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?
Nearly a year to build up enough Dutch courage getting drunk on her rhetoric...
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?
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Southend is the greatest working pier in the world. It even has its own 3ft-gauge railway
What if Theresa May doesn't really want to leave the EU?
I suspect personally she'd rather not leave the EU, yet the public have voted to do so and that's what has to happen... And I think TM get's that.
She gets that Tory voters and MPs want border control and she has to deliver it, which means no single market membership but bilateral agreements at best. She may push for a job offer requirement rather than a points system but will not allow free movement to continue as now. There is no point calling an early election which may lead her to increase her majority but lead to Labour perhaps getting a more electable leader who could may it more difficult for her to get acceptance of any deal and win a subsequent election after that, better instead to get the deal then have a general election v Corbyn led Labour in her pocket if needed and if Parliament proves troublesome
Last night’s Lords amendment to require parliament to have a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal is politically and constitutionally the right thing. It should not be overturned
"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
We had a referendum in 1975, voted to join, and participated in the development of the EU. Your friends continued to agitate against; now you've got your way. Why should you, with your tiny majority, refuse to allow us, who were happy to help develop the EU, the right to overturn what seems to us a dreadful mistake?
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:
If a golf club has 1000 members and only c.600 turn up to club meets and dinners, the membership is still 1000.
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.
SNIP
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?
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
I have no idea. You were the one claiming her 'preparations', whatever they might be beyond vacuous soundbites, would mitigate the threat to us of quitting the EU. I am asking you why you think that. If it were up to me alone, we wouldn't be preparing for any such thing because we wouldn't be leaving.
There is no point calling an early election which may lead her to increase her majority but lead to Labour perhaps getting a more electable leader who could may it more difficult for her to get acceptance of any deal and win a subsequent election after that, better instead to get the deal then have a general election v Corbyn led Labour in her pocket if needed and if Parliament proves troublesome
THERESA May does not want a snap general election because it would be a waste of Jeremy Corbyn, she has confirmed.
The Conservative leader still has lots of policies she wants to pursue while she has an entirely ineffectual opposition and has no intention of rushing anything.
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...
Awesome
Completely wrong. The amendment specifically says that if Parliament votes against we are not allowed to walk away with no deal. You could at least read the amendment if you are going to comment on it
I have no idea. You were the one claiming her 'preparations', whatever they might be beyond vacuous soundbites, would mitigate the threat to us of quitting the EU. I am asking you why you think that. If it were up to me alone, we wouldn't be preparing for any such thing because we wouldn't be leaving.
Yes, obviously I think we are better prepare than had we invoked A50 the day after the referendum.
I doubt you can ever be 100% ready for a negotiation like this one. But given that the timetable hasn't slipped I assume she is still comfortable with the date.
Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Surely the Sovereign is Sovereign, my Lord?
Again though, it does raise the issue of where ultimate power does or should lie - with Parliament or the people. At the moment legally it appears to be Parliament.
Yes, the Supreme Court had the chance to rectify this anomaly and blew it.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
Depends if Parliament backs the amendment. If it does then no, TM won't get any kind of deal at all.
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
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
We had a referendum in 1975, voted to join, and participated in the development of the EU. Your friends continued to agitate against; now you've got your way. Why should you, with your tiny majority, refuse to allow us, who were happy to help develop the EU, the right to overturn what seems to us a dreadful mistake?
Because the arrangement was that we'd have a referendum on EU membership, Leave or Remain, none of this second referendum nonsense.
Of course, once we've left you can campaign to rejoin - deep down though I think you realise that even when you had the status quo advantage and the full weight of government machinery on your side, you still lost, and any Rejoin campaign would be futile, so you have to try and frustrate the original result now.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
Depends if Parliament backs the amendment. If it does then no, TM won't get any kind of deal at all.
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
The idea that the absence of this amendment will put the fear of God into the EU negotiating team is faintly comical.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Clearly I am not privy to that information, but I hardly think they have been twiddling their thumbs in the Brexit department for the last six or so months. As for the toadying, probably to keep the usual suspects distracted while nothing is actually happening.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
Depends if Parliament backs the amendment. If it does then no, TM won't get any kind of deal at all.
