Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform – Coming sooner than you think?

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited April 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Electoral reform – Coming sooner than you think?

“If the time did come for more coalition negotiations, the experience of coalition the first time will be clearly taken on board when we think through what we would do a second time.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    first.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Depending on what UKIP does electorally the tories may well be more open to electoral reform.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    1254: The Met Police added: "Police also received reports of items being thrown towards the funeral cortege, however we can confirm that these were flowers."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Oh aye, Labour would love to collude in buggering up the Upper House on a permanent basis.

    I don't think it's legitimate to have a referendum on the EU as the price for certain 'reform' (if it's single 15 year terms then it'd be moronic) without consenting the British people. It's this sort of political horse-trading, where politicians rather than voters determine the government, which makes me loathe coalitions and PR style systems.

    Hopefully the experience of coalition will encourage voters to split into red and blue camps and one party will have an outright majority.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Well the LDs will want some sort of self interest policy for the next 5 years of blue/yellow - why not the same ones as last time but different.

    If it keeps them on board for 5 years and Labour safely in oppo - why not.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT
    SeanT said:

    I think we will all remember this day, for many years to come. This, after all, is the day tim went finally and embarrassingly mad on pb.com.

    Margaret Thatcher didn't silence her opponents. She marginalised them.

    A divisive politician becomes great when their dividend is the vast majority.

    tim needs our help, Sean, not our pity.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,950
    What is the most resilient electoral system? FPTP? STV? AMS?
    AV. Resilient, highly contagious. Once AV has taken hold of the brain it’s almost impossible to eradicate. An electoral system that is fully formed – fully understood – that sticks; right in there somewhere.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    F1: don't forget that the Bahrain early discussion thread is up here:
    http://politicalbetting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/bahrain-early-discussion.html
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A polyfilla article about crying politicians:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/17/when-grown-men-cry/

    First, I doubt many people will think too much about this either way. Next, to the extent that they do, "harsh uncaring Chancellor crying for former stateswoman with a harsh uncaring image" is not likely to improve the Chancellor's standing. Third, the Chancellor is oddly little-known as a public figure, considering that he has held a very senior rank for many years now, and I'm not sure the public will engage with this much - except perhaps to think that there are things more worthy of tears in 2013 than the death in old age of Margaret Thatcher.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    If UKIP get 20% and no seats you'd immediately have 20% of voters in favour of electoral reform, plus whatever percentage the LDs receive.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,950
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    @Avery.

    Or called the media narrative right when the PB Tories can't see the obvious.
    Just another day.

    "We are all PB Tories now!"
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    Scotland won't vote for Independence and the Tories are addicted to FPTP.

    STV and multi member constituencies is in my opinion a necessary precondition for the recovery of political interest in the UK, still a crap bet on this timescale though as the stupid AV referendum has scared off politicians in the same way Iraq has scared them off Syria.

    tim any time you want to pop off to Syria feel free, good to see the spirit of the International Brigades lives on, or were you figuring someone else should do the dying ?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    tim said:

    electionista ‏@electionista
    UK Ipsos poll - best modern-day PM to rescue UK from crisis: Thatcher 31% Blair 21% Brown 13% Cameron 12% Major 7% http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/margaret-thatcher-poll-still-the-publics-no1-choice-to-lead-nation-during-a-crisis-8576563.html

    Con 50% Lab 34%
  • Peter_2Peter_2 Posts: 146
    What does more proportional mean? The reforms Jenko proposed would have meant less Tory seats in 1997 (when on c30% they got c25% of the seats). Unless there is some sd measure being used (doubt it), bet should really be reworded to change in method of election.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    the stupid AV referendum has scared off politicians in the same way Iraq has scared them off Syria.

    The AV referendum didn't have much of a downside for the Tories, did it? I'm sure the LibDems would be up for a shot at STV. If the opponents in whichever of Lab and Con we're talking about figured the referendum would result in a no like the last one, that makes it more likely to happen.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    AV is dead forever: STV is the only alternative now to FPTP.

    AV managed to muster 33% in the referendum. I think you could certainly add at least 10 percentage points to that for an STV referendum.
  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    Hard to see any preference voting being proposed now for another generation, given the AV result. The best hope for reform is to introduce the French system of run-off voting for seats where a candidate didnt get over 50%. Wouldn't cost much extra as most of the work for an election is already done for the first round. Tories can oppose it because it's still FPTP and it's the system they use to elect their leader.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    AndyJS said:

    If UKIP get 20% and no seats you'd immediately have 20% of voters in favour of electoral reform, plus whatever percentage the LDs receive.

    That would work if it was Lib/Con doing it. But if it happened under a Lib/Lab government a lot of UKIPpers might just suspect that the Lib/Lab government would go on forever. Would they be confident that:
    1) Con would work with UKIP
    2) Con + UKIP could win a majority between them
    ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    [Cameron will] assume people will vote for the status quo as they will in Scotland and in an EU referendum

    If he assumes that, where's the downside in giving the LibDems their referendum as the price for him keeping his job? People who think the referendum is a stupid waste of money will just blame it on the LibDems.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    the most fruitful thing they could do is put some effort into designing a sensible and properly thought-out proposal which MPs might actually back.

