politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories would be in a stronger position over the Lords i

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories would be in a stronger position over the Lords if at GE2015 they’d attracted more than 36.9% of the vote

Yesterday afternoon the Cameron biographer, pollster and former Tory treasurer, Lord Ashcroft, made the above perceptive Tweet about the limitations of the current government’s power. While in the 2010-2015 parliament this had been because of the Lib Dem coalition the reality now is that the Cameron government’s main limitation is the House of Lords.

Read the full story here

Tim_B

First!!!! Yay!!!!!

RobD

Second, damn you Tim!

Even if the Tories had won a landslide, I imagine the LDs would still be engaged in toy/pram related activities.

JohnLoony

Labour got 29.0% in 2010, not 35.2%. But Anyway.

JEO

I see Merkel's encouragement for more migrants to come is having the predictable effect of more people dying at sea:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34694431

I hope all those people that argued for "take more now to be a good European, and worry about the consequences later" have the self-awareness to see the effect of that policy.

Indigo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

JEO

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

This needs desperate rolling back. It's one thing for intelligence agencies investigating people for terrorism and child trafficking, but I don't see any good grounds at all for local authorities to be able to access this information. When you consider the professionalism of some local council workers, I also worry about how secure this information is.

MikeSmithson

JohnLoony said:

Labour got 29.0% in 2010, not 35.2%. But Anyway.

John. Thanks for that. Chart amended.

JEO

If the CBI really did select members known to be pro-EU for its membership poll, it would really damage the credibility of the Remain campaign, especially after all the dishonesties so far.

felix

I think the argument in the thread header about national percentage shares of the vote to be very weak indeed and the more so as it fails to even consider the legitimacy of the 100 or so LD peers. If the GE showed anything it was the most decisive rejection of that party both in terms of votes and seats. But either way the central point remains that the system we have is FPTP supported heavily in the AV referendum. The LDs are very angry and very bitter and out for revenge - so be it but their tactics will only help to alienate the public further. The idea of Farron as the repository of the 'conscience of the people' is almost as absurd as its traditional resting place in the hands of the bishops of the C. o E.

JohnLoony

The premise of this thread seems to be the opposite of what Our Grumpy Helmsman is usually telling us every day during the Two Minutes Hate. I now realise that my memory on this subject may be defective and that I must have been suffering from counter-revolutionary bourgeois hallucinations. The Liberal Democrat peers are in opposition; the Liberal Democrat peers have always been in opposition.

JohnLoony

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

DecrepitJohnL

JohnLoony said:

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

That was the punchline of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on VC winners. Available in all good DVD shops and probably online.

Philip_Thompson

We are not an increasingly multi party nation. In 2015 both the Tories and Labour parties increased their share of the vote while the third parties share of the vote fell down. If you were to look nation by nation (so counting SNP as a first rather than third party) then that is even more dramatically pronounced.

There is no great principle here behind the party soundly rejected in May.

JEO

Asylum seekers to Sweden this year are expected to be 4% of Sweden's population:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-01/sweden-risks-blowing-through-budget-ceiling-to-pay-for-refugees

felix

Looks like Spain could be heading for a centre-right coalition - if so a good result for the country.

The battle for success on December 20 has become a three horse race according to Metroscopia.

"Ciudadanos has overtaken PSOE for the first time and are only one percent behind the PP in the percentage vote; PP 23.5%, Ciudadanos 22.5%, PSOE 21% , Podemos 17%, wasted votes estimated at 10% and Izquierda Unida 6.3%.
However the Partido Popular keeps a large advantage in the number of seats with between 93 and 100, Ciudadanos between 72 and 84, PSOE between 88 and 98 and Podemos between 42 and 46."

tlg86

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

felix

https://www.thespainreport.com/newsitems/227-151030093813-update-poll-suggests-pp-win-at-general-election-ciudadanos-now-second

This poll is a little better for the PP but suggests essentially the same outcome.. The PSOE seems to be fading and losing support to the extremist Podemos.

felix

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

blackburn63

JEO said:

I see Merkel's encouragement for more migrants to come is having the predictable effect of more people dying at sea:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34694431

I hope all those people that argued for "take more now to be a good European, and worry about the consequences later" have the self-awareness to see the effect of that policy.

