If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
I am sick to death hearing about bloody Brexit. And it hasn't even started yet.
Am I alone?
No, I'm sick of hearing about it too.
How often do you hear ordinary people talking about brexit?
Almost never, in my experience. Maybe my dad will mention it on the phone, or a couple of friends on Facebook bring it up every so often (on Twitter it is incessant, obviously).
Other than that, no one mentions it in public. I can't work out whether this is general lack of interest, or people are scared of divisive arguments. I suspect a mixture of both but with an emphasis on the former.
Never heard anyone mention it except on here and twitter, apart from people going mad when they thought the Supreme Court over ruled it
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
How? And given there'd only be about six weeks between the vote in the Commons and the General Election how would Labour go about replacing so many candidates? And if those deselected candidates stand up how much will that split the vote and allow third parties to win?
Arsenal are currently losing 8-2 on aggregate in the Champions League.
Even Wenger must know his time is up.
Edit: 9-2
10-2
At least we get there to get beat!
Crazy as it seems, until the red card this was the best Arsenal had played for a long, long while. 3rd best half of football of the season I would say.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
This is Britain, not Northern Ireland, we generally don't shoot our politicians, Spencer Percival and Jo Cox apart.
If you can't be civilised, bog off (boom boom)
Dave tried to reform the Lords, but Tory backbenches put the kibosh on it.
usual racist crap
Im a multi culti brit and am taking the Asian approach
Asian politicans get shot regularly
Cameron as ever did bugger all but pratting about
Love you really! But I'm not keen on Asian political practices moving over here, thought I do remember us discussing it a while back that Northern Irish and Asian politics had a similarity.
Pah Mr Eagles it;s a bad day if I feel offended by you
but really Cameron should have pushed through HoL reform
we need a second house to protect us from psychopaths like Blair riding roughshod over the rest of us
Cameron could have reformed the house in his own image and left himself a lasting legacy ( lets face it once done no one will do it for another century ) instead he taxed pasties
waste of 5 years
Greggs has largest number of "coffee" shops in Britain.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
I know many religious Quitters are in denial about that because they think their victory may be snatched away from them. And it might.
Yep and there were have it. As far as the Remoaners are concerned this is not about getting a good Brexit deal but about stopping Brexit entirely. Your arrogance and dishonesty is breathtaking
It is not arrogance or dishonesty. I am being honest in my desire to persuade the voters that they have made a grievous error in voting for Brexit and in keeping open the option for them to change their minds. It would be arrogant to deny that to them. So the boot is on the other foot.
We can never go back. It can never be the same. We've told them what we think of them. The things that have been said can never be unsaid.
They could never trust us again. It's over. They always suspected it would be. It was always a loveless marriage. One of convenience, not commitment. We both knew it.
On the contrary. We have told them we still love them and want to cuddle up to them with frictionless intercourse while having the freedom to have a bit on the side, An open marriage.
Theresa May: I want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible" ... "So to our friends across Europe, let me say this. Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member states."
Precis: We just want a cosy relationship with you but we'd also like a bit on the side, and we don't want open house to your pesky relations.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
Failing to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote is one thing.
Actually supporting the continuance of a Tory Govt by voting against an election to replace the Tories with a Labout government though is something entirely different!
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
How? And given there'd only be about six weeks between the vote in the Commons and the General Election how would Labour go about replacing so many candidates? And if those deselected candidates stand up how much will that split the vote and allow third parties to win?
Seems a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
How? And given there'd only be about six weeks between the vote in the Commons and the General Election how would Labour go about replacing so many candidates? And if those deselected candidates stand up how much will that split the vote and allow third parties to win?
Seems a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
Or the NEC says that there is an election happening and we need to win it and form a Labour government. Would make much more sense to fight the Tories than starting an election campaign fighting your own MPs because they voted against keeping the Tories in office.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
Failing to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote is one thing.
Actually supporting the continuance of a Tory Govt by voting against an election to replace the Tories with a Labout government though is something entirely different!
Defying a 3 line Whip on something as crucial as election timing would end an MP's career. There would be no doubt about that at all - unless the MPs concerned ran as Independents and were returned.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Incidentally the 366-268 vote in the Lords was the "largest in history" vote by the Lords. I make that a total of 634 Lords voted for the highest ever vote.
