politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories would be in a stronger position over the Lords i
Comments
-
I entirely agree. I would prefer a STV Lords, but no Lords at all is more justifiable than unelected members of parties that lost the election blocking stuff.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.0 -
According to the Speccy article mentioned, the Lords have blocked 70% of votes so far.
Personally I'm not in favour of an elected Lords [it confuses the mandate of the HoC] and want an Experts Chamber with few/zero politicians in it.JEO said:
I entirely agree. I would prefer a STV Lords, but no Lords at all is more justifiable than unelected members of parties that lost the election blocking stuff.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.0 -
The Irish government are very concerned about this:Casino_Royale said:
Indeed. It is likely that the UK EU referendum of 2016/2017 is far more likely to affect Eire than their own GE the other way round.antifrank said:Why don't we hear much about Irish politics? Because Irish politics are now a matter of almost complete indifference to us. For practical purposes we have about as much reason to hear about Irish politics as Norwegian politics. Indeed, Norwegian politics at least follow a traditional left-right divide while Irish politics are still overlaid with arcane historical references from nearly 100 years ago. Why bother making the effort when it doesn't really affect us in practice?
Apart from for betting purposes, obviously. Richard Nabavi's summary yesterday was excellent (and many thanks to him for this). I'm very much looking forward to part 2.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6d5ed2-587f-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3qKac4hqI0 -
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.0 -
'The Irish government are very concerned about this'
Tough - frankly in this relationship the tail has wagged the dog for too long already.0 -
He's a great positioning and planning strategist, behind the scenes. But far less so as a frontman.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Osborne does seem to be making a lot of big strategic errors.Casino_Royale said:
I'm getting to close to GOWNBPM.TCPoliticalBetting said:Betting post
Whilst Osborne is over "negotiating" in Europe, his party members are lining up against him.
"Over two thirds of Party members ready to vote to leave the EU"
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/11/our-poll-over-two-third-of-party-members-ready-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu.html
How does Osborne hope to become Leader of the Conservative party when he lines up against the majority's view on the EU?
And I'm certainly laying him.
He made, arguably, the biggest strategic political error of the last parliament with his 2012 budget and may have made a significant one in this parliament with the tax credits row.
I'm really struggling to see how he's the favourite to be next PM, other than the fact he's built an empire in government and Cameron backs him.0 -
Looks like I cashed out too early on the cricket !
England falling apart.0 -
Yes the Govt has handled the tax credit impact analysis, planning and explanation poorly.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Yes the Lords are wrong in their actions. Two wrongs do not make a right.
One reason why tax credits are a bit higher than it should be is because the coalition uprated benefits in line with infloation at a time when wages were stagnant. LDs would claim credit for that as well.0 -
Maybe it did. As it happens I disagree but that's a discussion that can be had.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
I don't have a problem with the Lords acting as a check on both the government and on the Commons: that's one of the reasons why it's there; to make both think again when they perceive a policy or piece of legislation could be better. I don't even object when it does it on a financial matter when that's introduced by Statutory Instrument. If a government chooses that tactic for an easy ride in one sense it has to accept a more difficult one in others: that is what checks and balances are about.
But to tip from that into outright opposition and to define their role as obstructionist is as invalid as when it acted as Mr Balfour's poodle. And of course, all the more so when those obstructing not only lost but in went backwards as well.
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.0 -
Peter from Putney
Late last year you were inadvertently complimentary about me on here, you mentioned me by name which was both disconcerting and gratifying.
Anyway, I've been meaning to thank you for a while.0 -
This is why the EU would not obstruct a trade agreement: they'd be turning one member leaving into two members leaving.Plato_Says said:That's a really interesting point.
Casino_Royale said:
Indeed. It is likely that the UK EU referendum of 2016/2017 is far more likely to affect Eire than their own GE the other way round.antifrank said:Why don't we hear much about Irish politics? Because Irish politics are now a matter of almost complete indifference to us. For practical purposes we have about as much reason to hear about Irish politics as Norwegian politics. Indeed, Norwegian politics at least follow a traditional left-right divide while Irish politics are still overlaid with arcane historical references from nearly 100 years ago. Why bother making the effort when it doesn't really affect us in practice?
Apart from for betting purposes, obviously. Richard Nabavi's summary yesterday was excellent (and many thanks to him for this). I'm very much looking forward to part 2.0 -
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.0 -
If the elected govt of a country does get things wrong so be it. That's democracy and the public should learn from it next time. It has sfa to do with the right of a group of brassed off losers to disrupt the constitution.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.0 -
The govt came up with bad policy and the Lords asked the govt to take another look. That seems like it is doing its job.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Yes the Govt has handled the tax credit impact analysis, planning and explanation poorly.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Yes the Lords are wrong in their actions. Two wrongs do not make a right.