    That's an old trick. Of course we are in favour of reform .. just not this particular reform. The Coalition Agreement contained a lot of the features of Lords reform that Tories rebels then said they werent happy with. It's a great way for the minority who favour the current settlement to block any future reforms.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Neil said:

    the most fruitful thing they could do is put some effort into designing a sensible and properly thought-out proposal which MPs might actually back.

    That's an old trick. Of course we are in favour of reform .. just not this particular reform. The Coalition Agreement contained a lot of the features of Lords reform that Tories rebels then said they werent happy with. It's a great way for the minority who favour the current settlement to block any future reforms.

    so you thought Clegg's proposals were good ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Whoa there, Mr. Neil.

    The House of Lords does need reform, because Labour, as ever, tinkered and meddled and buggered it up. Sadly, it does need to change.

    One off 15 year terms are completely ridiculous.

    Not to mention the other pressing concern, barely asked let alone answered, about what this would do to the primacy of the Commons and what the role of the Lords should actually be.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    No.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Who did Cherie Blair upset, when the seating plan was drawn up for Mrs Thatcher's funeral, sitting next to her husband and Gordon Brown?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. T, you must be mistaken. The Glorious Nation of Europe goes from strength to strength, thanks to the wisdom of its benevolent and universally popular leadership.

    Indeed, the leaders of Europe have concluded that the answer to a frankly cretinous monetary union of wildly varying and numerous nations is to have deeper integration. This is similar to a man with a papercut reasoning that the best tool to ease the pain is a chainsaw.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    SeanT said:

    Nice bit of zerohedging on eurogeddon, part 86

    Part 85: Everybody buy gold.
    Part 84: Cyprus will cause run on banks all over Europe.
    etc etc etc.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. Tokyo, you're right to say that many (including myself) have expected the situation to reach a terminal decline already, several times.

    But the fundamental position remains untenable. The patient isn't recovering, he simply has yet to expire.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    tim said:

    electionista ‏@electionista
    UK Ipsos poll - best modern-day PM to rescue UK from crisis: Thatcher 31% Blair 21% Brown 13% Cameron 12% Major 7% http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/margaret-thatcher-poll-still-the-publics-no1-choice-to-lead-nation-during-a-crisis-8576563.html

    Is the MORI Political Research Head really called Gideon Skinner?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Neil said:

    That's an old trick. Of course we are in favour of reform .. just not this particular reform. The Coalition Agreement contained a lot of the features of Lords reform that Tories rebels then said they werent happy with. It's a great way for the minority who favour the current settlement to block any future reforms.

    Old tricks are old tricks for a reason, Neil!

    No, in all seriousness, the proposals were a dog's breakfast. What was most striking about the whole affair was that Clegg didn't even begin to try to argue for them on their merits.

    As others have pointed out, the approach was backwards anyway. You need to start by agreeing what you want the Lords to do and not to do.
  • peterbusspeterbuss Posts: 109
    The blog assumes an awful lot name,y that either Labour or the Conservatives will enter a coalition with the Lib Dems. i would have thought that EdM wiould do just about anything to avoid that even preferring a minority adminisration. I am very far from sure that Cam's Party will allow him to enter another Coalition with the Libdems and a promise by them of a referendum on the EU will be taken as the worthless pledge it would be after what they did on Boundary reforms.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Welcome back, Mr. Buss.

    That's a fair point.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,300
    I see Boy George was in tears at Lady Thatchers funeral.

    I fear Labour will use that image a LOT between now and the election. You can see the poster now:

    OSBORNE CRIES AT THATCHERS FUNERAL BUT SHED'S NO TEARS FOR YOUR JOB/HOUSING ALLOWANCE/SCHOOL/HOSPITAL etc...

    You know its gonna happen. ;)

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    peterbuss said:

    I am very far from sure that Cam's Party will allow him to enter another Coalition with the Libdems

    How would they stop it. The last time the deal was done within a week.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756

    Whoa there, Mr. Neil.

    The House of Lords does need reform, because Labour, as ever, tinkered and meddled and buggered it up. Sadly, it does need to change.

    One off 15 year terms are completely ridiculous.

    Not to mention the other pressing concern, barely asked let alone answered, about what this would do to the primacy of the Commons and what the role of the Lords should actually be.

    Why should the Commons have primacy? At the moment, it does because it has democratic legitimacy and the Lords doesn't. Fair enough. Were the Lords / Senate to be popularly elected, that changes the balance and the respective mandates. Fwiw, my compromise proposal would be to repeal the 1949 provisions and return to the Lords the powers they had after the 1911 Act.