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
The idea that the absence of this amendment will put the fear of God into the EU negotiating team is faintly comical.
I have no idea. You were the one claiming her 'preparations', whatever they might be beyond vacuous soundbites, would mitigate the threat to us of quitting the EU. I am asking you why you think that. If it were up to me alone, we wouldn't be preparing for any such thing because we wouldn't be leaving.
Yes, obviously I think we are better prepare than had we invoked A50 the day after the referendum.
On what basis? An example of her preparations since that date would be what?
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Completely wrong. The amendment specifically says that if Parliament votes against we are not allowed to walk away with no deal.
But a vote in Parliament doesn't bind the EU.
If we don't get a deal we like, we get nothing, just like you wanted.
Tezza still gets to say "If I can't get the deal through Parliament we all walk away with nothing"
Instead of cheering your dream result, you want to give up that leverage, and abolish half of parliament into the bargain.
More Brexit madness.
I have made no mention of abolishing the Lords. I already said on this thread I agree with a Parliamentary vote on the outcome. But just like with the amendment itself you are so blind to reality you fail to understand that.
The amendment puts May in an impossible position. It demands by law that she do something that it is beyond her power to control. Just like your arguments it is incoherent and utterly impractical.
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Would the ermine match your footwear?
I'm having a bit of a mid life crisis and started wearing brown loafers.
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
Well that's only because the establishment are trying every trick in the book to thwart the will of people...
I have no idea. You were the one claiming her 'preparations', whatever they might be beyond vacuous soundbites, would mitigate the threat to us of quitting the EU. I am asking you why you think that. If it were up to me alone, we wouldn't be preparing for any such thing because we wouldn't be leaving.
Yes, obviously I think we are better prepare than had we invoked A50 the day after the referendum.
On what basis? An example of her preparations since that date would be what?
The government haven't exactly been doing their preparations in public.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Clearly I am not privy to that information, but I hardly think they have been twiddling their thumbs in the Brexit department for the last six or so months. As for the toadying, probably to keep the usual suspects distracted while nothing is actually happening.
I have it on very good authority from inside said department that six months of thumb-twiddling would have been a more productive use of time that what has actually occurred - which is a succession of contradicting directives from confused ministers that change on an almost daily basis.
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
The bill wasn't put before Parliament 8 months ago. It has actually gone through the legislative process quite quickly.
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
Depends if Parliament backs the amendment. If it does then no, TM won't get any kind of deal at all.
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
Explain to me why you consider the amendment to be mission critical.
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:
If a golf club has 1000 members and only c.600 turn up to club meets and dinners, the membership is still 1000.
Yet a golf club with c.800 members who all turn up to club meets and dinners would still be bigger.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft has a player based of ~6 million as its measured on how many active subscribers are paying to play (lapsed subscriptions don't count). Blizzard's Hearthstone has a player base of ~20 million as its measured on how many have ever registered to play as it is free to play and accounts don't lapse.
Is Hearthstone bigger than World of Warcraft? No, of course not.
There is no point calling an early election which may lead her to increase her majority but lead to Labour perhaps getting a more electable leader who could may it more difficult for her to get acceptance of any deal and win a subsequent election after that, better instead to get the deal then have a general election v Corbyn led Labour in her pocket if needed and if Parliament proves troublesome
THERESA May does not want a snap general election because it would be a waste of Jeremy Corbyn, she has confirmed.
The Conservative leader still has lots of policies she wants to pursue while she has an entirely ineffectual opposition and has no intention of rushing anything.
People calling for a snap GE is like cricket commentators calling for an early declaration.
When your head isn't on the block, it's easy to sit back and say go for it.
But when you yourself are captain you don't risk it.
Of course it all sounds like a piece of cake. The problem is that if May is seen as being opportunistic the narrative could turn very, very quickly.