One reason why tax credits are a bit higher than it should be is because the coalition uprated benefits in line with infloation at a time when wages were stagnant. LDs would claim credit for that as well.0 -
I read that first as an STD of Lords........JEO said:
I entirely agree. I would prefer a STV Lords, but no Lords at all is more justifiable than unelected members of parties that lost the election blocking stuff.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
0 -
Nice try from Mr Smithson but it won't wash. How how many votes did the Lords get? Zero. LDs = zero legitimacy in Lords.
0 -
Thanks - i can't read that but can imagine what it says.antifrank said:
The Irish government are very concerned about this:Casino_Royale said:
Indeed. It is likely that the UK EU referendum of 2016/2017 is far more likely to affect Eire than their own GE the other way round.antifrank said:Why don't we hear much about Irish politics? Because Irish politics are now a matter of almost complete indifference to us. For practical purposes we have about as much reason to hear about Irish politics as Norwegian politics. Indeed, Norwegian politics at least follow a traditional left-right divide while Irish politics are still overlaid with arcane historical references from nearly 100 years ago. Why bother making the effort when it doesn't really affect us in practice?
Apart from for betting purposes, obviously. Richard Nabavi's summary yesterday was excellent (and many thanks to him for this). I'm very much looking forward to part 2.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6d5ed2-587f-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3qKac4hqI
Similar factors would affect an independent Scotland too - either the common travel area is maintained, and Scotland/Eire follow rUK migration policy, or stay in the EU and the borders go up.0 -
Giving the Govt a way out of a hole it was digging is not a politically bright idea.Jonathan said:
The govt came up with bad policy and the Lords asked the govt to take another look. That seems like it is doing its job.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Yes the Govt has handled the tax credit impact analysis, planning and explanation poorly.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Yes the Lords are wrong in their actions. Two wrongs do not make a right.
One reason why tax credits are a bit higher than it should be is because the coalition uprated benefits in line with infloation at a time when wages were stagnant. LDs would claim credit for that as well.
0 -
A House of Vested Interests? No thanks. I dislike functional constituencies as they tend to over-represent large organisations - unions, business, religions - or high-profile sectors such as media, while under-representing the average person, who already has a hard enough time getting elected politicians to represent them.Plato_Says said:According to the Speccy article mentioned, the Lords have blocked 70% of votes so far.
Personally I'm not in favour of an elected Lords [it confuses the mandate of the HoC] and want an Experts Chamber with few/zero politicians in it.JEO said:
I entirely agree. I would prefer a STV Lords, but no Lords at all is more justifiable than unelected members of parties that lost the election blocking stuff.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Personally, I have no problem with politicians getting involved in politics.0 -
"In two high-profile recent speeches — in Cambridge and London — Enda Kenny, the Irish Taoiseach (prime minister), and Charlie Flanagan, the foreign minister — amplified Irish concerns about a British exit from the EU for bilateral relations, trade and in particular the fragile post-conflict political settlement in Northern Ireland."Casino_Royale said:
Thanks - i can't read that but can imagine what it says.antifrank said:
The Irish government are very concerned about this:Casino_Royale said:
Indeed. It is likely that the UK EU referendum of 2016/2017 is far more likely to affect Eire than their own GE the other way round.antifrank said:Why don't we hear much about Irish politics? Because Irish politics are now a matter of almost complete indifference to us. For practical purposes we have about as much reason to hear about Irish politics as Norwegian politics. Indeed, Norwegian politics at least follow a traditional left-right divide while Irish politics are still overlaid with arcane historical references from nearly 100 years ago. Why bother making the effort when it doesn't really affect us in practice?
Apart from for betting purposes, obviously. Richard Nabavi's summary yesterday was excellent (and many thanks to him for this). I'm very much looking forward to part 2.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca6d5ed2-587f-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3qKac4hqI
Similar factors would affect an independent Scotland too - either the common travel area is maintained, and Scotland/Eire follow rUK migration policy, or stay in the EU and the borders go up.
"One concern is trade. Some €1bn a week in imports and exports cross the Irish Sea; the UK is the biggest export market for indigenous Irish companies in the food and drink sector, for example.
