Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Is he the only person to have been elected to both houses?
The Rt Honourable Douglas Hogg, Viscount Hailsham (otherwise known as Moat Man Hogg) tried I think, more than once, to take up a Lords place through a by-election, but in the end got in through a Life Peerage.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Knighthoods for the two Eds would be a nice gesture. Then we could refer to Lady Yvette too.
And for Clegg!
Indeed, Clegg should have been in the list too.
His services to Cameron have been invaluable, and it's doubtful any future PM would give Clegg a peerage or anything really.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
So it would seem - for commissioned officers. Learned for Barristers. Noble lord for those with a courtesy title who are in the commons.
Phased out in the late 90s apparently, according to a parliamentary fact sheet found with some light googling.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
The peasants should know their place....
I think I was build by nature to a certain subservience - I've recently noticed I have a tendency to lean in a sort of not quite bow when speaking to people of importance, which I am trying not to do as it probably looks very obsequious.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
So it would seem - for commissioned officers. Learned for Barristers. Noble lord for those with a courtesy title who are in the commons.
Phased out in the late 90s apparently, according to a parliamentary fact sheet found with some light googling.
There we have it. A private with a VC isn't gallant, but a Captain who counted paper clips at HQ is. Britain at its best.
How many Electoral college votes would Britain have just out of interest?
England 93 Scotland 9 Wales 5 NI 3
(to the nearest whole EC vote)
Did you correct for the fact that there is only 535 EVs to share around?
Didn't the number of EC votes go up when new states joined?
In the 1956 POTUS election there were 530 EC votes for example (pre-statehood for Alaska and Hawaii)
The House of Representatives is fixed at 435 people. The Electoral College vote for each state is their number congressmen (proportional to population) and senators (always 2). DC gets 3 E.V.s because reasons.
So the electoral college size is 435 + 3 + 2x the number of states. So the electoral college gets 2 peeps bigger every time a state joins.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
All soldiers, or just officers?
I have known many lawyers who are not learned, military officers who aren't noble and MPs who are neither right nor honourable.
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Was here referred to as "My noble friend" in the lower chamber, or just the normal "hon./right hon. friend?"
Right Honourable it would seem from a quick Hansarding
I believe Douglas Hogg MP was "noble and learned".
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
So it would seem - for commissioned officers. Learned for Barristers. Noble lord for those with a courtesy title who are in the commons.
Phased out in the late 90s apparently, according to a parliamentary fact sheet found with some light googling.
There we have it. A private with a VC isn't gallant, but a Captain who counted paper clips at HQ is. Britain at its best. .
No doubt why they changed it - Britain is changing!
Peerages are something to object to though. No-one should have the right to legislate over me for the rest of their lifetime, without any way of turfing the toadys out.
Good for you that most hereditaries have been barred from sitting then
Life peers like Mandelson and Sugar can legislate over us until they pop their clogs.
There are still some hereditaries sitting in the HoL too.
And the source of some hilarious by-elections. Remember the one for Lord Avebury's vacant place?
7 candidates. 3 eligible voters.
A landslide of 3 votes for...Viscount Thurso.
Who to be fair to him sat in the lords as a hereditary prior to 1999, but then did when able sit as an elected member of parliament from 2001-2015.
Is he the only person to have been elected to both houses?
Almost certainly not. Scottish and Irish peers were elected to the Lords pre-1960s(?), which is why people like Palmerston sat in the Commons. Some must have chosen to 'go upstairs'.
According to a new blind item there is a recording of a very prominent and newsworthy politician enjoying the company of a young lady doing the rounds produced when he was out of the country
How many Electoral college votes would Britain have just out of interest?
England 93 Scotland 9 Wales 5 NI 3
(to the nearest whole EC vote)
Did you correct for the fact that there is only 535 EVs to share around?
Didn't the number of EC votes go up when new states joined?
In the 1956 POTUS election there were 530 EC votes for example (pre-statehood for Alaska and Hawaii)
The House of Representatives is fixed at 435 people. The Electoral College vote for each state is their number congressmen (proportional to population) and senators (always 2). DC gets 3 E.V.s because reasons.
So the electoral college size is 435 + 3 + 2x the number of states. So the electoral college gets 2 peeps bigger every time a state joins.
QED.
Then why if fox's stats are right did the number of votes go up 6 rather than 4 when Hawaii and Alaska joined?
How many Electoral college votes would Britain have just out of interest?
England 93 Scotland 9 Wales 5 NI 3
(to the nearest whole EC vote)
Did you correct for the fact that there is only 535 EVs to share around?
Didn't the number of EC votes go up when new states joined?
In the 1956 POTUS election there were 530 EC votes for example (pre-statehood for Alaska and Hawaii)
The House of Representatives is fixed at 435 people. The Electoral College vote for each state is their number congressmen (proportional to population) and senators (always 2). DC gets 3 E.V.s because reasons.