And she can't just rely on Corbyn being unpalatable - if the Lib Dems start picking up seats then Con will be back to needing approx a 10% lead for a majority. And that's not 100% automatic.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Clearly I am not privy to that information, but I hardly think they have been twiddling their thumbs in the Brexit department for the last six or so months. As for the toadying, probably to keep the usual suspects distracted while nothing is actually happening.
I have it on very good authority from inside said department that six months of thumb-twiddling would have been a more productive use of time that what has actually occurred - which is a succession of contradicting directives from confused ministers that change on an almost daily basis.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Would the ermine match your footwear?
I'm having a bit of a mid life crisis and started wearing brown loafers.
You're a bit young for a mid life crisis. Just don't get hush puppies
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Would the ermine match your footwear?
I'm having a bit of a mid life crisis and started wearing brown loafers.
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
The bill wasn't put before Parliament 8 months ago. It has actually gone through the legislative process quite quickly.
They were arguing about putting it before Parliament 8 months ago. The point is that we haven't a hope of getting a good settlement and never have done. There is neither the time, the good will nor the organisation capability
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
Depends if Parliament backs the amendment. If it does then no, TM won't get any kind of deal at all.
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
Explain to me why you consider the amendment to be mission critical.
If the EU still wants us and our £350mn gross weekly payment to them to be members: With the amendment they can negotiate in bad faith hoping a bad deal forces the whole thing to be canceled. Without the amendment they have to negotiate honestly.
If the EU does not want us to be members anymore: With the amendment they can negotiate in bad faith knowing Parliament would force the government to accept any deal no matter how bad. Without the amendment they have to negotiate honestly.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You could argue that doing so would have taken the EU by surprise and we would have been better placed to exploit the situation without giving them time to agree an approach.
When I said maximum turnout earlier I was just referring to the highest number of Peers each party is realistically going to get to turnout on any one particular day.
Many Lords are very old, many can't attend, many will have other commitments - so there is never anything like 100% turnout.
Of course 804 is the number who could theoretically attend if they wanted to.
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
The bill wasn't put before Parliament 8 months ago. It has actually gone through the legislative process quite quickly.
They were arguing about putting it before Parliament 8 months ago. The point is that we haven't a hope of getting a good settlement and never have done. There is neither the time, the good will nor the organisation capability
The main delay was the court case and appeal. Those aren't quick, and I would argue shouldn't be rushed. The legislative side of things has gone pretty quickly. That being said, I don't think May has minded much the delay.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You could argue that doing so would have taken the EU by surprise and we would have been better placed to exploit the situation without giving them time to agree an approach.
I do not think we would have been able to maintain the element of surprise for two years.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Clearly I am not privy to that information, but I hardly think they have been twiddling their thumbs in the Brexit department for the last six or so months. As for the toadying, probably to keep the usual suspects distracted while nothing is actually happening.
I have it on very good authority from inside said department that six months of thumb-twiddling would have been a more productive use of time that what has actually occurred - which is a succession of contradicting directives from confused ministers that change on an almost daily basis.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You have already said that. Yet you have failed to cite a single example of a preparatory measure to support your view. It looks like blind faith.
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.
If only Dave had given myself and JohnO the peerages I asked for.
Unfortunately hereditary peerages no longer give the holder an automatic right to a seat in the Lords!
I told Dave we'd be fine with being ordinary Lords.
Edit - I really wanted JohnO to get the peerage, I would have been fine with a GCMG.
You asked for a peerage for yourself? Isn't that a touch vulgar?
It was someone else's idea.
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
Would the ermine match your footwear?
I'm having a bit of a mid life crisis and started wearing brown loafers.
You're a bit young for a mid life crisis. Just don't get hush puppies
It's when a growing collection of tank tops appear then it's time to panic.
I find it kind of funny that we complain about how inflexible and slow the EU is in deciding anything - eg Canada Trade deal, which is 1500 pages long - when we take 8 months and counting to pass a bill that's just 130 words long.
The bill wasn't put before Parliament 8 months ago. It has actually gone through the legislative process quite quickly.