But Irish officials also emphasise a more political and national concern. They believe the benefits of the UK’s EU membership for Northern Ireland, not just economically but in the wider sense of the peace process there, is only starting to be appreciated and understood in London and Belfast. “We think we are making a difference on that front,” says the Irish official."
0 -
It's a lot more popularity than those who voted for the House of Lords.Jonathan said:
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.0 -
Indeed, but it seems some Tories think that it gives them the right to do whatever they want, unchecked or questioned.JEO said:
It's a lot more popularity than those who voted for the House of Lords.Jonathan said:
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.0 -
“We think we are making a difference on that front,” says the Irish official."
Perhaps if the Irish government wanted Britain to stay in Europe, they might think about supporting the British view point in Europe more.
Instead there's an implied threat of NI turning nasty again.0 -
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them0 -
The govt came up with bad policy and the Lords asked the govt to take another look. That seems like it is doing its job.
If this had not been on a financial matter, I would agree with you. But it is on a financial matter.
And don;t give me all that acting in the interests of the poorly paid boll8cks. Not from the party that gave us the 10p tax.0 -
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them0 -
Simply stating the facts. The Conservatives won more votes in 2015 than the did in 2010, never mind the elections they lost, and won more votes than Labour did in 2005 or 2001 as well.Jonathan said:
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.
Was it a massively popular landslide? Clearly not. But to pretend it was not representative of quite a significant level of support by recent standards is equally delusional..0 -
Why would it be a House of Vested Interests, particularly compared to the hideous vested interests of a limited number of political parties, which is your preferred solution?david_herdson said:
A House of Vested Interests? No thanks. I dislike functional constituencies as they tend to over-represent large organisations - unions, business, religions - or high-profile sectors such as media, while under-representing the average person, who already has a hard enough time getting elected politicians to represent them.Plato_Says said:According to the Speccy article mentioned, the Lords have blocked 70% of votes so far.
Personally I'm not in favour of an elected Lords [it confuses the mandate of the HoC] and want an Experts Chamber with few/zero politicians in it.JEO said:
I entirely agree. I would prefer a STV Lords, but no Lords at all is more justifiable than unelected members of parties that lost the election blocking stuff.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
Personally, I have no problem with politicians getting involved in politics.
The current system - and your proposed ones - over-represents political parties, whilst simultaneously stopping it from doing its job properly.0 -
We don't like the democratic will of the people so lets have another vote so they can be shown the error of their ways.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
You sound like the EU.0 -
Their downfall has been the poor delivery of their message.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
A two child family on WTC/CTC get an average of close to £1000 a month in tax credits and child benefit.
0 -
O/T:
A thought to make us all feel a bit old: in about 9 weeks' time people born in the year 2000 will be able to consume wine and beer with meals in restaurants and cafes (provided they're accompanied by someone aged 18 or over).0 -
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.0 -
'Instead there's an implied threat of NI turning nasty again.'
Yep, a familiar playbook ('the each way bet on force') being wheeled out for a slightly different purpose.
I wonder what next week's ridiculous scare story will be?0 -
Fixed it for youAndyJS said:O/T:
A thought to make us all feel a bit old: in about 9 weeks' time people born in the year 2000 will be able to consume wine and beer with meals in restaurants and cafes LEGALLY (provided they're accompanied by someone aged 18 or over).
0 -
About the same percentage as Blair received in 2001 and more than he did in 2005.Jonathan said:
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.
And 1997? In that election Blair failed to match Major's percentage of the electorate in 1992.0 -
They are the "moderate" US funded and armed rebels, Jaish al Islam.JEO said:0 -
Even more to the point, was he complaining this much back at Blair's second landslide in 2001 - won with a lower proportion of the electorate than Cameron's majority this year?RobD said:
Were you complaining this much back in '05?PClipp said:
Indeed, Mr Dodd. Tory Government and House of Lords - both with power legally derived, but neither with moral legitimacy.richardDodd said:PClipp..but they were not elected..so have no legitimacy in that respect..
0 -
I think you're missing point.david_herdson said:
Simply stating the facts. The Conservatives won more votes in 2015 than the did in 2010, never mind the elections they lost, and won more votes than Labour did in 2005 or 2001 as well.Jonathan said:
24% of those eligible to vote turned out for the Tories. You are seriously deluding yourself if that is success or popularity.david_herdson said:
Another point I didn't mention earlier. Mike talks about vote share, which is fine. We should also mention absolute support. Labour's 2005 total was extremely poor: the lowest winning vote since (IIRC), the 1920s. By contrast, the Con 2015 vote was the highest for any party this century.