    On the substantive point, unless sensible proposals are put forward, they'll be voted down - either in parliament or a referendum. I believe the Lib Dems made two massive mistakes in their handling of this issue.

    Firstly, they pushed for AV rather than Lords reform as their primary constitutional goal. HoL reform could be done without a referendum and would probably have been delivered by now. There's no need for a referendum if you're making the system more democratic (and the precedent is there with the 1999 reforms). Going for AV, by contrast, has left them with nothing.

    Secondly, they threw their toys out of the pram when the going got a little sticky on the HoL proposals. Lords reform is never easy - see Asquith, Attlee, Wilson, Blair etc - but is deliverable with enough will. What they needed if they were really serious was the tenacity of Major over Maastricht, or Lansley over the NHS bill. it wouldn't have been pretty but if the results justified it, that wouldn't matter. At the end of the day, something would have come through; probably something substantial. It might not have been the original proposals (but then given their nature, it shouldn't have been), but it would have been reform. At worst, it would have been someone else who ultimately blocked it. As it was, they have no-one to blame but themselves for crumbling in the face of a bit of opposition.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    so you thought Clegg's proposals were good ?

    I didnt really care much about them either way. I found the manufactured outrage from some sources about aspects of them very tiresome.

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    edited April 2013
    In that ipsos mori poll, around 25% were Con voters, around 10% were UKIP, but still 50% picked a Tory prime minister

    Tables here
    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ThatcherPoll_April2013_Tables.pdf
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. Herdson, I'm not arguing for or against Commons primacy, but that the impact of any reform upon the primacy or lack thereof has to be considered alongside the proposed function of the reformed Lords before any change is made.

    Otherwise they'll just change for the sake of change and we'll end up with a set of unforeseen consequences.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    1328: Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson tells Radio 4's The World at One that Margaret Thatcher changed UK politics. "She really was someone that transformed the debate. She transformed the Labour Party," he says.

    Commenting on the crowds remembering her today, Mr Johnson says she stirred people's imagination in a way that other prime ministers had not.

    "It is no disrespect to other prime ministers that died recently," he says, adding: "I do think that people in 20, 50 years time will see that she really was hewn of a different timber. She was presented with some very, very serious problems and she overcame all of them."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Neil said:


    so you thought Clegg's proposals were good ?

    I didnt really care much about them either way. I found the manufactured outrage from some sources about aspects of them very tiresome.

    Well manufactured outrage yes, but politics is 50% theatre. OTOH the proposals put forward were fundamentally weak and Clegg didn't exactly rush about defending and pushing his agenda. If he'd have come up with something vaguely sensible we'd have had HoL reform by now and he'd have his place in the history books.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    While our minds have been on other matters:

    "News this morning that new car registrations in Europe fell by another 10.2pc in March from the same month a year earlier.....marked the 18th consecutive month of declines. Nonetheless, Britain remained resilient, posting a 5.9pc growth in sales compared with the same month last year."

    I blame Osborne...
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    Atleee changed the Tory Party.
    Macmillan changed the Labour Party
    Wilson changed the Tory Party.
    Thatcher changed the Labour Party.
    Blair changed the Tory Party.

    It's what happens.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Personally I revert to being a voter on electoral reform: I care little about the various alternatives, when on paper, and would struggle to find the enthusiasm required to bring one to the table, but, when put in front of me I'll make a simple choice between the options. I don't know how I'd vote in an STV/FPTP referendum.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    the proposals put forward were fundamentally weak

    Meh, you would find people willing to criticise any approach to length of terms or size of constituencies or whatever else you like you fancy. What Clegg put forward was largely in line with what was in the Coalition Agreement.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    tim said:


    Hence the outrage to hide their embarrassment at his amateurism

    The manufactured outrage came first.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Can a spine be inserted into a jellyfish?

    "This morning, on the Today programme, Cameron said we are all Thatcherites now.

    I think in a way we’re all Thatcherites now because, I mean, I think one of the things about her legacy is some of those big arguments that she had had, you know, everyone now accepts. No one wants to go back to trade unions that are undemocratic or one-sided nuclear disarmament or having great private sector businesses in the public sector.

    Mellor told Sky just now he disagreed.

    I thought you were going to put to me what Dave also said, that we are all Thatcherites now. To which my answer would be "Fat chance" as long as he's still got people like Andrew Cooper, who basically told him that in order for the Tories to be electable he had to rid the Conservative party of any taint of Thatcherism. He tried to do that, and he became prime minister despite not winning an election. If he has realised that, difficult though it is after a career in public relations, he should try to discover some depth of conviction, this might be a timely moment for him. But I'm not holding my breath."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/17/lady-thatcher-funeral-live-blog#block-516e94ede4b0b434f8243cfc
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Neil said:

    the proposals put forward were fundamentally weak

    Meh, you would find people willing to criticise any approach to length of terms or size of constituencies or whatever else you like you fancy. What Clegg put forward was largely in line with what was in the Coalition Agreement.

    of course you always find criticisms, but a strong proposal would carry a majority. Clegg just packed in and wouldn't fight his corner. It wasn't as if the reds were coming out in support of him either. If he believes in it that strongly he still has 2 years left to get it done.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    In that ipsos mori poll, around 25% were Con voters, around 10% were UKIP, but still 50% picked a Tory prime minister

    Tables here
    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ThatcherPoll_April2013_Tables.pdf

    VI in this poll are Con 30 Lab 39 LD 13 UKIP 11 Others 7

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    SeanT said:

    Nice bit of zerohedging on eurogeddon, part 86

    Part 85: Everybody buy gold.

