar and pointless.
Typical get out I see. " I don't engage" You initially insulted me by presumption and you were totally wrong . Let's leave it at that then. I don't expect an apology I wouldn't get one from you anyway.
What's to stop the government just immediately re-introducing these changes as a Finance Bill?
Nothing. So why don't they.
Because they need an excuse to create lots of Conservative peers. In other news, seat reduction and boundary changes will mean many Tory MPs becoming redundant, so that's a happy coincidence.
Loved this comment on cricinfo in respect of a 4 by Broad:
"FOUR, ah, lovely stroke, rocking back to pull through midwicket with all the calypso flair it's possible for a gangly white man to muster"
Stuart Broad once scored 169 against Pakistan.
Just saying, we can still win this. Broady at one end, Yorkshire's Adil Rashid at the other end, this is ours to lose.
There's £14 at 600 on Betfair if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is.
The only thing that is stopping me taking that is Pakistan have form for slowing down the over rate and well bad light becomes a factor.
So you're saying 'we can still win this' but won't back it at 600... Sounds about right
Three Pakistanis were jailed for cheating after the match where Broad scored his century
I'm surprised anyone is actually betting more than pennies on any match involving Pakistan. Yet BF exchange has 15.3m on this match, that's as much as was seen for the Ashes tests!
Loved this comment on cricinfo in respect of a 4 by Broad:
"FOUR, ah, lovely stroke, rocking back to pull through midwicket with all the calypso flair it's possible for a gangly white man to muster"
Stuart Broad once scored 169 against Pakistan.
Just saying, we can still win this. Broady at one end, Yorkshire's Adil Rashid at the other end, this is ours to lose.
How long have you been following cricket ? The highest England has ever scored in the 4th innings to win is 332. The highest any side has scored to win in the 4th innings is 418. Only four times in the history of the game has a side scored 400 to win in the 4th.
If Pakistan does not win, questions will be asked of Misbah what he was up to declaring so late !
BBC says "Powerful earthquake strikes northern Pakistan, tremors felt as widely as northern India and Afghanistan”. Possibly actually worse in Afghanistan according to http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/
I mourn the passing of Lisa Jardine. This was a truly civilised lady, daughter of a civilised Dad, who both were in the public eye, understood how science works, and and did their best to propagate that knowledge.
Loved this comment on cricinfo in respect of a 4 by Broad:
"FOUR, ah, lovely stroke, rocking back to pull through midwicket with all the calypso flair it's possible for a gangly white man to muster"
Stuart Broad once scored 169 against Pakistan.
Just saying, we can still win this. Broady at one end, Yorkshire's Adil Rashid at the other end, this is ours to lose.
There's £14 at 600 on Betfair if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is.
The only thing that is stopping me taking that is Pakistan have form for slowing down the over rate and well bad light becomes a factor.
So you're saying 'we can still win this' but won't back it at 600... Sounds about right
Three Pakistanis were jailed for cheating after the match where Broad scored his century
I'm surprised anyone is actually betting more than pennies on any match involving Pakistan. Yet BF exchange has 15.3m on this match, that's as much as was seen for the Ashes tests!
I guess if the cheating is 'spot fixing' then the match result is still pretty solid... That 3rd innings in Abu Dhabi didn't smell right, but that could just be lazy stereotyping!
Loved this comment on cricinfo in respect of a 4 by Broad:
"FOUR, ah, lovely stroke, rocking back to pull through midwicket with all the calypso flair it's possible for a gangly white man to muster"
Stuart Broad once scored 169 against Pakistan.
Just saying, we can still win this. Broady at one end, Yorkshire's Adil Rashid at the other end, this is ours to lose.
There's £14 at 600 on Betfair if you'd like to put your money where your mouth is.
The only thing that is stopping me taking that is Pakistan have form for slowing down the over rate and well bad light becomes a factor.
So you're saying 'we can still win this' but won't back it at 600... Sounds about right
Three Pakistanis were jailed for cheating after the match where Broad scored his century
I'm surprised anyone is actually betting more than pennies on any match involving Pakistan. Yet BF exchange has 15.3m on this match, that's as much as was seen for the Ashes tests!
I guess if the cheating is 'spot fixing' then the match result is still pretty solid... That 3rd innings in Abu Dhabi didn't smell right, but that could just be lazy stereotyping!
If England do get out of it with a draw, then there’s got to be something dodgy!
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
Belgium has a history of attacks by criminal/terror gangs, so it might not be a crime perpetrated by those whom your hoping it to be.
I don't think anyone on PB hopes for a crime involving death, injury or destruction or a crime by any particular group. At least from the BBC report it sounds as if there was an attempt but no injury, which - if true - is fortunate.
We are all on the alert these days for potential terror attacks. Would that it were not so.......