Was it a massively popular landslide? Clearly not. But to pretend it was not representative of quite a significant level of support by recent standards is equally delusional..
You make take comfort from the statistic that Cameron received 600k more votes than Blair in 2001 albeit with a larger electorate (46M vs 44M)
But you will govern better if you build into your programme, that while 11M voted Tory, 35M voted against you or stayed at home.
Labour would certainly have governed better and proven more succesful electorially if they had born that in mind, rather than deluding themselves that they were popular post 2001/5.0 -
Morning all
Fairly predictable that a piece questioning Conservative legitimacy has been the equivalent of poking the beehive with a stick. The furious buzzing of the Conservative drones was, I suppose, also predictable.
So, 37% of the vote = 100% of the power if that converts to a majority in the Commons and the majority who didn't vote Conservative just have to live with that. No dissent, no argument, no opposition and anyone who does argue gets either stamped on, threatened with abolition or told that because they aren't "elected", they aren't entitled to have a say as long as it is to agree with the Government.
The problem is, democracy doesn't begin and end with the voting process. Even after the votes are cast, the process goes on and in most bicameral systems, there is an element of scrutiny, check-and-balance or whatever and rightly so and presumably those who complain the LDs have no right to a say because they have 8 MPs and 100+ peers presumably forget the balance of numbers on the Conservative side after 1997.
The current system isn't perfect and those of us who have consistently argued for some form of reform recognise the need for balance between the function of Government and the adequate scrutiny of legislation. I'd rather no law than bad law but I'd much rather good law created through a process whereby the Government is open enough to realise it needs to draft better legislation while the Lords recognises the legitimacy of the Government through the democratic process.
It mostly works most of the time.
0 -
Apparently a lot of people working in restaurants and cafes aren't aware of this law, believing that the age limit for consuming alcohol in public is 18 in all circumstances.Charles said:
Fixed it for youAndyJS said:O/T:
A thought to make us all feel a bit old: in about 9 weeks' time people born in the year 2000 will be able to consume wine and beer with meals in restaurants and cafes LEGALLY (provided they're accompanied by someone aged 18 or over).0 -
''The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that. ''
Meanwhile, unelected failures need to intervene to save the voters from the folly of not voting labour and liberal democrat.
Why can't more people see this??0 -
No.Andy_Cooke said:
Even more to the point, was he complaining this much back at Blair's second landslide in 2001 - won with a lower proportion of the electorate than Cameron's majority this year?RobD said:
Were you complaining this much back in '05?PClipp said:
Indeed, Mr Dodd. Tory Government and House of Lords - both with power legally derived, but neither with moral legitimacy.richardDodd said:PClipp..but they were not elected..so have no legitimacy in that respect..
The system is only broken when it gives a result that posters such as Jonathan and Clipp dislike.
If Labour had won by the same rules and numbers in 2015 they wouldn't be whining about 'legitimacy'.0 -
Reading the views of Labour supporters on constitutional checks and balances today is eerily similar to reading the views of Conservative supporters on constitutional checks and balances ten years ago.
"The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!"0 -
I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.0 -
Cannot have this labour whining
Everyone knows the rules, the Tories played by the rules and won, get over it!0 -
I am sure he would but he is rather busy at finding out why his company is declining in this growth period.felix said:Excellent manufacturing boost for the UK today with the PMI jumping from an expected 51.3 to over 55. I'm sure @Surbiton would have been posting this every 5 minutes had he been around
0 -
''I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route''
Excellent post. And a powerful reason why the EU will be desperate not to let Britain leave.0 -
Betfair punters are currently making UKIP a 4/1 shot in Oldham West & Royton. Not sure how reliable a guide it is with £8,500 matched so far.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.121439788
PS: the lay box is showing 10/1.0 -
I suspect it's a policy of the large chains not to serve to anyone under 18.AndyJS said:
Apparently a lot of people working in restaurants and cafes aren't aware of this law, believing that the age limit for consuming alcohol in public is 18 in all circumstances.Charles said:
Fixed it for youAndyJS said:O/T:
A thought to make us all feel a bit old: in about 9 weeks' time people born in the year 2000 will be able to consume wine and beer with meals in restaurants and cafes LEGALLY (provided they're accompanied by someone aged 18 or over).0 -
"Pro-Europe CBI poll was rigged, claims ‘no’ lobby "
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/article4602066.ece
"The CBI is understood to have selected the sample for YouGov from its membership list. In total, 451 of the members selected responded."