There have before been many Commons votes at a higher turnout than 634 MPs.
So Sunil's oft-stated fact about the Lords being larger than the Commons isn't meaningfully accurate.
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
How? And given there'd only be about six weeks between the vote in the Commons and the General Election how would Labour go about replacing so many candidates? And if those deselected candidates stand up how much will that split the vote and allow third parties to win?
Seems a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
Or the NEC says that there is an election happening and we need to win it and form a Labour government. Would make much more sense to fight the Tories than starting an election campaign fighting your own MPs because they voted against keeping the Tories in office.
I cannot understand the lib dems thinking. They have their amendment but tonight in the HOL they are actually going to attempt to wreck the bill altogether They will be out voted but this will receive widescale condemnation and only add to the HOL demise.
The Government needs to bring forward legislation to abolish the HOL and replace it with an amending body elected on some form of PR and with no right to ping pong bills if their amendments are rejected by the Government of the day, whoever they are
Whats the point of electing an upper chamber to amend legislation if they can't compel the government to agree to their amendments?
An easy chance to stick two fingers up at Corbyn and get rid of him while over half still stand a chance of keeping their seats? What's not to like?
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
How? And given there'd only be about six weeks between the vote in the Commons and the General Election how would Labour go about replacing so many candidates? And if those deselected candidates stand up how much will that split the vote and allow third parties to win?
Seems a recipe for chaos and disaster.
The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
Or the NEC says that there is an election happening and we need to win it and form a Labour government. Would make much more sense to fight the Tories than starting an election campaign fighting your own MPs because they voted against keeping the Tories in office.
The MPs concerned would probably face expulsion.
Why? For voting against the Tories staying in office? What rule is there for that?
< The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
Why would this be different from voting against an ordinary three-line whip? In effect, you've just said they could be deselected for voting in favour of a motion of no confidence in a Tory government.
Moreover, if the number of rebels was greater than about 50 sheer logistics would rule out your option given the timeframes. Since around a hundred rebels would be needed for it to pass...
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
Those who so acted would be effectively deselected by being denied NEC endorsement at the election.
Are there any rules on this, or is that just a guess/assumption?
There are rules - and there would be no doubt as to how the NEC would respond. The same would happen if a Labour MP failed to support a Labour Govt on a Confidence Vote.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
How often do you hear ordinary people talking about brexit?
Almost never, in my experience. Maybe my dad will mention it on the phone, or a couple of friends on Facebook bring it up every so often (on Twitter it is incessant, obviously).
Other than that, no one mentions it in public. I can't work out whether this is general lack of interest, or people are scared of divisive arguments. I suspect a mixture of both but with an emphasis on the former.
Hell yeah! I'd probably walk miles to avoid a "real life" discussion on Brexit. It's one thing to have heated debates about the issues with strangers online but quite another to risk falling out with family and friends.
I cannot understand the lib dems thinking. They have their amendment but tonight in the HOL they are actually going to attempt to wreck the bill altogether They will be out voted but this will receive widescale condemnation and only add to the HOL demise.
The Government needs to bring forward legislation to abolish the HOL and replace it with an amending body elected on some form of PR and with no right to ping pong bills if their amendments are rejected by the Government of the day, whoever they are
Whats the point of electing an upper chamber to amend legislation if they can't compel the government to agree to their amendments?
Because it would be an amending chamber but the HOC would be the ultimate decision taker
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
Yes, this idea that Labour would prefer to be utterly marmalised in a general election than called "frit" is one of PB's more niche concepts.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
The problem the Lord's has is that they are neither elected nor electable. I don't mind at all the notion of an unelected upper house that serve as some sort of guardians of the nation, however the people who are actually there are hopeless. I'm particularly annoyed by Heseltine. What does he have against female PMs?
The Alan Clark quote about having to buy his own furniture is the best vignette of Hezza.
I'd love to nod knowingly, but I think you may have to explain. (Don't get the quote)
Hezza wasn't from a grand enough family to have inherited nice furniture
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
How often do you hear ordinary people talking about brexit?
Almost never, in my experience. Maybe my dad will mention it on the phone, or a couple of friends on Facebook bring it up every so often (on Twitter it is incessant, obviously).