    Part 84: Cyprus will cause run on banks all over Europe.
    etc etc etc.
    Pt85: Yes Gold is comparatively cheap at the moment, but it won't last.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    GIN1138 said:

    I see Boy George was in tears at Lady Thatchers funeral.

    I fear Labour will use that image a LOT between now and the election. You can see the poster now:

    OSBORNE CRIES AT THATCHERS FUNERAL BUT SHED'S NO TEARS FOR YOUR JOB/HOUSING ALLOWANCE/SCHOOL/HOSPITAL etc...

    You know its gonna happen. ;)

    If they do, you'd think the media will slam them for using a funeral to promote their cause. They may get away with it without the first line (ie not referring to Thatcher, say "Do you really think he's crying for the disabled/poor/other; do you think he's crying for you?"), but think it will be tricky to do well.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,756

    Mr. Herdson, I'm not arguing for or against Commons primacy, but that the impact of any reform upon the primacy or lack thereof has to be considered alongside the proposed function of the reformed Lords before any change is made.

    Otherwise they'll just change for the sake of change and we'll end up with a set of unforeseen consequences.

    I'd agree with much of that but for most of its time, parliament's two Houses were of equal power, so it's not wholly new. Indeed, the Lords was seen as the senior, hence 'Upper House'.

    There's no point having two Houses that essentially duplicate each other; to provide more comprehensive representation, they need to be formed on a different basis. As such, i wouldn't have any objection to the Lords being elected under STV, providing that the Commons remains single-member constituency.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited April 2013
    As far as I can see FPTP works reasonably well as long as you have two parties. From about 1680 odd -1918 we did (Ireland added to the mix for sure). Then to about 1929 we had three, before settling down to two 1935 - 70 or so. Since the 70's, with ups and downs the system has fragmented to 4 in Scotland/Wales and three in England with (possibly
    - we'll see how it all pans out) a 4th emerging presently.

    This leads to the nonsense of TB being elected on only 36% of the vote in 2005 (and only 3% ahead) with a big majority of 65, and the distinct possibility of Ed M being elected with a working majority with even less of the vote in 2015. It also led to the insanity of the Tories winning (just) more votes than Labour in 2005 in England (not the UK) and getting nearly 100 less seats (again in England). Now whether the maths of the system works heavily for Labour (as it does now), or the positions were reversed matters not, what does matter if this continues is that the long term will of the people is not being reflected, a point the LD's to be fair have made for years, as they really do get hammered by the system (25% of the vote in 1983 and a tiny fraction of Labour's seats despite being about 1% behind only). Their mistake this time round in my view was to try to get something as odd as AV ("vote for the headbangers and you get to vote lots of times"), and then throwing the toys out because their particular version of Lord's reform wasn't agreeable to the Tories. They are therefore (in my view) left trying to explain why an attempt to make the system somewhat more even for the powerful lower house was scuppered because of Byzantine nonsense surrounding the system for the Lords. I of Wight 105000 electors (or whatever) Western Isles 23000. Go figure.

    Now that said elections also have to reflect the will of the people but also have to form workable governments otherwise you end up like Israel or Belgium or Italy in days of yore, so the system has still to have some deliberately (slight) disproportionality to get over this hurdle. Some kind of German constituency and list mix?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    a strong proposal would carry a majority

    What does "strong" mean in the context of proposals for Lords reform?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    Jonathan said:

    Atleee changed the Tory Party.
    Macmillan changed the Labour Party
    Wilson changed the Tory Party.
    Thatcher changed the Labour Party.
    Blair changed the Tory Party.

    It's what happens.

    No. Look at the way their names are remembered:
    • Atlee has the welfare state (although all the parties would have set up may of the reforms). But those changes were in line with what many of his party wanted.
    • Macmillan has nothing (Macmillanism?)
    • Wilson has nothing
    • Thatcher has Thatcherism
    • Blair has Blairite
    Only Thatcher and Blair indelibly changed their parties. Thatcher gave power to 'ordinary' Tories; Blair (and to be fair his fellow travellers) scrapped a great deal of the baggage that made Labour unelectable.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    In that ipsos mori poll, around 25% were Con voters, around 10% were UKIP, but still 50% picked a Tory prime minister

    Tables here
    http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ThatcherPoll_April2013_Tables.pdf

    VI in this poll are Con 30 Lab 39 LD 13 UKIP 11 Others 7

    That's because the don't knows in the voting intention were a much larger group than in the best PM part. 501 of 1010 chose a Tory PM; 348 of 1010 were Con or UKIP.