“These facts are capable of giving rise to the inference that the CBI was allowed to select which of its members were surveyed in order to further the CBI leadership’s longstanding pro-EU stance,” the complaint concludes.0 -
In our group, our manufacturing based company will have a great year (Sales in $ and GBP), whereas the project management selling export stuff will have a shocker due to the Euro-GBP rate fluctuations.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I am sure he would but he is rather busy at finding out why his company is declining in this growth period.felix said:Excellent manufacturing boost for the UK today with the PMI jumping from an expected 51.3 to over 55. I'm sure @Surbiton would have been posting this every 5 minutes had he been around
0 -
On the other hand, the House of Lords is as legitimate democratically now as it has been since 1911. The democratically elected Governments have had over a century to refine or abolish the Lords; its continued existence is only down to the continued choice of the elected Government(s).
It doing its role as a second chamber, revising, delaying, and occasionally rejecting legislation is its function. If the Commons did not wish it to do so, they've had five generations to make it different. It is as democratically legitimate as an arm of the state as the unelected DVLA, the unelected HMRC, the unelected Job Centres, the unelected hospitals and schools ... it's got a defined role, given it by the Government, which it carries out. After all, the vast majority of those doing the scrutiny were appointed by whomever was the elected Prime Minister at the time.0 -
Men constituted 76% of suicides last year:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/men-account-for-76-of-suicides-in-2014-says-charity
Something for Labour MPs to giggle about, at least.0 -
Golly.TCPoliticalBetting said:
"Pro-Europe CBI poll was rigged, claims ‘no’ lobby "
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/article4602066.ece
"The CBI is understood to have selected the sample for YouGov from its membership list. In total, 451 of the members selected responded."
“These facts are capable of giving rise to the inference that the CBI was allowed to select which of its members were surveyed in order to further the CBI leadership’s longstanding pro-EU stance,” the complaint concludes.0 -
Mr. Betting, on the face of it, that does appear legitimate grounds to question the poll's validity.0
-
To add further, the co that is having one of it's greatest years (+30% sales from last year)... our main product that we use is essentially steel !0
-
The trick is to learn from past mistakes. Labour didn't learn from the mistakes of the long Thatcher years, quickly developed the same hubris and lost as a result. The Tories seem to be wilfully repeating the cycle.antifrank said:Reading the views of Labour supporters on constitutional checks and balances today is eerily similar to reading the views of Conservative supporters on constitutional checks and balances ten years ago.
"The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!"
0 -
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
0 -
The Tories seem to be wilfully repeating the cycle.
Mr Jonathan are you secretly a tory constituency chairman in a marginal? This is far from the first time you have let slip your concern for our electoral well being0 -
That's all true.Andy_Cooke said:On the other hand, the House of Lords is as legitimate democratically now as it has been since 1911. The democratically elected Governments have had over a century to refine or abolish the Lords; its continued existence is only down to the continued choice of the elected Government(s).
It doing its role as a second chamber, revising, delaying, and occasionally rejecting legislation is its function. If the Commons did not wish it to do so, they've had five generations to make it different. It is as democratically legitimate as an arm of the state as the unelected DVLA, the unelected HMRC, the unelected Job Centres, the unelected hospitals and schools ... it's got a defined role, given it by the Government, which it carries out. After all, the vast majority of those doing the scrutiny were appointed by whomever was the elected Prime Minister at the time.
The difference is that, in the past, the Lord was broadly apolitical and conscious of its status relative to the Commons.
Although the use of a Statutory Instrument for a finance matter might have given the Lords the *ability* to amend/delay/reject, in the past they would have had the self-awareness not to interfere with the Commons untramelled rights in matter of Supply0 -
F1: early Brazil thoughts, probably bad for Williams due to the high chance of rain and twisty nature of most of the track. There's a 'straight' [not actually straight but prolonged high speed] so that might compromise Red Bull. Could be nice for Force India. Hulkenberg's been very solid there in the past, getting pole for Williams and almost winning for Force India (he had minor contact, in the wet, with Hamilton that cost him the win).
An early bet I may check is Hulkenberg to be top 6. If it's wet, that'd only increase my confidence in such a bet (his pole and near-win were in wet conditions).0 -
I simply want this government to govern well. Since I am stuck with it for five years, it had better do a decent job. Hopefully what replaces it will be better.taffys said:The Tories seem to be wilfully repeating the cycle.