Other than that, no one mentions it in public. I can't work out whether this is general lack of interest, or people are scared of divisive arguments. I suspect a mixture of both but with an emphasis on the former.
Hell yeah! I'd probably walk miles to avoid a "real life" discussion on Brexit. It's one thing to have heated debates about the issues with strangers online but quite another to risk falling out with family and friends.
In real life the initiation of a Brexit discussion is fraught with danger.
The Lords are a bunch of unelected has-beens and electoral failures.
Moreover, they are the world's only Upper House with more members than its respective Lower House.
Sad
How true is that really though?
Incidentally the 366-268 vote in the Lords was the "largest in history" vote by the Lords. I make that a total of 634 Lords voted for the highest ever vote.
There have before been many Commons votes at a higher turnout than 634 MPs.
So Sunil's oft-stated fact about the Lords being larger than the Commons isn't meaningfully accurate.
It's accurate and relevant. It says a lot about the House of Lords that so few of them turn up, other than to collect the attendance allowance.
If TMay can't force her will on the Commons and Lords, she HAS to go to the people for a GE, or her entire Brexit negotiating position is, to put it politely as possible, hate-fucked fifty-eight ways.
Next week will be interesting.
We could see the Lords voting for their own abolition, as the Commons forces the prime minister to seek a new mandate from the people, or..... the Leaver Commons will reluctantly demand, and the Remainer Lords will reluctantly yield.
I suspect the latter.
shoot the fuckers, theyre well past their sell by date
May should reform the house and grasp the nettle poncy boots wouldnt
I think we're near that position, now. If we're gonna have some monumental constitutional clusterfuck, let's do it all in one go.
Let the Tories call an election and go to the people on
1. the PM deciding our Brexit negotiating position, end of 2. Massive Lords reform, and 3. A Royal Commission to decide on a new Federalised Britain, and the proper apportioning of powers between England, Scotland, Wales and NI, perhaps with an eye to a reformed Upper House reflecting our new Federal State
This is wartime stuff, it needs wartime government. Do it.
Enuff. TMay will win by a mile. All arguments will end.
Corbyn will seek to block an election.
The Labour Party as a whole would be guaranteed to back it then!
I rather doubt it somehow!
Yes, this idea that Labour would prefer to be utterly marmalised in a general election than called "frit" is one of PB's more niche concepts.
Being marmalised now would be considerably better than being left with 5 seats after two more years of the Jezziah. And it might well be the NEC would see it that way - by all accounts they have no love for Corbyn and this may be the quickest and least painful (!) way to get rid of him.
< The NEC might impose its own candidates - or give the constituency a very tight timetable to select an alternative. But MPs will know full well that this would be the consequence of them so acting - which is why it will not happen.
Why would this be different from voting against an ordinary three-line whip? In effect, you've just said they could be deselected for voting in favour of a motion of no confidence in a Tory government.
Moreover, if the number of rebels was greater than about 50 sheer logistics would rule out your option given the timeframes. Since around a hundred rebels would be needed for it to pass...
I was referring to the 2/3 rule in relation to a dissolution. The scenario is entirely hypothetical and there is really not the remotest chance of it coming to pass.Only MPs contemplating retirement anway could consider the option - and they would still face expulsion. Were it to become necessary - which it won't - the NEC could quickly find 100 suitable candidates to fight winnable seats.
Incidentally the 366-268 vote in the Lords was the "largest in history" vote by the Lords. I make that a total of 634 Lords voted for the highest ever vote.
There have before been many Commons votes at a higher turnout than 634 MPs.
So Sunil's oft-stated fact about the Lords being larger than the Commons isn't meaningfully accurate.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
The Lords are a bunch of unelected has-beens and electoral failures.
Moreover, they are the world's only Upper House with more members than its respective Lower House.
Sad
How true is that really though?
Incidentally the 366-268 vote in the Lords was the "largest in history" vote by the Lords. I make that a total of 634 Lords voted for the highest ever vote.
There have before been many Commons votes at a higher turnout than 634 MPs.
So Sunil's oft-stated fact about the Lords being larger than the Commons isn't meaningfully accurate.