They were arguing about putting it before Parliament 8 months ago. The point is that we haven't a hope of getting a good settlement and never have done. There is neither the time, the good will nor the organisation capability
For me the story of the day is that Nigel Lawson now thinks it's almost impossible for us to get a deal having previously argued that it could all be sorted out very easily. Was he being dishonest before, or has he been struck by some new insight?
@SamCoatesTimes: Last week DCLG swore to me Hezza not bound by collective responsibility (so wd keep his job if he rebelled tonight). He's just been sacked
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You could argue that doing so would have taken the EU by surprise and we would have been better placed to exploit the situation without giving them time to agree an approach.
I do not think we would have been able to maintain the element of surprise for two years.
We would have stood a chance of keeping them off balance. Imagine if the Trump election etc had been in the middle of negotiations.
You honestly think we'd be in the same situation had we had no time to prepare for the negotiations?
How prepared do you honestly think we are now?
More prepared than we were on the 24th, as there was no preparation done.
What preparation has now been done? To what extent does this counteract the amateurishness of May and her clowns in their toadying to an extreme fringe of Hard Brexit wallahs for six months while shunning completely the half of voters who want to Remain?
Clearly I am not privy to that information, but I hardly think they have been twiddling their thumbs in the Brexit department for the last six or so months. As for the toadying, probably to keep the usual suspects distracted while nothing is actually happening.
I have it on very good authority from inside said department that six months of thumb-twiddling would have been a more productive use of time that what has actually occurred - which is a succession of contradicting directives from confused ministers that change on an almost daily basis.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You have already said that. Yet you have failed to cite a single example of a preparatory measure to support your view. It looks like blind faith.
Our research, based on interviews across 9 Whitehall departments and a range of voices from business and civil society, found that while Whitehall preparations have got off to a good start, more planning needs to be done to ensure the UK makes a success of Brexit.
While the report cites room for improvement, sounds a lot better than twiddling thumbs for six months.
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...
Awesome
Completely wrong. The amendment specifically says that if Parliament votes against we are not allowed to walk away with no deal. You could at least read the amendment if you are going to comment on it
Isn't that a little bit like Parliament disallowing the tide from coming in.
Once Article 50 has been served, the choice is between the negotiated deal and WTO.
I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't believe that they would have been better off invoking in June last year.
You could argue that doing so would have taken the EU by surprise and we would have been better placed to exploit the situation without giving them time to agree an approach.
I do not think we would have been able to maintain the element of surprise for two years.
We would have stood a chance of keeping them off balance. Imagine if the Trump election etc had been in the middle of negotiations.
That would have been one quarter of the way through the negotiations. Still have to keep them off balance for another 18 months.
I'm thinking an old man with outdated views where progress has passed him by, a shrinking group of supporters, rebellious team members, loss of confidence in his leadership skills, always someone else's fault, not very good with coats.......
Does anyone on this forum now think May is going to get a decent deal?
It's certainly going to be harder thanks to the Lords and their fellow-travellers. Quite how anyone who wanted us to Remain thinks that sabotaging a deal is going to improve things is utterly baffling - I imagine future historians will study that question in depth.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
Two of Brown's advisors on radio News at 5 who said Labour made a terrible mistake in 2008 not calling an election. They were advised they were so far ahead there was no pressure of time but out of nowhere came the financial crisis and then it was too late.
They reflected on how a Labour victory at that point would have stalled the Tory modernisation and would have lead to at least 2 more Labour victories. Cameron would never have been PM and the mess that's Brexit wouldn't have happened.
Rather sadly they said a day doesn't go by when they don't reflect on what should have been. They added that May could well be making the same mistake though in their view she should have called it six months ago
I don't buy the two more Labour victories at all. If Labour had won in 2007/8, it would have been heavily defeated in 2012/13. It was tired.
The only difference would be that the coalition would not have happened. The Lib Dems would not have been destroyed and Cameron would not have had to promise a referendum.