Of course they don't, and you'll be called all sorts of names for suggesting so.

Who was it that said the definition of insanity was continually doing the same thing and hoping for a different outcome.

ThreeQuidder

RobD said:

Second, damn you Tim!

Even if the Tories had won a landslide, I imagine the LDs would still be engaged in toy/pram related activities.

Of course they would. This is a party that spent half the last parliament convinced they were in opposition.

ThreeQuidder

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

If national vote shares matter, the LDs would have the square root of bugger all power.

Innocent_Abroad

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

Charles

Just to understand:

You [OGH] are equating the legitimacy of:

- Party with fewer votes gets many more seats (Labour 2005); and
- Party with most seats gets held hostage by unelected members of party trounced at most recent democratic election (Lib Dems 2015)

Do you ever think about what you write in terms of how it comes across?

Sandpit

JEO said:

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

This needs desperate rolling back. It's one thing for intelligence agencies investigating people for terrorism and child trafficking, but I don't see any good grounds at all for local authorities to be able to access this information. When you consider the professionalism of some local council workers, I also worry about how secure this information is.
Not only that, but councils and the average Bobby have shown on numerous occasions that they use the data to which they do have access for nefarious means, fishing trips, personal vendettas and checking up on spouses. Sensitive data like this should be restricted to security services or warrant from the Home Secretary. Widespread use of such data will on,y drive the real baddies to use more encryption and VPN services anyway, defeating the whole point.

Good morning, by the way, from Sharjah Cricket Club, where Moeen Ali is once again proving himself as a number 8 batsman with a quick knock of 14. Oh...

GeoffM

Charles said:

Just to understand:

You are equating the legitimacy of:

- Party with fewer votes gets many more seats (Labour 2005); and
- Party with most seats gets held hostage by unelected members of party trounced at most recent democratic election (Lib Dems 2015)

Do you ever think about what you write in terms of how it comes across?

Indeed. Absolutely no self-awareness.

RobD

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

Innocent_Abroad

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

logical_song

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

felix

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You forgot about the baby-eating. Yum

Innocent_Abroad

felix said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You forgot about the baby-eating. Yum

Belch.

RobD

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

Hm not sure about that. What was the phrase, "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"?

GeoffM

logical_song said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Labour have been around for a hundred years or so and the Tories for twice that, so on your excellent logic should have twice as many seats based on length of public service. And the LibDems have only been around since the 1980's so should get a handful.

Innocent_Abroad

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

Hm not sure about that. What was the phrase, "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"?

I didn't know they were elephants. Hippopotamuses, obviously, but - elephants? I remain to be convinced.

Sandpit

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

We Tory Scum are a broad church, now that we cover anyone slightly to the right of Corbyn and 2/3 of the Parliamentary Labour Party!

Charles

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

Hm not sure about that. What was the phrase, "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"?

I didn't know they were elephants. Hippopotamuses, obviously, but - elephants? I remain to be convinced.

Most of the PB Tories are RINOs.

(Although there are some tea-drinking partiers, although how they align that with patriotism, given the historical reference, I'm not sure)

JohnLoony

DecrepitJohnL said:

JohnLoony said:

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

That was the punchline of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on VC winners. Available in all good DVD shops and probably online.

Which bit is the punchline? #confused

Charles

JohnLoony said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JohnLoony said:

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

That was the punchline of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on VC winners. Available in all good DVD shops and probably online.

Which bit is the punchline? #confused

Knowing Jeremy Clarkson he probably lined them all up and...

I'll get my coat

RobD

Charles said:

JohnLoony said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JohnLoony said:

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

That was the punchline of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on VC winners. Available in all good DVD shops and probably online.

Which bit is the punchline? #confused

Knowing Jeremy Clarkson he probably lined them all up and...