Mr Jonathan are you secretly a tory constituency chairman in a marginal? This is far from the first time you have let slip your concern for our electoral well being
0 -
Mr. Jonathan, on that note, who would you (assuming the Conservatives win in 2020) want to succeed Cameron as leader?0
-
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.0 -
Labour has yet to learn that choosing an unelectable leader means you will not be elected. The Tories currently have no serious opposition. Like Labour they may well struggle when one turns up as they will have forgotten how to react to one. However, that is a long, long way off - Labour members seem to be even less pragmatic than Tory ones.Jonathan said:
The trick is to learn from past mistakes. Labour didn't learn from the mistakes of the long Thatcher years, quickly developed the same hubris and lost as a result. The Tories seem to be wilfully repeating the cycle.antifrank said:Reading the views of Labour supporters on constitutional checks and balances today is eerily similar to reading the views of Conservative supporters on constitutional checks and balances ten years ago.
"The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!"
0 -
Strong words from Tristram Hunt:
"Labour is turning into a sect, says Tristram Hunt
Former shadow minister tells Cambridge University students party is ‘in the shit’ and they are ‘the top 1%’ who must take charge"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/02/labour-is-in-the-shit-tristram-hunt0 -
That was down to policy rather than hubris. And a crap leader.Jonathan said:antifrank said:Reading the views of Labour supporters on constitutional checks and balances today is eerily similar to reading the views of Conservative supporters on constitutional checks and balances ten years ago.
"The Devil was sick, and a saint he would be; the Devil was well, and the devil a saint was he!"
Labour didn't learn from the mistakes of the long Thatcher years, quickly developed the same hubris and lost as a result.
Still, it's good to see that after the many years of Labour screwing up, you've finally found your tongue.
0 -
Supply is solely a matter for the elected House.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
I'm personally in favour of reforming the Lords, but until that happens they need to accept that there are limits to their freedom to act.
Jonathan's arrogance - that the electorate's right to sit in judgement on the government "is not a sufficient check" - is appalling.0 -
Because any Chamber comprised of 'experts' must inevitably come from functional constituencies and, for example, a businessman appointed will be seen by his business colleagues as having a role not only as a voice of business but specifically to protect the interests of business. Likewise trade unionists, likewise university professors, or archbishops, or grand dames of the stage, or whoever.JosiasJessop said:
Why would it be a House of Vested Interests, particularly compared to the hideous vested interests of a limited number of political parties, which is your preferred solution?david_herdson said:
A House of Vested Interests? No thanks. I dislike functional constituencies as they tend to over-represent large organisations - unions, business, religions - or high-profile sectors such as media, while under-representing the average person, who already has a hard enough time getting elected politicians to represent them.Plato_Says said:According to the Speccy article mentioned, the Lords have blocked 70% of votes so far.
Personally I'm not in favour of an elected Lords [it confuses the mandate of the HoC] and want an Experts Chamber with few/zero politicians in it.
Personally, I have no problem with politicians getting involved in politics.
The current system - and your proposed ones - over-represents political parties, whilst simultaneously stopping it from doing its job properly.
And of course none of these can have been elected, because as soon as you have elections you inevitably have partisan politics entering the fray. In fact, even when you don't, you'll get it by proxy and that is another reason why a House of Experts is a bad idea: it won't do away with party politics but it will do away with the public's involvement with it: the worst of all worlds.
And that's where I disagree most profoundly with you. Political parties are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. It's a misreading of their nature and of their role to say that they're overrepresented. You might as well say that MPs are overrepresented. Parties are a transmission mechanism through which the public can make their views known. Imperfect, to be sure, but the best available. Any party which becomes too distant from its natural support, or which simply loses its way will firstly find its support fall and if that continues, will find itself replaced by rivals. By contrast, how do you get rid of an 'expert'? Still more difficult, how do you get rid of a sector which might once have had a purpose but has become anachronistic? It's daft enough that bishops are still there, based on their relevance in the Middle Ages but at least the Commons managed to do away with university seats and the like. It would be a wholly retrograde step to start reintroducing them.0 -
Inches of snow? Luxury...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, luxury.
I once walked home from school with inches of snow, ice everywhere, no buses running (waited for one that never showed up).
I used to dream of walking through dense fog.
I once walked to school through four foot snow drifts. I was only three foot high....0 -
Mr. Mark, inches of snow covering my t-shirt. I had to carve a tunnel using my breath to melt the snow.0
-
How would we join EFTA without at the same time joining the EEA and remaining part of the single market and the free movement of labour. All good stuff, but where's the difference? How does keeping out of Schengen fit in to all this?stodge said:I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.0 -
Clearly they didn't though, did they? We have the voting system that we have, but it is self evident that a party elected by 36.9% of those who voted is not close to representing "The People". The SNP makes similar claims about speaking for Scotland, when clearly it does not.flightpath01 said:
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
0 -
-
''Labour has yet to learn that choosing an unelectable leader means you will not be elected. ''
Labour's biggest problem is the ludicrous hyperbole of its critique.