I mourn the passing of Lisa Jardine. This was a truly civilised lady, daughter of a civilised Dad, who both were in the public eye, understood how science works, and and did their best to propagate that knowledge.
David Cesarani dead too. Not a great weekend for the intellectual life of the nation.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
It's time for the Lords Spiritual to go.
I see a place for a number of religious experts in my nominal House of Experts: but these should be open to all religions in proportion. Say in a HoE of 500 members, a maximum of ten to give religious and spiritual viewpoints on laws and matters.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
You still need some party appointments to speak for the Government and opposition. In my suggested plan I have proportionately reduced the influence of the party appointments. If you tried to get rid of all the party appointments at once it is unlikely the current Lords would vote for this.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
You still need some party appointments to speak for the Government and opposition. In my suggested plan I have proportionately reduced the influence of the party appointments. If you tried to get rid of all the party appointments at once it is unlikely the current Lords would vote for this.
Why do the Government and opposition need to speak? Their views will have been given in the debates in the commons. If they can't express it well enough in the HoC then there's something wrong.
In the plan I've given in the past ex-PM's could choose to become Lords because they will have much experience of some fairly rare areas.
But your plan has over half the lords being politicians. That wouldn't be much change from the mess we have at the moment.
We need experts in the HoL, not people like Prescott or Warsi.
Taking into account the government's proposed changes to tax credits, the minimum wage and income tax allowances, how do you think it will impact on the following groups? People who are not working, and living on benefits
45%
Reality = None on these people will be worse off.
Trouble is, that’s eventually. The tax credit loss will be immediate.
The question relates specifically to the unemployed. There is no impact on them at all, nor anyone whose income is below £3850 - yet 45% of people think there is.
Respecting the will of the people is nothing but a soundbite. The Tory prospectus for government never mentioned removing tax credits which surely should have been a central plank of their re-election campaign.
The manifesto mentioned 12bn of welfare cuts. Promise of welfare cuts leads to welfare cuts shocker.
And during the election campaign Mr Cameron specifically ruled out cuts to tax credits. Another broken promise from this feeble man.
When is he going to start getting the sort of treatment that was meted out to Nick Clegg throughout the whole of the last Parliament?
Probably never. Cameron and Clegg are such similar people.
But Cameron is lucky, and Clegg isn't.
Why do Cameron's critics keep on saying he's lucky?
He's very good at politics.
As someone once said, the harder I work the luckier I get.
It's not really a criticism. Napoleon expected his marshals to be lucky.
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
You don't think that was down to the Tory party targeting voters exceptionally well with the right messages?
As organised by Crosby, not by Osborne. Osborne was in charge of the GE2010 campaign - which is widely regarded as sub standard.
Lord Ashcroft was in charge in 2010.
Ashcroft was only in charge of the marginals campaign in 2010. Did you work on that campaign?
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
You do need what used to be called "working peers" - people prepared to be Ministers, to make the government's case to the Lords, etc.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
It's time for the Lords Spiritual to go.
There's definitely a role for moral leaders in the legislature. The Chief Rabbi usually gets appointed as a crossbencher; I think Basil Hume turned it down because Cardinal's can't accept offices from "foreign princes".
But I could see the Lord Spiritual being slimmed down to Cantab, York, Durham, Londin and Winchester. Add in the Chief Rabbi, and presumably representatives of a handful of other major religions and you could get it down to 10
I mourn the passing of Lisa Jardine. This was a truly civilised lady, daughter of a civilised Dad, who both were in the public eye, understood how science works, and and did their best to propagate that knowledge.
David Cesarani dead too. Not a great weekend for the intellectual life of the nation.
He was quite young as well. Sad.
I remember The Ascent of Man programme. Lisa Jardine was on Desert Island discs recently and was quite frank about admitting what a horrible child she was. TBH she still sounded a bit chilly - but nonetheless had impressive achievements to her name and her passing is obviously sad for her family and friends. She was quite a role model, quite a female role model, of which there are not enough.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
You do need what used to be called "working peers" - people prepared to be Ministers, to make the government's case to the Lords, etc.
They could be chosen from the experts, and does not have to be party-political.
It's notable just how irrelevant Labour is in all of this. When the U-turn comes it will not be because the Tories are worried that the opposition will benefit from the inaction and the notion that the Tories are hammering the working poor, it will be because Osborne does not want to damage his chances of succeeding Cameron.
PB comments don't seem to represent the opinions of the average income-earner very well on this issue
It's a compliment, I am saying that you are isolated from tax credits as a policy (as opposed to a symbol) by your high incomes.
There is so much noise around this that it would be helpful to get a clear account of the changes being made and who they will or will not impact and what mitigating actions are being put in place / can be taken. At the moment it all seems like a lot of heat and not much light.
It is hard for me to know whether there are people who will be genuinely hurt and cannot take any mitigating measures or whether this is like a lot of people paying higher rate tax incensed that they weren't getting any more child benefit.