I'll get my coat

And on that bombshell....

Fetch mine while you are at it

AndyJS

What sort of legitimacy do LD peers reckon 7.9% of the vote confers on a party to block legislation?

logical_song

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Labour have been around for a hundred years or so and the Tories for twice that, so on your excellent logic should have twice as many seats based on length of public service. And the LibDems have only been around since the 1980's so should get a handful.

The Liberal Party was founded in 1859,

Innocent_Abroad

AndyJS said:

What sort of legitimacy do LD peers reckon 7.9% of the vote confers on a party to block legislation?

Now, Tory peers have never blocked legislation in the aftermath of a lost election, have they?

GeoffM

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

Hm not sure about that. What was the phrase, "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"?

I didn't know they were elephants. Hippopotamuses, obviously, but - elephants? I remain to be convinced.

Most of the PB Tories are RINOs.

(Although there are some tea-drinking partiers, although how they align that with patriotism, given the historical reference, I'm not sure)

Yes, Gadsden rattlesnake here!

Philip_Thompson

Innocent_Abroad said:

AndyJS said:

What sort of legitimacy do LD peers reckon 7.9% of the vote confers on a party to block legislation?

Now, Tory peers have never blocked legislation in the aftermath of a lost election, have they?

Financial or manifesto legislation? Can't remember either in my lifetime.

GeoffM

logical_song said:

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Labour have been around for a hundred years or so and the Tories for twice that, so on your excellent logic should have twice as many seats based on length of public service. And the LibDems have only been around since the 1980's so should get a handful.

The Liberal Party was founded in 1859,

...and they still have a couple of town councillors somewhere, I think.

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand were founded in 1988

AndyJS

Innocent_Abroad said:

AndyJS said:

What sort of legitimacy do LD peers reckon 7.9% of the vote confers on a party to block legislation?

Now, Tory peers have never blocked legislation in the aftermath of a lost election, have they?

I don't think the Tories have ever been as low as 7.9% of the vote, or anywhere near.

logical_song

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Labour have been around for a hundred years or so and the Tories for twice that, so on your excellent logic should have twice as many seats based on length of public service. And the LibDems have only been around since the 1980's so should get a handful.

The Liberal Party was founded in 1859,

...and they still have a couple of town councillors somewhere, I think.

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand were founded in 1988

The Liberal Party merged with the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats. At the same time a very small faction continued as the SDP and another small faction continued as the Liberal Party.
Are you being awkward or are you really uneducated in political matters?

RobD

logical_song said:

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

GeoffM said:

logical_song said:

felix said:

tlg86 said:

"National vote shares do matter."

Try telling that to Ukip! It sounds to me that Mike is arguing that the 100 Lib Dem peers are some sort of legacy compensation of having been in coalition. Had the voter registration bill been voted down by the Lords we'd have a full on constitutional crisis.

Indeed - the LDs sense of entitlement is a sight to behold - only matched by their hypocrisy.

UKIP can feel aggrieved at only having one MP for their vote share of 12.6%. However they will have to be around for a lot longer and achieve much higher percentage votes to match those of the LibDems. The LibDems number of members of the House of Lords is a reflection of their performance over many decades.
Over the past eight General Elections the LibDems have scored between 20% and 25% on four occasions and around 17/18% on three. Their most recent result was 8% of course.
That's why the LibDems have a presence in the HoL. Maybe UKIP will be in that position in 30 years, but I somehow doubt it.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Labour have been around for a hundred years or so and the Tories for twice that, so on your excellent logic should have twice as many seats based on length of public service. And the LibDems have only been around since the 1980's so should get a handful.

The Liberal Party was founded in 1859,

...and they still have a couple of town councillors somewhere, I think.

The Liberal Democrats on the other hand were founded in 1988

The Liberal Party merged with the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats. At the same time a very small faction continued as the SDP and another small faction continued as the Liberal Party.
Are you being awkward or are you really uneducated in political matters?