Britain is some kind of Victorian nightmare country out of Hard Times. The government took power in a coup.
Its just absurd, and fewer are listening to it.0 -
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.isam said:0 -
EFTA membership does not require membership of the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but not of the EEA.flightpath01 said:
How would we join EFTA without at the same time joining the EEA and remaining part of the single market and the free movement of labour. All good stuff, but where's the difference? How does keeping out of Schengen fit in to all this?stodge said:I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
EFTA negotiates its own free trade deals with other countries. Indeed it had a FTA with Canada for many years before the EU finally got one.
Schengen is your normal red herring. Neither membership of EFTA nor the EEA requires membership of Schengen.0 -
The benefits of being born a dragon. You lucky bugger....Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, inches of snow covering my t-shirt. I had to carve a tunnel using my breath to melt the snow.
0 -
Osborne made a choice and gave the Lords the chance to do what they did. Privately, he is no doubt very grateful. It seems very arrogant to me to state that 36.9% of the vote represents the voice of "The people".Charles said:
Supply is solely a matter for the elected House.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
I'm personally in favour of reforming the Lords, but until that happens they need to accept that there are limits to their freedom to act.
Jonathan's arrogance - that the electorate's right to sit in judgement on the government "is not a sufficient check" - is appalling.
0 -
A suggestion worthy of a great deal of consideration. I am still inclined towards EEA membership but your ideas are certainly full of merit.stodge said:I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.0 -
-
In 650 separate constituencies "the People" selected an individual to represent their interests.SouthamObserver said:
Clearly they didn't though, did they? We have the voting system that we have, but it is self evident that a party elected by 36.9% of those who voted is not close to representing "The People". The SNP makes similar claims about speaking for Scotland, when clearly it does not.flightpath01 said:
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
A majority of those representatives supported the proposed changes.
It really is that simple.0 -
See my post at 12:20SouthamObserver said:
Osborne made a choice and gave the Lords the chance to do what they did. Privately, he is no doubt very grateful. It seems very arrogant to me to state that 36.9% of the vote represents the voice of "The people".Charles said:
Supply is solely a matter for the elected House.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
I'm personally in favour of reforming the Lords, but until that happens they need to accept that there are limits to their freedom to act.
Jonathan's arrogance - that the electorate's right to sit in judgement on the government "is not a sufficient check" - is appalling.0 -
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.JEO said:
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.isam said:
0 -
Plato_Says said:
Golly.
Pro-Europe CBI poll was rigged, claims ‘no’ lobby "
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/article4602066.ece
"The CBI is understood to have selected the sample for YouGov from its membership list. In total, 451 of the members selected responded."
“These facts are capable of giving rise to the inference that the CBI was allowed to select which of its members were surveyed in order to further the CBI leadership’s longstanding pro-EU stance,” the complaint concludes.
Sounds like a whinge from an interested party. The CBI (unlike the FSB) is all about big business, so a survey of CBI members would tend to be weighted to them. A more reasonable criticism would be that a survey of big businesses should not be represented as a survey of all businesses.
On David Herdson's interesting comment on the Lords, I agree that appointment (as opposed to election) is not compatible with having the power to block or delay legislation. But I think it would be compatible with a purely advisory upper house, whose job would be to give a brisk first scan to all new legislation and make comments which the Commons could take account of - very like a Select Committee, but with experts rather than generalists.
If we had a Labour government abolishing Trident, for instance, I wouldn't mind an upper house raising both general worries (perhaps examples of cases where Trident was perceived to have made a difference) and practical concerns (disposal of the missiles etc.), and if that showed that we'd not thought something through, fair enough. But it would be wrong if they could block it or delay it for years without any electoral mandate.