So the electoral college size is 435 + 3 + 2x the number of states. So the electoral college gets 2 peeps bigger every time a state joins.
QED.
Then why if fox's stats are right did the number of votes go up 6 rather than 4 when Hawaii and Alaska joined?
It was only re-apportioned after the 1960 election, so they included a few bonus seats for just that one. The boost to 538 came after DC got three seats.
According to a new blind item there is a recording of a very prominent and newsworthy politician enjoying the company of a young lady doing the rounds produced when he was out of the country
Hasn't that one been doing the rounds for a while?
According to a new blind item there is a recording of a very prominent and newsworthy politician enjoying the company of a young lady doing the rounds produced when he was out of the country
Hasn't that one been doing the rounds for a while?
According to a new blind item there is a recording of a very prominent and newsworthy politician enjoying the company of a young lady doing the rounds produced when he was out of the country
Hasn't that one been doing the rounds for a while?
According to a new blind item there is a recording of a very prominent and newsworthy politician enjoying the company of a young lady doing the rounds produced when he was out of the country
Hasn't that one been doing the rounds for a while?
Why? Of all the times honours are dished out and a split might be more appropriate to avoid accusations of political imbalance, surely the list that is essentially his resignation list of suggestions is the least necessary time to strike a balance? It's the one time you'd expect it to not even attempt any balance, with the most egregious ones struck off in case they resignee overreaches.
A fair point, I guess I forgot these are resignation honours! Don't other parties normally nominate a few, Major appointed Labour/LD peers, for instance.
Knighthoods for the two Eds would be a nice gesture. Then we could refer to Lady Yvette too.
I think Corbyn should get a knighthood just to troll him.
I have worked for both Clintons—Bill in his 1996 presidential campaign and Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign. No one knows better than I do that they understand how to fight and will do what it takes to win. The question is whether that will be enough. Hillary Clinton—and the Democrats—are now battling uphill.
I'm mostly off PB at the moment as I'm in the States with, mysteriously, a hotel with terrible wifi, after a week going over on the Queen Mary 2, which was a pleasant, slow and surprisingly inexpensive week (700 quid for a week's travel with free food and accommodation), but also had awful wifi.
But just looking in to give the Corbyn viewpoint a hearing here:
1. The stuff about the left not wanting to win elections is mostly wrong - for every quote of the kind Joff offers it's easy to find half a dozen more recent ones to the contrary, such as the interview with Corbyn this week. The difference is more subtle - the left doesn't think that winning elections is sufficient without an effective mass movement, because if you just win without it, they think you tend to be co-opted by elites and increasingly distant from the party that helped you win. The reconstruction of a mass membership party is seen by the left as a very real achievement, and the grumbles thsat they don't come to enough branch meetings and canvass session a secondary issue.
2. To be fair to Owen Smith, he has produced a readable programme, which Corbyn's challengers last year did not. The question is whether it's seen as a credible bid, rather than as the icing on a "get rid of Corbyn" cake. He deserves a reasonable result but I don't think he'll come close to winning.
3. If Corbyn wins comfortably, the mood in the party will shift to letting his leadership run its course - if he loses in 2020, he'll resign, but it will be important that any defeat is not seen as a result of constant refusal by the PLP to tolerate the elected leader. People who talk glibly of a third leadership election or a shadow PLP will find it very hard to get a hearing. There comes a point where MPs really need to accept the party's wishes or join another party whose wishes they prefer.
4. There is a real distinction between members who fundamentally disagree with Corbyn and McDonnell, who might well be up for a split, and members who merely dislike the failure to make progress in the polls. The latter - which IMO includes the majority of the PLP - will not jump ship unless they are convinced that a much better and more successful ship is on offer. That's the real reason why a split would not succeed - it would attract only a relatively small proportion of MPs and an even smaller proportion of the membership, and for Labour MPs in safish seats,standing on the Labour ticket more or less guarantees winning while standing for a new party may well guarantee defeat.
I'm mostly off PB at the moment as I'm in the States with, mysteriously, a hotel with terrible wifi, after a week going over on the Queen Mary 2, which was a pleasant, slow and surprisingly inexpensive week (700 quid for a week's travel with free food and accommodation), but also had awful wifi.
It's the only way to travel! But yes, the WiFi is slow, patchy and expensive. Haven't been onboard since the refurb - but after 12 years in service one was overdue.....enjoy the US!
I'm mostly off PB at the moment as I'm in the States with, mysteriously, a hotel with terrible wifi, after a week going over on the Queen Mary 2, which was a pleasant, slow and surprisingly inexpensive week (700 quid for a week's travel with free food and accommodation), but also had awful wifi.