It's accurate and relevant. It says a lot about the House of Lords that so few of them turn up, other than to collect the attendance allowance.
Actually many of them don't turn up to collect the attendance allowance. The link above says the average attendance is 483.
A revising chamber of experts [theoretically] is a rather novel concept and means that many of the Lords who are in the numbers of members may only turn up when an issue that calls upon their particular expertise is being discussed. Unlike the professional politicians of the Commons who turn up every time their whip tells them to.
The fact that even today hundreds of Lords didn't turn up, didn't vote on this and didn't collect the attendance allowance is interesting and not necessarily a bad thing.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
It would be interesting to compare for controversial bills how often the Lords has had more members voting at Third Reading [or a comparable stage] than the Commons has.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
When I read that Gina Miller had been suffering racist abuse, one has a stereotype of who that might be...
Polo-playing viscount twice made bankrupt whose titles include Lord Strange of Knockin is charged with making racially-aggravated threats to anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
I know many religious Quitters are in denial about that because they think their victory may be snatched away from them. And it might.
Yep and there were have it. As far as the Remoaners are concerned this is not about getting a good Brexit deal but about stopping Brexit entirely. Your arrogance and dishonesty is breathtaking
It is not arrogance or dishonesty. I am being honest in my desire to persuade the voters that they have made a grievous error in voting for Brexit and in keeping open the option for them to change their minds. It would be arrogant to deny that to them. So the boot is on the other foot.
I assume then you would be happy for us to have a referendum on the matter every 3 years - which is the logical conclusion of your comment.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
You rather misunderstand. Those MPs who had voted against the Leadership on this issue would no longer be the Labour candidates in their constituencies. They would have been denied endorsement and replaced by other candidates. A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Membership is membership.
The MEMBERSHIP of the EU including Blightly (for the moment!) is currently 28.
But of those, only 19 PARTICIPATE in the Eurozone.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Membership is membership.
The MEMBERSHIP of the EU including Blightly (for the moment!) is currently 28.
But of those, only 19 PARTICIPATE in the Eurozone.
Yeah, but they all participate in the EU.
I see no problem in having a large membership of the lords to allow for a diverse range of expertise. That said, there are far too many political appointees these days.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
It would be interesting to compare for controversial bills how often the Lords has had more members voting at Third Reading [or a comparable stage] than the Commons has.
I suspect the Commons is regularly bigger.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
That's probably because nothing has actually happened yet.
Curious to see the Brexiteers arguing tonight that giving Parliament a vote means the EU giving us their worst deal, when they have been saying exactly the opposite for months.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
That's probably because nothing has actually happened yet.
It was her who decided to spend the first few months of her premiership spouting vacuous platitudes like Red, White & Blue Brexit Means Brexit while toadying up to the mad Tory Right - and ignoring the more than 48% of people who voted Remain.
I'd hazard those factors might have had something to do with it.
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
I know many religious Quitters are in denial about that because they think their victory may be snatched away from them. And it might.
Yep and there were have it. As far as the Remoaners are concerned this is not about getting a good Brexit deal but about stopping Brexit entirely. Your arrogance and dishonesty is breathtaking
It is not arrogance or dishonesty. I am being honest in my desire to persuade the voters that they have made a grievous error in voting for Brexit and in keeping open the option for them to change their minds. It would be arrogant to deny that to them. So the boot is on the other foot.
I assume then you would be happy for us to have a referendum on the matter every 3 years - which is the logical conclusion of your comment.
I'm happy for us to have a General Election every five years with a position on membership of the EU in the party manifestos. I'd prefer a General Election based on acceptance of the actual deal versus status quo rather than a second referendum.
From my reading, current membership of Da Lords stands like this:
HM Government Conservative Party (252)
HM Most Loyal Opposition Labour Party (202)
Crossbench Crossbenchers (177)
Other groups Liberal Democrats (102) Non-affiliated (31) Democratic Unionist Party (3) UK Independence Party (3) Ind. Labour (2) Ulster Unionist Party (2) Green Party (1) Ind. Social Democrat (1) Ind. Ulster Unionist (1) Plaid Cymru (1)
Lords Spiritual Bishops (26) (sitting with government)
Can someone double-check the total adds up to 804? Ta!