He could be a Liberal member who believes they are the true successor to the old Liberal party.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

JEO said:

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

This needs desperate rolling back. It's one thing for intelligence agencies investigating people for terrorism and child trafficking, but I don't see any good grounds at all for local authorities to be able to access this information. When you consider the professionalism of some local council workers, I also worry about how secure this information is.

Not only that, but councils and the average Bobby have shown on numerous occasions that they use the data to which they do have access for nefarious means, fishing trips, personal vendettas and checking up on spouses. Sensitive data like this should be restricted to security services or warrant from the Home Secretary. Widespread use of such data will on,y drive the real baddies to use more encryption and VPN services anyway, defeating the whole point.

Good morning, by the way, from Sharjah Cricket Club, where Moeen Ali is once again proving himself as a number 8 batsman with a quick knock of 14. Oh...

Looking for someone with a laptop in the crowd.

Charles

Innocent_Abroad said:

AndyJS said:

What sort of legitimacy do LD peers reckon 7.9% of the vote confers on a party to block legislation?

Now, Tory peers have never blocked legislation in the aftermath of a lost election, have they?

When was the last time the Tories got 7.9% in a general election?

AlastairMeeks

If the Conservatives had tallied, say, 45% of the vote then Labour and Lib Dem peers would be no less obstructive than they are now. They are motivated by the absence of opposition not by any democratic deficit. However, crossbenchers would be more cautious.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Will get to work on the post-race piece fairly shortly. Reasonable race, surprised more cars didn't drop out, to be honest.

Charles

GeoffM said:

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Thee are two kinds of English. Tories - and traitors.

Traitors should be hanged - and hanged high. England will never be great again until Tory Peebies are recognised for the Patriots they are, and so exempted from the criminal law.

Socialists should be exterminated globally - and on any other planet they infest!

But of course Cammo is too cowardly to follow the example of his Turkish counterpart.

I find the term Tory peebies offensive. It's "PB Tory Scum", thank-you-very-much...

You have it all wrong. I am the scum (although Roger is much scummier, of course...)

Hm not sure about that. What was the phrase, "PB Tories are always right, PB Tories never forget"?

I didn't know they were elephants. Hippopotamuses, obviously, but - elephants? I remain to be convinced.

Most of the PB Tories are RINOs.

(Although there are some tea-drinking partiers, although how they align that with patriotism, given the historical reference, I'm not sure)

Yes, Gadsden rattlesnake here!

My ancestors fought for the Republic of Vermont, which was allied to the Continental Congress.

AndyJS

O/T:

Fog in London this morning which is unusual AFAIK:

http://news.sky.com/story/1579960/live-blog-heavy-fog-blankets-britain

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

JEO said:

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

This needs desperate rolling back. It's one thing for intelligence agencies investigating people for terrorism and child trafficking, but I don't see any good grounds at all for local authorities to be able to access this information. When you consider the professionalism of some local council workers, I also worry about how secure this information is.

Not only that, but councils and the average Bobby have shown on numerous occasions that they use the data to which they do have access for nefarious means, fishing trips, personal vendettas and checking up on spouses. Sensitive data like this should be restricted to security services or warrant from the Home Secretary. Widespread use of such data will on,y drive the real baddies to use more encryption and VPN services anyway, defeating the whole point.

Good morning, by the way, from Sharjah Cricket Club, where Moeen Ali is once again proving himself as a number 8 batsman with a quick knock of 14. Oh...

Looking for someone with a laptop in the crowd.
Loll, iPad actually! I think I'm the only guy with a suit on, bottom tier underneath a flag with a big red rose, just to the left of the pavilion as I see it. Quiet here compared to Dubai, probably only 500 people in the crowd.

chestnut

Indigo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

Town halls were granted permission to access private communications data 2,110 times last year, more than GCHQ and MI6 combined.

It's noticeable the one of the main recipients of this new invasion into our privacy is HMRC, not the public body that springs immediately to mind when you consider supposed counter-terrorism legislation. I am not too sure how this trawl sits with emails to ones accountant, lawyer or priest and the right to privacy granted by those relationships.