Their view was that after losing in 2007/8 the Tories would have been wracked by in-fighting and Cameron's modernisation would have stalled leading to a second victory in 12/13. After about 15 mins...
An inverted pyramid of piffle. The Cameron project was always supposed to be a two-election strategy, it's only the Brown Bust that made anyone think a majority in one election was possible.
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...
Awesome
Completely wrong. The amendment specifically says that if Parliament votes against we are not allowed to walk away with no deal. You could at least read the amendment if you are going to comment on it
Isn't that a little bit like Parliament disallowing the tide from coming in.
Once Article 50 has been served, the choice is between the negotiated deal and WTO.
Politics is supreme and doesn't stop just because some people think an Article says so. If a different (and less painful) choice is wished, it will happen.
Yet a golf club with c.800 members who all turn up to club meets and dinners would still be bigger.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft has a player based of ~6 million as its measured on how many active subscribers are paying to play (lapsed subscriptions don't count). Blizzard's Hearthstone has a player base of ~20 million as its measured on how many have ever registered to play as it is free to play and accounts don't lapse.
Is Hearthstone bigger than World of Warcraft? No, of course not.
WoW is around $1 Bn revenue a year, Hearthstone earnt $400 million in 2016.
Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
Surely the Sovereign is Sovereign, my Lord?
Again though, it does raise the issue of where ultimate power does or should lie - with Parliament or the people. At the moment legally it appears to be Parliament.
Yes, the Supreme Court had the chance to rectify this anomaly and blew it.
How was it their obligation to rectify such a thing? I know judges will overreach at times, but fundamentally altering the basis of our constitutional arrangements would really seem more of an issue for parliament.
@SamCoatesTimes: Last week DCLG swore to me Hezza not bound by collective responsibility (so wd keep his job if he rebelled tonight). He's just been sacked
Quite right too. Given the Tories even if temporarily are enjoying a large lead in the polls one has to assume the government's collective approach to Brexit is reasonably popular with the public - those that seek to undermine can sling their hook (and if they feel that strongly about it join their natural bed fellows the Lib Dems).
If May called a GE now, it would be dominated by Brexit. How would the Labour candidates in Leave areas campaign?
Pretend to agree with their constituents for the votes or tell the truth to try and keep us inside the EU?
On the up side... If May was reluctantly forced to call an early GE, it could certainly have the added bonus of finally getting Sturgeon and the SNP to hit the mute button on both Brexit and and another Indy Ref....
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
When I said maximum turnout earlier I was just referring to the highest number of Peers each party is realistically going to get to turnout on any one particular day.
Many Lords are very old, many can't attend, many will have other commitments - so there is never anything like 100% turnout.
Of course 804 is the number who could theoretically attend if they wanted to.
many are simply there because of cash for Honours......they just wanted the title.
Something doesn't smell right about her rising profile and media smoothness. She's like ready made TV talking head who's come out of nowhere. Who's behind her?
Her profile has risen because she is a natural media performer and is willing to take the flak that comes with what she's doing.
There are hundreds of other successful businesspeople who would be equally good in front of the cameras if the need or opportunity arose.
On the size of the Lords debate, an interesting number would be the number of peers who have never voted (or voted very rarely).
Seems like a quick way to reduce the numbers without needing to arrange a major reform in short time. If you don't turn up often enough - what is reasonable is a matter for debate - then you lose your place, and you're not replaced until they drop below a certain number again. I'm personally in favour for experienced persons who who otherwise not seek elected office participating in the legislature - retired military personnel, judges and the like - but it need not be a cushy pension scheme, you still need to put in the hours and appearances.
If you want a title without responsibility you can get an honour, and if you have a title but no longer are able or willing to put in the hours participating in law making, then you can keep the title but lose the right to sit in the chamber - no need to wait for people to make that choice, like Lord Ashcroft.
Comments
According to others, I have the gift of the gab, coupled with me putting in subtle pop music references into speeches, apparently I would have made a great working peer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/the-guardian-view-on-the-lords-and-brexit-this-is-not-the-peers-versus-the-people
Oh...