But just looking in to give the Corbyn viewpoint a hearing here:
1. The stuff about the left not wanting to win elections is mostly wrong - for every quote of the kind Joff offers it's easy to find half a dozen more recent ones to the contrary, such as the interview with Corbyn this week. The difference is more subtle - the left doesn't think that winning elections is sufficient without an effective mass movement, because if you just win without it, they think you tend to be co-opted by elites and increasingly distant from the party that helped you win. The reconstruction of a mass membership party is seen by the left as a very real achievement, and the grumbles thsat they don't come to enough branch meetings and canvass session a secondary issue.
2. To be fair to Owen Smith, he has produced a readable programme, which Corbyn's challengers last year did not. The question is whether it's seen as a credible bid, rather than as the icing on a "get rid of Corbyn" cake. He deserves a reasonable result but I don't think he'll come close to winning.
3. If Corbyn wins comfortably, the mood in the party will shift to letting his leadership run its course - if he loses in 2020, he'll resign, but it will be important that any defeat is not seen as a result of constant refusal by the PLP to tolerate the elected leader. People who talk glibly of a third leadership election or a shadow PLP will find it very hard to get a hearing. There comes a point where MPs really need to accept the party's wishes or join another party whose wishes they prefer.
4. There is a real distinction between members who fundamentally disagree with Corbyn and McDonnell, who might well be up for a split, and members who merely dislike the failure to make progress in the polls. The latter - which IMO includes the majority of the PLP - will not jump ship unless they are convinced that a much better and more successful ship is on offer. That's the real reason why a split would not succeed - it would attract only a relatively small proportion of MPs and an even smaller proportion of the membership, and for Labour MPs in safish seats,standing on the Labour ticket more or less guarantees winning while standing for a new party may well guarantee defeat.
That said, back to purdah!
The mass movement is the voters, Nick. Not a few hundred thousand perpetual students.
Comments
What did they used to refer to soldiers as - was it "gallant"?
His services to Cameron have been invaluable, and it's doubtful any future PM would give Clegg a peerage or anything really.
Straw gets an honor for failing to be elected as an MP last year and putting together a crap EU campaign and losing again this year.
Is this some type of booby prize for losers ?
Can't understand why we need this crap.
Scum really does rise to the top.
Phased out in the late 90s apparently, according to a parliamentary fact sheet found with some light googling.
As David Herdson could have put it in his thread this morning:
"Elitism is a good thing"
Good night comrades.
Owen Smith falls to single digits on Betfair.
Now on par with Angela Eagle when she dropped out of the race.
So the electoral college size is 435 + 3 + 2x the number of states. So the electoral college gets 2 peeps bigger every time a state joins.
QED.
I demand my money back.
In 1901 it was 386
Good weekend to all.
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/07/blind-item-5-1067.html
I have worked for both Clintons—Bill in his 1996 presidential campaign and Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign. No one knows better than I do that they understand how to fight and will do what it takes to win. The question is whether that will be enough. Hillary Clinton—and the Democrats—are now battling uphill.
But just looking in to give the Corbyn viewpoint a hearing here:
1. The stuff about the left not wanting to win elections is mostly wrong - for every quote of the kind Joff offers it's easy to find half a dozen more recent ones to the contrary, such as the interview with Corbyn this week. The difference is more subtle - the left doesn't think that winning elections is sufficient without an effective mass movement, because if you just win without it, they think you tend to be co-opted by elites and increasingly distant from the party that helped you win. The reconstruction of a mass membership party is seen by the left as a very real achievement, and the grumbles thsat they don't come to enough branch meetings and canvass session a secondary issue.
2. To be fair to Owen Smith, he has produced a readable programme, which Corbyn's challengers last year did not. The question is whether it's seen as a credible bid, rather than as the icing on a "get rid of Corbyn" cake. He deserves a reasonable result but I don't think he'll come close to winning.
3. If Corbyn wins comfortably, the mood in the party will shift to letting his leadership run its course - if he loses in 2020, he'll resign, but it will be important that any defeat is not seen as a result of constant refusal by the PLP to tolerate the elected leader. People who talk glibly of a third leadership election or a shadow PLP will find it very hard to get a hearing. There comes a point where MPs really need to accept the party's wishes or join another party whose wishes they prefer.
4. There is a real distinction between members who fundamentally disagree with Corbyn and McDonnell, who might well be up for a split, and members who merely dislike the failure to make progress in the polls. The latter - which IMO includes the majority of the PLP - will not jump ship unless they are convinced that a much better and more successful ship is on offer. That's the real reason why a split would not succeed - it would attract only a relatively small proportion of MPs and an even smaller proportion of the membership, and for Labour MPs in safish seats,standing on the Labour ticket more or less guarantees winning while standing for a new party may well guarantee defeat.
That said, back to purdah!