    Nearly a good point...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    While our minds have been on other matters:

    "News this morning that new car registrations in Europe fell by another 10.2pc in March from the same month a year earlier.....marked the 18th consecutive month of declines. Nonetheless, Britain remained resilient, posting a 5.9pc growth in sales compared with the same month last year."

    I blame Osborne...

    Is the number for Europe ex-UK or not? I.e. Is continental Europe even worse than the 10pc you cite?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    OT: I think that Ukip would like nothing better at the moment than a nice bit of AV. With a 5% vote limit to cross the threshold of course. ;0
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    dr_spyn said:

    Can a spine be inserted into a jellyfish?

    "This morning, on the Today programme, Cameron said we are all Thatcherites now.

    I think in a way we’re all Thatcherites now because, I mean, I think one of the things about her legacy is some of those big arguments that she had had, you know, everyone now accepts. No one wants to go back to trade unions that are undemocratic or one-sided nuclear disarmament or having great private sector businesses in the public sector.

    Mellor told Sky just now he disagreed.

    I thought you were going to put to me what Dave also said, that we are all Thatcherites now. To which my answer would be "Fat chance" as long as he's still got people like Andrew Cooper, who basically told him that in order for the Tories to be electable he had to rid the Conservative party of any taint of Thatcherism. He tried to do that, and he became prime minister despite not winning an election. If he has realised that, difficult though it is after a career in public relations, he should try to discover some depth of conviction, this might be a timely moment for him. But I'm not holding my breath."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/17/lady-thatcher-funeral-live-blog#block-516e94ede4b0b434f8243cfc

    I think both are right. As we have seen over the last week, Thatcher was divisive. Whilst I think many (although not all) of the arguments of the anti-Thatcher crowd are infantile and unrealistic, the very use of her name turns off a great number of people.

    But her policies live on. Blair took the mantle of Thatcherism and used many of her policies without using her name. The Tories should continue that legacy: continue the best aspects of her politics, but not her name.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited April 2013
    Must have missed the questions about Labour's record on how it helped retrain miners in Easington from 1997.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Whoa there, Mr. Neil.

    The House of Lords does need reform, because Labour, as ever, tinkered and meddled and buggered it up. Sadly, it does need to change.

    One off 15 year terms are completely ridiculous.

    Not to mention the other pressing concern, barely asked let alone answered, about what this would do to the primacy of the Commons and what the role of the Lords should actually be.

    If they hadn't meddled it'd still be hereditary and need reform.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2013
    Charles said:

    While our minds have been on other matters:

    "News this morning that new car registrations in Europe fell by another 10.2pc in March from the same month a year earlier.....marked the 18th consecutive month of declines. Nonetheless, Britain remained resilient, posting a 5.9pc growth in sales compared with the same month last year."

    I blame Osborne...

    Is the number for Europe ex-UK or not? I.e. Is continental Europe even worse than the 10pc you cite?
    Its total EU - Germany was down 17.1%

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9999803/European-car-sales-fall-for-18th-month.html

    "In March, the UK remained a resilient market, posting a 5.9% growth, while Italy (-4.9%), Spain (-13.9%), France (-16.2%) and Germany (-17.1%) saw their demand decrease. Overall, the EU* recorded a total of 1,307,107 new cars, or 10.2% less than in March 2012.

    From January to March, except for the UK (+7.4%), all major markets faced a double-digit downturn ranging from -11.5% in Spain to -12.9% in Germany, -13.0% in Italy and -14.6% in France. Overall new car registrations decreased by 9.8% in the first quarter, compared to the same period a year earlier."

    http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/passenger_car_registrations_-9.8_in_first_quarter_-10.2_in_march
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Neil said:

    a strong proposal would carry a majority

    What does "strong" mean in the context of proposals for Lords reform?

    something a majority of parliament or the country would vote for. Maybe a revising chamber with 250 seats elected for 6 yr terms, 3 max and with PR sytle elections for 50% of the seats every 3 years.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Germans need to wake up and understand that, in the absence of any country leaving the euro, Merkel and their mortal fear of non existent inflation is the problem in the eurozone. They're killing their own market.

    The ECB needs to print, print and print some more.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Guardian on Attlee.

    Many commentators have been comparing Lady Thatcher's funeral with Clement Attlee's. Well, my colleagues at the Guardian's archive have dug out the coverage of Attlee's funeral in 1967 and so you can read about it for yourself. Fewer than 150 people attended, and it lasted less than 20 minutes. It epitomised his "love of simplicity", the Guardian report says.

    But the Guardian's obituary of Attlee makes for less happy reading.

    Lord Attlee was not in the line of the great prime ministers any more than was Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain or Eden ...