THERESA May does not want a snap general election because it would be a waste of Jeremy Corbyn, she has confirmed.
The Conservative leader still has lots of policies she wants to pursue while she has an entirely ineffectual opposition and has no intention of rushing anything.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/shame-to-waste-corbyn-on-a-snap-election-says-may-20161104116602
If Parliament rejects the amendment and TM has the authority to walk away then the EU will have to deal sensibly (as will the UK of course because we'll all be playing for high stakes)
If we don't get a deal we like, we get nothing, just like you wanted.
Tezza still gets to say "If I can't get the deal through Parliament we all walk away with nothing"
Instead of cheering your dream result, you want to give up that leverage, and abolish half of parliament into the bargain.
More Brexit madness.
Of course, once we've left you can campaign to rejoin - deep down though I think you realise that even when you had the status quo advantage and the full weight of government machinery on your side, you still lost, and any Rejoin campaign would be futile, so you have to try and frustrate the original result now.
The amendment puts May in an impossible position. It demands by law that she do something that it is beyond her power to control. Just like your arguments it is incoherent and utterly impractical.
Blizzard's World of Warcraft has a player based of ~6 million as its measured on how many active subscribers are paying to play (lapsed subscriptions don't count).
Blizzard's Hearthstone has a player base of ~20 million as its measured on how many have ever registered to play as it is free to play and accounts don't lapse.
Is Hearthstone bigger than World of Warcraft? No, of course not.
Who the F is she to be a leading spokesperson on this?
When your head isn't on the block, it's easy to sit back and say go for it.
But when you yourself are captain you don't risk it.
Of course it all sounds like a piece of cake. The problem is that if May is seen as being opportunistic the narrative could turn very, very quickly.
And she can't just rely on Corbyn being unpalatable - if the Lib Dems start picking up seats then Con will be back to needing approx a 10% lead for a majority. And that's not 100% automatic.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/
"Search results 804 out of 804"
With the amendment they can negotiate in bad faith hoping a bad deal forces the whole thing to be canceled.
Without the amendment they have to negotiate honestly.
If the EU does not want us to be members anymore:
With the amendment they can negotiate in bad faith knowing Parliament would force the government to accept any deal no matter how bad.
Without the amendment they have to negotiate honestly.
Many Lords are very old, many can't attend, many will have other commitments - so there is never anything like 100% turnout.
Of course 804 is the number who could theoretically attend if they wanted to.
#article50 #Brexit
Our research, based on interviews across 9 Whitehall departments and a range of voices from business and civil society, found that while Whitehall preparations have got off to a good start, more planning needs to be done to ensure the UK makes a success of Brexit.
While the report cites room for improvement, sounds a lot better than twiddling thumbs for six months.
Direct link to report - https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IFGJ5003_Whitehalls_preparation_131216_V10.pdf
Once Article 50 has been served, the choice is between the negotiated deal and WTO.
Still, Mrs May must take some of the blame. She has got a lot right, and has correctly identified the strategic issues, but she has made two tactical mistakes, one of which may prove catastrophic. The lesser mistake was leaving too large a gap between the referendum and firming up her negotiating position. She was right that she needed time, but she left a political vacuum, and wreckers have been muscling into it.
The bigger mistake, which may prove catastrophic, was not getting parliamentary authority for invoking Article 50 immediately on entering office, when her adversaries were still in a state of shock. If there was the faintest hint of a successful legal challenge to her prerogative powers, she could have neutralised the danger and pocketed the parliamentary authority, for use when she was ready.
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/contact-us/
Alexis LevinsonVerified account @alexis_levinson
that weird honeymoon era where all the Republican factions liked each other has come to an end.
There are hundreds of other successful businesspeople who would be equally good in front of the cameras if the need or opportunity arose.
If you want a title without responsibility you can get an honour, and if you have a title but no longer are able or willing to put in the hours participating in law making, then you can keep the title but lose the right to sit in the chamber - no need to wait for people to make that choice, like Lord Ashcroft.