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

Its going to be a good day for VPN providers when that law comes into force!

I would imagine tax evasion and welfare fraud are fairly common reasons for checking internet habits.

A combination of e-commerce and social media providing both opportunity and evidence.

TheScreamingEagles

Mike Smithson prior to the election:With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much [The General Election] is about seats not national vote totals - http://bit.ly/1HmSORS

Mike Smithson after the election: National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

I wonder what could have prompted such a change in views *Innocent Face*

felix

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson prior to the election:With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much [The General Election] is about seats not national vote totals - http://bit.ly/1HmSORS

Mike Smithson after the election: National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

I wonder what could have prompted such a change in views *Innocent Face*

Indeed - who'd have thought the TSE viper in the nest would be the one to go for the Smithson jugular quite so viciously

RobD

felix said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson prior to the election:With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much [The General Election] is about seats not national vote totals - http://bit.ly/1HmSORS

Mike Smithson after the election: National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

I wonder what could have prompted such a change in views *Innocent Face*

Indeed - who'd have thought the TSE viper in the nest would be the one to go for the Smithson jugular quite so viciously

Well, he is a PB Tory scum.

Sandpit

Lunch in Sharjah. A steady morning for England, 87/1. Cook on 48no.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Felix, Mr. Eagles is a Yorkshireman who joined the Lancashire Cricket Club. His perfidious nature is known.

One can only imagine the terrible vengeance Mr. Smithson shall wreak upon him.

Mortimer

antifrank said:

If the Conservatives had tallied, say, 45% of the vote then Labour and Lib Dem peers would be no less obstructive than they are now. They are motivated by the absence of opposition not by any democratic deficit. However, crossbenchers would be more cautious.

This is the result of allowing politically appointed life peers. The Lords need to learn some manners towards the democratic will of the people.

HYUFD

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson prior to the election:With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much [The General Election] is about seats not national vote totals - http://bit.ly/1HmSORS

Mike Smithson after the election: National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

I wonder what could have prompted such a change in views *Innocent Face*

Because it is clear that many are not voting for their allegiance winning the national aggregate vote will mean less. The election is about seats.

National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

Scrapheap_as_was

Poppycock.

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Will get to work on the post-race piece fairly shortly. Reasonable race, surprised more cars didn't drop out, to be honest.

Still think Mercedes won't throw Nico a bone?

Sean_F

This sounds like an argument for appointing a few dozen UKIP peers, based on vote share.

JEO

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

Interesting that of the four in Europe, two are outside the EU and two have substantial opt outs.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312

Charles

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mike Smithson prior to the election:With so much potential tactical voting the overall national party vote shares won’t mean as much [The General Election] is about seats not national vote totals - http://bit.ly/1HmSORS

Mike Smithson after the election: National vote shares at GE2005 & GE2015 levels do matter

I wonder what could have prompted such a change in views *Innocent Face*

Hypocrisy? Or self-interest? Both unattractive!

DecrepitJohnL

JohnLoony said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JohnLoony said:

Yesterday I discovered that my grandfather was awarded an OBE in 1946. I don't remember ever being told that before.

That was the punchline of Jeremy Clarkson's documentary on VC winners. Available in all good DVD shops and probably online.

Which bit is the punchline? #confused

The bit I quoted. And: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpg6h16k8eU#t=56m30s

tlg86

Sean_F said:

This sounds like an argument for appointing a few dozen UKIP peers, based on vote share.

Ah, but Ukip aren't in coalition with the Tories. Mike's argument is that the Lib Dems earned the right to have a good chunk of the Lords because they went into coalition with the Tories in 2010.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, Hamilton questioned that order, refused to come in initially, and after the race said it was the wrong call.

So, yes, I still think Hamilton won't volunteer to help Rosberg out, as I said before the race.

AlastairMeeks

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

They're all of a similar size population. An independent Scotland would fall in that band of population too.

I'd like to see the metrics used. Singapore is not famed for its pluralistic politics.