    Oops. Probably not one of our better judgments. AS
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Mr. Herdson, I'm not arguing for or against Commons primacy, but that the impact of any reform upon the primacy or lack thereof has to be considered alongside the proposed function of the reformed Lords before any change is made.

    Otherwise they'll just change for the sake of change and we'll end up with a set of unforeseen consequences.

    MD Absolutely correct.
    The role of the HoL or whatever it may be called, has not been decided. Is it to be a revising house with recommendations, or a revising house with real power?

    However I do not see the HoC giving up their primacy without a near revolution.

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    BenM said:

    Germans need to wake up and understand that, in the absence of any country leaving the euro, Merkel and their mortal fear of non existent inflation is the problem in the eurozone. They're killing their own market.

    The ECB needs to print, print and print some more.

    Economic illiteracy writ large.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. Corporeal, I beg to differ.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited April 2013
    LORD ATTLEE was not In the line of the great Prime Ministers any more than was Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, or Eden; but he Is Identified with such profound political and economic changes as will give him a place In history little below them If he had not the touch of genius that belonged to Lloyd George or Churchill, or the Intellectual power of Asquith, he had gifts that providentially matched the needs of his day and his position as leader of the first Labour Government to have both office and power, and that in the wake of a great war. To have guided the country through six turbulent years: to have presided over a Government that made another great advance towards social justice; that partially socialised the economy; that gave freedom to India, Pakistan, and Burma; to have done this, and more are Lord Attle's lasting titles to remembrance by posterity.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/12/1365777984207/Attlee-obit-001.jpg


  • I think both are right. As we have seen over the last week, Thatcher was divisive. Whilst I think many (although not all) of the arguments of the anti-Thatcher crowd are infantile and unrealistic, the very use of her name turns off a great number of people.

    "There's nowt wrong wi' being divisive lad".

    There's an interesting point in the Guardian blog

    Parts of the crowd look like Conservative party conference - the blazers, the weird-looking policy wonks - but this gathering is broader than that. There are plenty of C2s here, so beloved of Tory party strategists: working-class people who bought their council homes and British Telecom shares and fought in the Falklands and feel grateful for the opportunities they believe Thatcher gave them.

    Generally, if these people, keep quiet, get on with their work etc., then they're not heard, and there's no divsion. Why shouldn't they have a voice, and why shouldn't that voice be different to the one that the Guardianistas say it should be?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited April 2013
    Now the dust has settled can I just say that I found it embarrassing. She was just a politician however good or bad and for such a person that was way over the top.

    I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to wake up tomorrow and feel rather queasy. I don't say this as a political opponent quite the reverse. Had it been done for Tony Blair I might have been physically sick.

    These occasions are for Royalty and the tourist industry. Thatcher is not Royalty and this was just insane.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Roger said:

    Now the dust has settled can I just say that I found it embarrassing. She was just a politician however good or bad and for such a person that was way over the top.

    I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to wake up tomorrow and feel rather queasy. I don't say this as a political opponent quite the reverse. Had it been done for Tony Blair I might have been physically sick.

    These occasions are for Royalty and the tourist industry. Thatcher is not Royalty and this was just insane.

    I was for the small private funeral option. However now that it's done, it was done well and the tourist industry has had a small boost in tough times. She'd like that.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    edited April 2013
    Good grief, this is a blow for certain PB Tories - a scientifically-conducted opinion poll that shows that, by a massive margin, the residents of Orkney and Shetland want to remain part of Scotland.

    Should Orkney/Shetland be independent countries, separate from Scotland?

    Men -

    No 70.6%
    Yes 11.8%

    Women -

    No 87.8%
    Yes 6.1%

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-new-flag-for-scotland/
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Mr. Corporeal, I beg to differ.

    You may certainly differ Mr Dancer, you would be wrong, but you have my permission to differ anyway.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Two new German polls today:

    Allensbach:

    CDU/CSU: 38.5%
    SPD: 28.0%
    Green: 15.0%
    Linke: 7.0%
    FDP: 5.0%
    Pirates: 3.0%
    Others: 3.5%

    Forsa:

    CDU/CSU: 42%
    SPD: 22%
    Green: 15%
    Linke: 8%
    FDP: 5%
    Pirates: 3%
    Others: 5%

    http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    dr_spyn said:

    Can a spine be inserted into a jellyfish?

    "This morning, on the Today programme, Cameron said we are all Thatcherites now.

    I think in a way we’re all Thatcherites now because, I mean, I think one of the things about her legacy is some of those big arguments that she had had, you know, everyone now accepts. No one wants to go back to trade unions that are undemocratic or one-sided nuclear disarmament or having great private sector businesses in the public sector.

    Mellor told Sky just now he disagreed.