Just imagine the howls that would have been heard if the HoL had had the impertinence to try an unconstitutional block of a Labour government's welfare change. The LibDem motion in particular is a disgrace (even if it is proposed by my old university mate Dick Newby!)
If you want a non-hysterical view of the actual changes applying to various family circumstances, curiously enough the place to look is the BBC:
There seems to be just a few specific groups who are badly affected, and it seems reasonable for the government to make adjustments for those.
Conversely, the Fraser Nelson article is inconsistent. How many very low-paid owner-occupiers with children are there? And it can't both be true that millions of people will lose out badly and that the measure won't save much because the savings will be offset by increased Housing Benefit and Council Tax support.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
Have you considered a career in the diplomatic corps? :-)
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
Have you considered a career in the diplomatic corps? :-)
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Regarding the HOL, my suggestion would be to cut it down to 500:
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual 150 - Crossbenchers 300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
Why party appointments? Where is the sense in that? What do party appointments - often brainless yes-men (*) or party apparatchiks - add to the capability of the HoL to do its job?
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
You do need what used to be called "working peers" - people prepared to be Ministers, to make the government's case to the Lords, etc.
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs?
Well they had a chance to have a referendum on PR in the last Parliament but they came up with such a rubbish proposal that it was rejected. If some proper PR had been put before us, I might well have voted for it - as might others - but we are where we are. The Lib Dems are now largely irrelevant as a political force and - really - it ill behoves them to use the Lords to push for a policy against the wishes of the elected chamber.
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Haha
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour
Parties that between them won many more votes in the GE than the Tories are opposed to the tax credit cuts.
Is that really true? Both the LibDems and Labour went into the GE with policies of cutting the deficit over the life of this parliament. Given all their other commitments, and looking at the figures for government expenditure, they must presumably have been intending to cut tax credits, otherwise their numbers wouldn't have added up, would they? Or, if I'm wrong, it would be interesting to know what they did intend to do instead.
Comments
49 States then. I didn't know about Nebraska.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures
We need to look at what it needs to do (which is not, as the parties think, to allow them to get their way) and reconstitute it so it can perform that job.
And I see no way that an elected HoL would allow it to reform laws more effectively. All we'll get is more of this crass politicking.
As much as possible (and it will never be full possible), politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. That's why I like the Crossbenchers so much.
Oh, and it's worth listening and reading some of the speeches in the HoL. They often put those in the HoC to shame.
Where Cameron has been lucky is that he's been fortunate to have George Osborne as his top strategist. Osborne is a genius.
Everyone knows fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists also vote UKIP.
Well, that, and the detailed knowledge of differential front end grip.
That said, I'm unlikely to vote for him to be the next Tory leader.
That leaves Baldwin as one of the few Prime Ministers who went at the right time and arguably the only one since Grey in 1834. Of course, it could be suggested that Baldwin would have been better off retiring in 1929 as well. Certainly his posthumous reputation would have been much enhanced!
I think Robert Blake, reflecting on Thatcher, summed it up rather too well: 'For a Prime Minister in good health, there is never a right time to retire.'
Meanwhile, this is a very long but really good article on how the Liberals won. There are marked resemblances to some British aspects - Trudeau was selected in an open primary that brought in vast numbers of new members, went big on rejecting early austerity, and mobilised the youth vote in a way that hadn't been expected; they simply ignored the niqab issue. There are also major differences, but see for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html?ncid=newsletter-uk
Gordon Brown bottling the election in 2007; Labour choosing Ed Milliband, and then Jeremy Corbyn, and the Conservatives gaining votes where they needed to, and losing votes where they needed to, in May, were fantastic pieces of luck.
Clegg, on the other hand, tried to do the right thing, and saw his party destroyed.
Labour adding and subtracting again I see.
But yes, related to the Third Punic War.
"FOUR, ah, lovely stroke, rocking back to pull through midwicket with all the calypso flair it's possible for a gangly white man to muster"
If Pakistan can't win from here with their bowling resources...
Osborne's about to get lucky again. He gets to re-jig tax credits under cover of any rejection by the Lords, then toss a few grenades into the Upper chamber, and set the ball rolling for some serious reform.
With that, I must go and do some work. Have a good day everyone!
Just saying, we can still win this. Broady at one end, Yorkshire's Adil Rashid at the other end, this is ours to lose.
http://english.manoramaonline.com/news/just-in/earthquake-strong-tremors-new-delhi-srinagar-kashmir-north-india.html
No indication of whether it is very bad or not yet, but any strong earthquake in such a poor area can be catastrophic. And if it was felt as far away as New Delhi...