Innocent_Abroad

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

Interesting that of the four in Europe, two are outside the EU and two have substantial opt outs.

They all have small populations (and relatively small areas, too).

JEO

Sean_F said:

This sounds like an argument for appointing a few dozen UKIP peers, based on vote share.

That would be a good way of getting a right-wing majority in the Lords, without the Tories being accused of "stuffing".

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

Lunch in Sharjah. A steady morning for England, 87/1. Cook on 48no.

Yes, for sure an excellent start for England. 1.55 looks a tad low though - so laid them.

RobD

antifrank said:

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

They're all of a similar size population. An independent Scotland would fall in that band of population too.

I'd like to see the metrics used. Singapore is not famed for its pluralistic politics.

I was going to say, isn't Singapore effectively a one party state?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JEO, whilst I agree UKIP should have a peer or two, it would be foolish for the Conservatives to see them as a mini-me sidekick party. UKIP would probably sooner usurp the Tories than co-operate with them.

AlastairMeeks

JEO said:

Sean_F said:

This sounds like an argument for appointing a few dozen UKIP peers, based on vote share.

That would be a good way of getting a right-wing majority in the Lords, without the Tories being accused of "stuffing".

It would be fantastic for UKIP. I can't see much advantage for the Conservatives in appointing another cohort of enemies to make them a still smaller minority in the upper house.

PClipp

Indigo said:

I am not sure I understand the government here, it passes laws to restrict the gather of intelligence by non-security related agencies when it modified RIPA under the coalition, and now seems determined to give that same access back to people that patently don't need it except to go on fishing expedition, rather than say good old fashioned detective work to find some evidence of a crime, then obtaining a warrent from a judge.

An easy point to answer, Mr Indigo. The first government was a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The second (the present one) is made up of hard-line authoritarian Tories.

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, Hamilton questioned that order, refused to come in initially, and after the race said it was the wrong call.

So, yes, I still think Hamilton won't volunteer to help Rosberg out, as I said before the race.

But team orders carried the day, which is why betting on F1 can be dicey. Hamilton did not want to help Rosberg: Mercedes did. (Remember the debates about Damon Hill's mysterious engine problems whenever he looked like beating Prost?)

PClipp

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312

Perhaps the House of Lords is doing a good job of representing the point of view of the 75% of the registered electors who did not vote Tory.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. L, yes, team orders carried the day. Hamilton has the title and next year if Ferrari are closer he may benefit from Rosberg being ordered to let him past.

The pre-race scenario you suggested was Hamilton backing up the rest to let Rosberg scamper off to an easy win. I said I thought such an order would be ignored, and still think it would be.

richardDodd

PClipp..but they were not elected..so have no legitimacy in that respect..

HYUFD

JEO said:

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

Interesting that of the four in Europe, two are outside the EU and two have substantial opt outs.

Yes, not one is in the Eurozone

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Will get to work on the post-race piece fairly shortly. Reasonable race, surprised more cars didn't drop out, to be honest.

Good morning Mr. Dancer. Please tell me you had more than pennies on your Bottas podium bet?

tlg86

DecrepitJohnL said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. L, Hamilton questioned that order, refused to come in initially, and after the race said it was the wrong call.

So, yes, I still think Hamilton won't volunteer to help Rosberg out, as I said before the race.

But team orders carried the day, which is why betting on F1 can be dicey. Hamilton did not want to help Rosberg: Mercedes did. (Remember the debates about Damon Hill's mysterious engine problems whenever he looked like beating Prost?)

I know someone who had bet on David Coulthard to win the 1998 Australian GP. He wasn't particularly impressed when DC moved over to allow Mika Häkkinen to take the win!

RobD

PClipp said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312

Perhaps the House of Lords is doing a good job of representing the point of view of the 75% of the registered electors who did not vote Tory.

Well 35% of registered electors didn't bother voting.

TheScreamingEagles

Vox populi, vox Deo

Spectre has smashed another box office record and become the biggest UK debut in history.