    I thought you were going to put to me what Dave also said, that we are all Thatcherites now. To which my answer would be "Fat chance" as long as he's still got people like Andrew Cooper, who basically told him that in order for the Tories to be electable he had to rid the Conservative party of any taint of Thatcherism. He tried to do that, and he became prime minister despite not winning an election. If he has realised that, difficult though it is after a career in public relations, he should try to discover some depth of conviction, this might be a timely moment for him. But I'm not holding my breath."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/apr/17/lady-thatcher-funeral-live-blog#block-516e94ede4b0b434f8243cfc

    I thought Andrew Cooper had just announced plans to return to his private business, or is that someone else?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited April 2013
    @Alanbrooke

    Well yes it's done and I don't think it'll have any party political ramifications. But I do think the country-particularly outside London-will find this in the midst of our well trailed austerity program inexplicable.

    This wasn't us all being in this together. This was Marie Antoinette. it was grotesque and it was vulgar and there will be some very bemused and angry people out there
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited April 2013
    <blockquote class="Quote" rel="BenM">Germans need to wake up and understand that, in the absence of any country leaving the euro, Merkel and their mortal fear of non existent inflation is the problem in the eurozone. They're killing their own market.

    The ECB needs to print, print and print some more. </blockquote>

    They are (indirectly) killing their own market but it's deep in the German psyche not to print money. To many Brits a bit of inflation means a house at an effective knock down price much sooner than paying off a 25yr mortgage at the "proper rate". To Germans it can equal chaos - Weimar- Hitler-war- 6 million dead -Russian occupation of 30% of the country for half a century.

    The whole thing (as I have said before) should never have been introduced without a Euroland wide referendum and a deep debate on what it could mean in terms of transfers of money within the currency union. The German press is now running stories in Daily Mailesque fashion about the horrors of a "transfer union" and how "Mummy Merkel" musn't do it. All 20 years too late.

    I suspect something may loosen Merkel's grip on the stop button on the printing press after September (though it will called something different so as not to give the Germans a fit of the vapours). Before then? Fat chance methinks, barring Italy or Spain going to the wall, and maybe not then even.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Neil said:

    a strong proposal would carry a majority

    What does "strong" mean in the context of proposals for Lords reform?

    Hopefully repealing the Parliament Acts. The lack of a check on the executive is a problem.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    New Zealand becomes the 13th country to legalise same-sex marriage.

    Other countries include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay.

    French and British lawmakers have also voted in favour of legislation allowing gay marriage, although the bills have not yet been passed into law.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22184232

    Within the next two or three years same-sex marriage will no longer be controversial.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited April 2013
    Within the next two or three years same-sex marriage will no longer be controversial.</blockquote>


    And rightly so. If two people like each other and there's no harm to anyone else what's the problem?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    @Richard Nabavi

    Sorry, tried to quote you in post just below and the quoting thing didn't work as expected!
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "Hopefully repealing the Parliament Acts. The lack of a check on the executive is a problem."

    I hope that means repeal only after the upper house is 100% elected.
  • welshowl said:


    Within the next two or three years same-sex marriage will no longer be controversial.

    And rightly so. If two people like each other and there's no harm to anyone else what's the problem?

    One problem is that if same sex couples can marry, why can't siblings. If old siblings live together and one dies, do they have to sell the house (to pay an IHT bill), or can they get married and avoid the bill?

    Now, this may be OK for same sex couples (they can't produce children), but do we extend it to brother and sister, and if so, do we only do this if they're obviously not going to produce children.

    If my wife dies before me, can I marry one of the children in order to avoid IHT?
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Andy - Those are two hugely contrasting German polls. One would see an outright majority for the current CDU/FDP coalition, the other would see the two potential coalitions in a virtual tie.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    tim said:

    Did any of the PB Tories now seeking to blame the Eurozone for Osbornes failure say he was making a mistake basing his growth strategy on a booming Eurozone.

    I remember when pointing out that Osborne was basing his deficit reduction scenario on Canada in the 90s which relied on a booming USA next door and being met with a chorus of denial.

    No. They didn't.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    One problem is that if same sex couples can marry, why can't siblings. If old siblings live together and one dies, do they have to sell the house (to pay an IHT bill), or can they get married and avoid the bill?
    I'm afraid I don't see the slipperiness of this slope. Legalising gay marriage in no way legimises incest by and of itself. When we lowered the voting age to 18, there was no implied slippery slope that would mean it would inevitably be lowered to 16 or include those lacking what had been previously considered a necessary mental capacity, or to non-residents, etc.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    The Salisbury Convention is by far the bigger loosening of the Lords' power when compared to the Parliament Acts which have only been used a half-dozen times in the last generation and threatened to any feasible extent in another dozen. The true effect of the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention lie in the democratic deficit's effect on the mindset of the upper chamber which is unlikely to change. In 1908-10, the Lords felt like it had a genuine power to over-rule to commons over various things including Irish Home Rule.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    @Tim The Mirro doesn't appear to have used that contrasting image you mentioned. The article's just about a man crying at a funeral.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    The Conservative Party.