Curious to see the Brexiteers arguing tonight that giving Parliament a vote means the EU giving us their worst deal, when they have been saying exactly the opposite for months.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
That's probably because nothing has actually happened yet.
It was her who decided to spend the first few months of her premiership spouting vacuous platitudes like Red, White & Blue Brexit Means Brexit while toadying up to the mad Tory Right - and ignoring the more than 48% of people who voted Remain.
I'd hazard those factors might have had something to do with it.
Or actually spending time preparing for it. Which is fair enough. We'd have been screwed if A50 was invoked immediately.
Curious to see the Brexiteers arguing tonight that giving Parliament a vote means the EU giving us their worst deal, when they have been saying exactly the opposite for months.
Funny that
Brexiteers have been saying the only way to get a good deal is for the UK Parliament to have a veto vote?
It would be interesting to compare for controversial bills how often the Lords has had more members voting at Third Reading [or a comparable stage] than the Commons has.
I suspect the Commons is regularly bigger.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
I'm no fan of the Lords but does its precise size actually matter? If it was two 97-year-old blokes amending government bills, would that be better?
"The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."
That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
It all depends on whether Article 50 is revocable or not - and that is not yet determined.
I know many religious Quitters are in denial about that because they think their victory may be snatched away from them. And it might.
Yep and there were have it. As far as the Remoaners are concerned this is not about getting a good Brexit deal but about stopping Brexit entirely. Your arrogance and dishonesty is breathtaking
It is not arrogance or dishonesty. I am being honest in my desire to persuade the voters that they have made a grievous error in voting for Brexit and in keeping open the option for them to change their minds. It would be arrogant to deny that to them. So the boot is on the other foot.
I assume then you would be happy for us to have a referendum on the matter every 3 years - which is the logical conclusion of your comment.
I'm happy for us to have a General Election every five years with a position on membership of the EU in the party manifestos. I'd prefer a General Election based on acceptance of the actual deal versus status quo rather than a second referendum.
Of course. I forgot you were one of those who doesn't trust the public to make the 'right' decision.
We already voted against your fictional status quo. It is a typically EU response to want to revisit the question time and time again until we vote the right way
Curious to see the Brexiteers arguing tonight that giving Parliament a vote means the EU giving us their worst deal, when they have been saying exactly the opposite for months.
Funny that
The bottom line in this negotiation has to be that TM/HMG will walk away from the table if we don't like the deal.
If we say we'll accept any deal the EU offers us (which is in affect what a vote in Commons/Lords would be) then the EU has no incentive to deal properly... just ask David Cameron who made it clear he would never recommend the UK leaves the EU and so was offered nothing and got less from the EU elite.
Effectively the HoL wants Mrs May to lay all her cards on the table when game hasn't even started. Wouldn't make very good poker players this lot...
Curious to see the Brexiteers arguing tonight that giving Parliament a vote means the EU giving us their worst deal, when they have been saying exactly the opposite for months.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
It would be interesting to compare for controversial bills how often the Lords has had more members voting at Third Reading [or a comparable stage] than the Commons has.
I suspect the Commons is regularly bigger.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Wouldn't a bar chart showing the membership of assorted upper houses be a nice idea.
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
That's probably because nothing has actually happened yet.
It was her who decided to spend the first few months of her premiership spouting vacuous platitudes like Red, White & Blue Brexit Means Brexit while toadying up to the mad Tory Right - and ignoring the more than 48% of people who voted Remain.
I'd hazard those factors might have had something to do with it.
Or actually spending time preparing for it. Which is fair enough. We'd have been screwed if A50 was invoked immediately.
There are rules saying MPs can't vote for an early election? Although I suppose it would be a three line whip.
If every MP who voted against a three line whip lost the whip there wouldn't be many MPs left in parties and Corbyn certainly wouldn't be one of them.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Labour Leadership - and the NEC would take the same view - decide that holding an election would not be in Labour's interests at a particular time , every Labour MP would be expected to support that decision.
The NEC could not take the same view since the die would be cast and the election would be happening. Corbyn doesn't control a majority of the NEC at the best of times, at the time when the party is on an election footing the NEC's sole priority would be fighting the election.
I have no doubt that the NEC would vote unanimously on this issue!