50 - Hereditary Peers/Lords Spiritual
150 - Crossbenchers
300 - Party appointments to be proportional to the results of the last 3 GEs (with a 5% threshold for each nations of the UK and excluding parties who don't take up their seats)
Each party to elect among themselves which Lords to be kept, with those losing the right to attend keeping the Lord/Lady title
Replacements for the crossbenchers to be made annually by an independent commission
Replacements for party appointments made by the party leaders depending on who is next due a seat.
45%
Reality = None on these people will be worse off.
The changes to tax credits are a good thing and should go ahead 21
The changes to tax credits are a bad thing, but given the deficit and the need to cut spending should go ahead 16
The changes to tax credits are a bad thing and should be cancelled, the money can be found elsewhere 37
37 (proceed) v 37 (cancel)
twitter.com/amolrajan/status/658535537150685184
2) yes I have personally in both ways.
In regard to (2) it was for a few years over which I was paying for my own training to better myself and my families prospects. Meanwhile others were down the pub every night.
I have over also over many years volunteered and helped at the front line on soup kitchens and help centres in my area. I have taught people to read, helped them with forms, assisted write CV's etc etc.
You?......
So take your left wing " I am holier than thou" crap and shove it. You lot ARE the problem not the solution.
Anyone... absolutely anyone but Labour ...
Three Pakistanis were jailed for cheating after the match where Broad scored his century
However, I’m not going to indulge in simple abuse. It’s vulgar and pointless.
You initially insulted me by presumption and you were totally wrong . Let's leave it at that then. I don't expect an apology I wouldn't get one from you anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34637297
If Pakistan does not win, questions will be asked of Misbah what he was up to declaring so late !
'A senior Conservative told the Standard ministers were questioning if it was worth halting debates for a party that has “just eight MPs”.
How the hell does a party with just 8 MP's have over 100 representatives in the HoL ?
http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=466583
Edit Just seen that’s Broad’s out!
As much as possible, party politics needs to be kept out of the HoL. Laws need to be viewed on their own basis, not through a party-political prism.
(*) I'm surprised NP hasn't been elevated yet ...
twitter.com/liam345/status/658569111996387328
2/9 lab
9/2 ukip
50/1 Conservatives
Logical Song should be interested in those odds!
We are all on the alert these days for potential terror attacks. Would that it were not so.......
Two percent seems about right.
Fraser Nelson paints an ominous picture.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/exclusive-67pc-of-working-tax-credit-recipients-will-be-made-worse-off-by-osbornes-reforms/
Even if the Labour candidate is a complete lunatic, 2/9 has to be value.
In the plan I've given in the past ex-PM's could choose to become Lords because they will have much experience of some fairly rare areas.
But your plan has over half the lords being politicians. That wouldn't be much change from the mess we have at the moment.
We need experts in the HoL, not people like Prescott or Warsi.
That's nearly 2m of the tax credit claim load.
My guess is that silence from some of the usual suspects means, pace OGH's header, that tweaks will be made.
But I could see the Lord Spiritual being slimmed down to Cantab, York, Durham, Londin and Winchester. Add in the Chief Rabbi, and presumably representatives of a handful of other major religions and you could get it down to 10
I remember The Ascent of Man programme. Lisa Jardine was on Desert Island discs recently and was quite frank about admitting what a horrible child she was. TBH she still sounded a bit chilly - but nonetheless had impressive achievements to her name and her passing is obviously sad for her family and friends. She was quite a role model, quite a female role model, of which there are not enough.
PB comments don't seem to represent the opinions of the average income-earner very well on this issue
It's a compliment, I am saying that you are isolated from tax credits as a policy (as opposed to a symbol) by your high incomes.
There is so much noise around this that it would be helpful to get a clear account of the changes being made and who they will or will not impact and what mitigating actions are being put in place / can be taken. At the moment it all seems like a lot of heat and not much light.
It is hard for me to know whether there are people who will be genuinely hurt and cannot take any mitigating measures or whether this is like a lot of people paying higher rate tax incensed that they weren't getting any more child benefit.
If you want a non-hysterical view of the actual changes applying to various family circumstances, curiously enough the place to look is the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34618968/tax-credits-are-you-a-winner-or-loser
There seems to be just a few specific groups who are badly affected, and it seems reasonable for the government to make adjustments for those.
Conversely, the Fraser Nelson article is inconsistent. How many very low-paid owner-occupiers with children are there? And it can't both be true that millions of people will lose out badly and that the measure won't save much because the savings will be offset by increased Housing Benefit and Council Tax support.
Or in the case of UKIP, one MP.
'More to the point - how does a party that gets four million votes have just eight MPs? '
Because that's the voting system we have and changes to it have been massively rejected by the electorate less than 5 years ago.
EDIT - Actually, that may not be true. UKIP is also in favour of reducing the incomes of the working poor, I believe.
Hardly
If UKIPs policy was in place, the working poor would be earning a lot more than they are currently. Tax credits are just small kickback for the money they lose through mass immigration of cheap labour