    It exists to make YOU poorer.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I have a bad feeling unemployment is heading towards 10% and there's not much that can be done about it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    BenM said:

    The Conservative Party.

    It exists to make YOU poorer.

    Ben that's so silly. As we know the party that makes us poorer is Labour, especially if you live in Northern England. But they do a good job of it you get to be poorer both economically and culturally.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Gerald Howarth reminiscing at length about Mrs Thatcher on Five Live atm.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Grandiose said:

    The Salisbury Convention is by far the bigger loosening of the Lords' power when compared to the Parliament Acts which have only been used a half-dozen times in the last generation and threatened to any feasible extent in another dozen. The true effect of the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention lie in the democratic deficit's effect on the mindset of the upper chamber which is unlikely to change. In 1908-10, the Lords felt like it had a genuine power to over-rule to commons over various things including Irish Home Rule.

    The Salisbury convention came about because of the first parliament act, it may have been used rarely but it's the big stick in the background that is effective even without use.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    AndyJS said:

    I have a bad feeling unemployment is heading towards 10% and there's not much that can be done about it.

    That's as maybe but several forecasts of higer unemployment have not come to pass, like this one from some market analysts.

    http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/cd7e33a9-1df6-4d6a-b565-8995d7b6e20e/14uk-unemployment-dec2010_20110310100039.gif
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Roger said:

    Now the dust has settled can I just say that I found it embarrassing. She was just a politician however good or bad and for such a person that was way over the top.

    I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to wake up tomorrow and feel rather queasy. I don't say this as a political opponent quite the reverse. Had it been done for Tony Blair I might have been physically sick.

    These occasions are for Royalty and the tourist industry. Thatcher is not Royalty and this was just insane.

    First time I think I have agreed with you on here, though we might agree on non political subjects.

    I just can't see why she had to have a big funeral paid for by the public. the only reason Blair agreed to it would have been because it almost guarantees the same honour for him, as no one could deny a Thrice election winning Leader that privilege now. (I take it that is the qualification)

    I don't have any major axe to grind with Margaret Thatcher, but almost half the country do, and as you say she wasnt Royalty. I'm sure a funeral with all the people that wanted to pay their respects in attendance was within the budget of her family.

    But for all that, I have to say if you didnt agree with it, you didnt have to watch it. I didnt, and the mickey taking of people showing their grief is out of order, even if they are your political enemies they are still people with feelings.


  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    How much would the TV rights to cover Mrs Thatcher have been sold for? More or less than the alleged cost of the ceremony?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    Did any of the PB Tories now seeking to blame the Eurozone for Osbornes failure say he was making a mistake basing his growth strategy on a booming Eurozone.

    I remember when pointing out that Osborne was basing his deficit reduction scenario on Canada in the 90s which relied on a booming USA next door and being met with a chorus of denial.

    Your assumption that Osborne has failed is false. Although it is true his strategy has not yet worked through to a successful conclusion, it remains on course even if full delivery will be a little delayed. There is no arguing against the fact that the UK is in a better fiscal position today than it was in May 2010.

    Growth isn't at ideal levels but then we must note that the UK is the only major country in the EU whose economy is not currently and rapidly contracting,

    A booming Eurozone would undoubtedly have accelerated rather than retarded Osborne's progress but that is why it is a main priority of the government to increase the UK's share of trade outside the EU.

    A typical example of the success of such reorientation is staring us in the face today with the publication of statistics on car registrations in the EU. Massive retrenchment on the continent and strong growth (6%) in the UK. The UK's car manufacturing figures are even stronger due to many firms exporting outside the EU. The Jaguar Land Rover Group, for example, exports around 85% of its output, with the largest shares going outside the EU.

    More clearly needs to be done and will be done as government finances improve. In the meantime, the recent budget increases in R&D investment in science, technology and innovation further position the economy to take advantage of global export opportunities.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    corporeal said:

    Grandiose said:

    The Salisbury Convention is by far the bigger loosening of the Lords' power when compared to the Parliament Acts which have only been used a half-dozen times in the last generation and threatened to any feasible extent in another dozen. The true effect of the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention lie in the democratic deficit's effect on the mindset of the upper chamber which is unlikely to change. In 1908-10, the Lords felt like it had a genuine power to over-rule to commons over various things including Irish Home Rule.

    The Salisbury convention came about because of the first parliament act, it may have been used rarely but it's the big stick in the background that is effective even without use.
    The Salisbury Convention cam about because of a fear of the sort of parliament that had been around before the 1911 Act.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234

    Good grief, this is a blow for certain PB Tories - a scientifically-conducted opinion poll that shows that, by a massive margin, the residents of Orkney and Shetland want to remain part of Scotland.

    Should Orkney/Shetland be independent countries, separate from Scotland?

    Men -

    No 70.6%
    Yes 11.8%

    Women -

    No 87.8%
    Yes 6.1%

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-new-flag-for-scotland/

    Should have asked a follow up question about Scotland or GB.
This discussion has been closed.