Why? Why would the NEC vote against their own MPs during an election campaign?
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
You rather misunderstand. Those MPs who had voted against the Leadership on this issue would no longer be the Labour candidates in their constituencies. They would have been denied endorsement and replaced by other candidates. A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
George Gardiner was deselected in January 1997 not during the election campaign and replaced with a new candidate long before the election.
A vote to dissolve Parliament and call a new election starts an immediate election campaign so is completely different.
If we say we'll accept any deal the EU offers us (which is in affect what a vote in Commons/Lords would be) then the EU has no incentive to deal properly...
It's the opposite of that. If parliament votes against, we walk away with no deal.
For months Brexiteers have been telling us that no deal is great for the UK, and the EU will never allow that (anyone remember "BMW will tell Angela to do a deal" ?)
So being able to say to the EU "I need to get this deal through Parliament or we walk away" is what the Brexiteers have been arguing all along
And now they don't want it. They want to Take Back Control and establish Parliamentary Sovereignty by, er, abolishing it...
Rather proves my point. The Maastricht vote at 621 Lords voting was the largest vote ever before today. How many times has the Commons registered more than 621 MPs voting? Far more than just once.
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Lords membership is 804, or if you prefer to include 34 on leave of absence or otherwise disqualified, 838.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
In theory, not in practice. In practice the Commons is bigger.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Broken record. Try comparing actual vote sizes.
[Sunil stifles a snigger]
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Yet it has fewer voting members than the Commons making it smaller
Philip - sorry missed your response earlier. Don't think it's true that most people support May in her efforts so far. Seem to remember a recent poll or two saying most people think the government is handling Brexit badly.
That's probably because nothing has actually happened yet.
SNIP
I'd hazard those factors might have had something to do with it.
Or actually spending time preparing for it. Which is fair enough. We'd have been screwed if A50 was invoked immediately.
And her preparations will mitigate that threat how?
It would be interesting to compare for controversial bills how often the Lords has had more members voting at Third Reading [or a comparable stage] than the Commons has.
I suspect the Commons is regularly bigger.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house." - Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Wouldn't a bar chart showing the membership of assorted upper houses be a nice idea.
From my reading, current membership of Da Lords stands like this:
HM Government Conservative Party (252)
HM Most Loyal Opposition Labour Party (202)
Crossbench Crossbenchers (177)
Other groups Liberal Democrats (102) Non-affiliated (31) Democratic Unionist Party (3) UK Independence Party (3) Ind. Labour (2) Ulster Unionist Party (2) Green Party (1) Ind. Social Democrat (1) Ind. Ulster Unionist (1) Plaid Cymru (1)
Lords Spiritual Bishops (26) (sitting with government)
Can someone double-check the total adds up to 804? Ta!
From my reading of today's maximum turnout record making vote the current make-up of the Lords is:
HM Government Conservative Party (221)
HM Most Loyal Opposition Labour Party (160)
Crossbench Crossbenchers (120)
Other groups Liberal Democrats (95) Other (28)
Lords Spiritual Bishops (10) (sitting with government)
Can someone double-check the total adds up to 634? Ta!
Comments
Even Wenger must know his time is up.
Edit: 9-2
Seems a recipe for chaos and disaster.
I'm not an Arsenal fan but this is not how I want Wenger to be remembered
At least we get there to get beat!
Crazy as it seems, until the red card this was the best Arsenal had played for a long, long while. 3rd best half of football of the season I would say.
Some hope for the future.
Theresa May:
I want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible" ...
"So to our friends across Europe, let me say this.
Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member states."
Precis: We just want a cosy relationship with you but we'd also like a bit on the side, and we don't want open house to your pesky relations.
Actually supporting the continuance of a Tory Govt by voting against an election to replace the Tories with a Labout government though is something entirely different!
Moreover, they are the world's only Upper House with more members than its respective Lower House.
Sad
Moreover, if the number of rebels was greater than about 50 sheer logistics would rule out your option given the timeframes. Since around a hundred rebels would be needed for it to pass...
The Commons in practice is bigger than the Lords. Sorry Sunil.
Does it not occur to the SNP they have a Country to run rather than continual demands for another referendum
Good night all.