The James Bond film took $63.8m in its first seven days of release in the UK, overtaking previous record holder Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Variety reports.

http://bit.ly/1Q1kGmU

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Vox opuli, vox Deo

Spectre has smashed another box office record and become the biggest UK debut in history.

The James Bond film took $63.8m in its first seven days of release in the UK, overtaking previous record holder Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Variety reports.

http://bit.ly/1Q1kGmU

Hardly a surprise given the publicity it's received. I'll probably get round to seeing it, but I think it's interesting that the journalists universally gave it a good review yet many people seem to think that it wasn't that good.

NickPalmer

Even as a Labour MP I got bored with grumbling about the Lords. Governments should either reform it or put up with it in good grace. Leaving it unchanged and whinging is an unattractive combination of indolence with bad temper.

BTW, forgot to congratulate Richard N on the very informative Irish thread lead - told me lots I didn't know and I suspect I'm not alone. Considering how close we are to Ireland, geographically and culturally, it's odd how little coverage their affairs get - I see more about Turkish or Brazilian politics!

HYUFD

antifrank said:

HYUFD said:

The Economist has identified the best governed nations on the planet, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand and Singapore. Interestingly only Switzerland of those nations has an upper house the others have just one chamber. May give Osborne an idea!

They're all of a similar size population. An independent Scotland would fall in that band of population too.

I'd like to see the metrics used. Singapore is not famed for its pluralistic politics.

It was best governed nations not most democratic nations (although Singapore is still a democracy even if the same party normally wins). Ireland was not included and that would likely be most similar to any independent Scotland, nor were some other smaller western nations like Belgium, Austria or Israel

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Vox opuli, vox Deo

Spectre has smashed another box office record and become the biggest UK debut in history.

The James Bond film took $63.8m in its first seven days of release in the UK, overtaking previous record holder Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Variety reports.

http://bit.ly/1Q1kGmU

Hardly a surprise given the publicity it's received. I'll probably get round to seeing it, but I think it's interesting that the journalists universally gave it a good review yet many people seem to think that it wasn't that good.

PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family.

I had a fairly standard stake on Bottas. Incidentally, this race was one hundred times more profitable than the last (on a bet-and-forget basis)

Mr. Eagles, I hope they enjoy that in the small time before Star Wars comes out.

HYUFD

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Vox opuli, vox Deo

Spectre has smashed another box office record and become the biggest UK debut in history.

The James Bond film took $63.8m in its first seven days of release in the UK, overtaking previous record holder Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Variety reports.

http://bit.ly/1Q1kGmU

Hardly a surprise given the publicity it's received. I'll probably get round to seeing it, but I think it's interesting that the journalists universally gave it a good review yet many people seem to think that it wasn't that good.

Not all journalists, it had a mixed review in the Sunday Times and the Guardian although the Telegraph gave it five stars. On rotten tomatoes it has a lower rating than Casino Royale and Skyfall although a higher rating than Quantum of Solace

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, I'm just a poor boy from a poor family.

I had a fairly standard stake on Bottas. Incidentally, this race was one hundred times more profitable than the last (on a bet-and-forget basis)

Mr. Eagles, I hope they enjoy that in the small time before Star Wars comes out.

Did you read that fan theory that Jar Jar Binks is actually the 'power behind the throne', and that it will all be revealed in the upcoming trilogy?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. D, I must admit, that has passed me by. Thankfully.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, I must admit, that has passed me by. Thankfully.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/3qvj6w/theory_jar_jar_binks_was_a_trained_force_user

Enjoy

Morris_Dancer

Mr. D, I've love to, unfortunately I'm very busy writing my post-race analysis.

The choice between a discussion of Jar Jar Binks or contemplating the mysteries of differential front end grip is not the greatest of dilemmas.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, I've love to, unfortunately I'm very busy writing my post-race analysis.

The choice between a discussion of Jar Jar Binks or contemplating the mysteries of differential front end grip is not the greatest of dilemmas.

I know you've discretely added it to your bookmarks. Don't worry, your secret is safe with me.