Were it to become necessary - which it won't - the NEC could quickly find 100 suitable candidates to fight winnable seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
The membership of the HoL exceeds the HoC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house.[9]"
[9] = Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
A revising chamber of experts [theoretically] is a rather novel concept and means that many of the Lords who are in the numbers of members may only turn up when an issue that calls upon their particular expertise is being discussed. Unlike the professional politicians of the Commons who turn up every time their whip tells them to.
The fact that even today hundreds of Lords didn't turn up, didn't vote on this and didn't collect the attendance allowance is interesting and not necessarily a bad thing.
Measuring members who vote is more meaningful than measuring total members. The Lords votes are simply not as big as Commons ones.
- Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Especially if the MPs came out fighting first saying how they want to take the fight to the Tories, how the public are suffering due to Tory cuts and they need right now a Labour government to serve them?
Are you saying the NEC would during an election campaign say that no the public are not suffering due to Tory cuts, no we don't want to take the fight to the Tories and no the public do not need a Labour government?
You must be dreaming if you think the NEC would countenance that.
I suspect the Commons is regularly bigger.
"The House of Lords is the only upper house of any bicameral parliament to be larger than its respective lower house."
- Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Polo-playing viscount twice made bankrupt whose titles include Lord Strange of Knockin is charged with making racially-aggravated threats to anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4290658/Man-charged-racist-threats-Gina-Miller.html
13 Con rebels.
Today has to be considered pretty much max possible turnout - and on that Lab + LD had 34 more Peers present than Con.
That's the starting point for the vote coming on the boundary changes in Oct 2018. I would expect it to be very close as Crossbenchers should break significantly for Govt on the boundary changes - as it's just an SI to implement the law.
Then it's just a question of how much Theresa May can boost net Con numbers over the next 18 months.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2017-Mar-07&itemId=2&session=2016-May-18
A similar scenario to the deselection of George Gardiner at Reigate in 1997 . He eventually stood there as a candidate for the Referendum Party.
The MEMBERSHIP of the EU including Blightly (for the moment!) is currently 28.
But of those, only 19 PARTICIPATE in the Eurozone.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
I see no problem in having a large membership of the lords to allow for a diverse range of expertise. That said, there are far too many political appointees these days.
- Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes, University of Toronto Press 2013, chapter 6.
Funny that
I'd hazard those factors might have had something to do with it.
HM Government
Conservative Party (252)
HM Most Loyal Opposition
Labour Party (202)
Crossbench
Crossbenchers (177)
Other groups
Liberal Democrats (102)
Non-affiliated (31)
Democratic Unionist Party (3)
UK Independence Party (3)
Ind. Labour (2)
Ulster Unionist Party (2)
Green Party (1)
Ind. Social Democrat (1)
Ind. Ulster Unionist (1)
Plaid Cymru (1)
Lords Spiritual
Bishops (26)
(sitting with government)
Can someone double-check the total adds up to 804? Ta!
We already voted against your fictional status quo. It is a typically EU response to want to revisit the question time and time again until we vote the right way
If we say we'll accept any deal the EU offers us (which is in affect what a vote in Commons/Lords would be) then the EU has no incentive to deal properly... just ask David Cameron who made it clear he would never recommend the UK leaves the EU and so was offered nothing and got less from the EU elite.
Effectively the HoL wants Mrs May to lay all her cards on the table when game hasn't even started. Wouldn't make very good poker players this lot...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M64_motorway
A vote to dissolve Parliament and call a new election starts an immediate election campaign so is completely different.
For months Brexiteers have been telling us that no deal is great for the UK, and the EU will never allow that (anyone remember "BMW will tell Angela to do a deal" ?)
So being able to say to the EU "I need to get this deal through Parliament or we walk away" is what the Brexiteers have been arguing all along
And now they don't want it. They want to Take Back Control and establish Parliamentary Sovereignty by, er, abolishing it...
Awesome
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960
HM Government
Conservative Party (221)
HM Most Loyal Opposition
Labour Party (160)
Crossbench
Crossbenchers (120)
Other groups
Liberal Democrats (95)
Other (28)
Lords Spiritual
Bishops (10)
(sitting with government)
Can someone double-check the total adds up to 634? Ta!