Note that there is no reason why the Appointments Commission would only pick the great and the good. They should try to include some single parents, former prisoners, recent refugees, manual workers, people living on the state pension, students, small farmers, fishermen, etc. The idea would be that whatever the subject, there would be someone there who really knew about it from recent personal experience.0 -
off-topic, just meandering through CiF. I think this line, from a btl comment on an article by Tristram Hunt, essentially illustrates how big a hole Lab is in right now:
"The fact that a chap called Tristram ever made it into the Labour Party, let alone rose through its ranks would tell you all you need to know about why the rank and file got fed up with 'New Labour'."0 -
And parachuted into Stoke of all places.TOPPING said:
off-topic, just meandering through CiF. I think this line, from a btl comment on an article by Tristram Hunt, essentially illustrates how big a hole Lab is in right now:
"The fact that a chap called Tristram ever made it into the Labour Party, let alone rose through its ranks would tell you all you need to know about why the rank and file got fed up with 'New Labour'."0 -
Does Posho Hunt face the prospect of deselection?Plato_Says said:And parachuted into Stoke of all places.
TOPPING said:off-topic, just meandering through CiF. I think this line, from a btl comment on an article by Tristram Hunt, essentially illustrates how big a hole Lab is in right now:
"The fact that a chap called Tristram ever made it into the Labour Party, let alone rose through its ranks would tell you all you need to know about why the rank and file got fed up with 'New Labour'."0 -
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.JEO said:
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.isam said:0 -
So if you already know what big business thinks (oh and by the way Nick you don't) why bother polling at all? And why bother picking out selected companies that you know are pro EU? The very fact that they had to pick out the companies they knew would give the right answer shows they didn't necessarily trust the views of the majority.NickPalmer said:
Sounds like a whinge from an interested party. The CBI (unlike the FSB) is all about big business, so a survey of CBI members would tend to be weighted to them. A more reasonable criticism would be that a survey of big businesses should not be represented as a survey of all businesses.
We could take this further and not bother polling anyone. Just assume that you know what the electorate think and act accordingly. Once again that sounds very EU.0 -
That is not the same as "the people". Most of the people did not vote Tory. It really is that simple.Charles said:
In 650 separate constituencies "the People" selected an individual to represent their interests.SouthamObserver said:
Clearly they didn't though, did they? We have the voting system that we have, but it is self evident that a party elected by 36.9% of those who voted is not close to representing "The People". The SNP makes similar claims about speaking for Scotland, when clearly it does not.flightpath01 said:
No, but it reflects 650 individual contests in constituencies whose out of date boundaries were broadly agreed to favour labour to an unfair degree.SouthamObserver said:
That sounds very SNP, Chas. "The people" is not 36.9% of those who cast a vote.Charles said:
Ah.Jonathan said:
That is not a sufficient check, especially with very long five year fixed terms. There should be stronger constitutional constraints and meaningful mid term elections.Charles said:
Governments make mistakes.Jonathan said:
Or maybe the government got it wrong on Tax Credits.david_herdson said:On topic, for Lib Dems peers of all people to claim some kind of mandate to block the government is the height of brass neck. Peers always need to tread carefully given their unelected nature and Lib Dem peers, representing as they are a party on the verge of extinction, should be doubly careful. Clearly, their innate moral superiority over lesser creatures could be considered to override such petty concerns as a democratic mandate (a consideration which the august peers themselves no doubt regard as self evident and unassailable).
As it is, if a coalition of the losers in the Lords wants to act as the opposition that Corbyn can't be, to throw constitutional convention in the bin and to take their powers well beyond their natural role as a check, then let us be rid it. I have no problem with an upper chamber elected by PR, though the Commons should still have the final say. But such an upper chamber would produce a Con-UKIP deal; perhaps not what the likes of Shirley Williams would approve of.
And the electorate has the right to wreck vengeance on them
The people don't know what's good for them. The fact that they elected the wrong party less than 6 months ago merely proves that.
A majority of those representatives supported the proposed changes.
It really is that simple.
0 -
Schengen is not a red herring ... It is a real and present danger to our country and we are only out of it because we can veto ourselves out of it from within the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
EFTA membership does not require membership of the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but not of the EEA.flightpath01 said:
How would we join EFTA without at the same time joining the EEA and remaining part of the single market and the free movement of labour. All good stuff, but where's the difference? How does keeping out of Schengen fit in to all this?stodge said:I made some comments yesterday about a post-EU Britain. Refining my thinking overnight, I'm wondering if, in his recent travels in the North, the Prime Minister is wondering what EFTA might look like if Britain became a member. Currently, EFTA has, I believe, four members but if Britain joined (or re-joined), EFTA would be transformed.
I wonder if a rejuvenated EFTA might act as a free market counterweight to the EU and might indeed become an attractive alternative for those EU states not willing to go down the integrationist route. With Britain in the lead, the new EFTA could fundamentally re-negotiate its status vis-à-vis the EU, NAFTA and other trading blocs but operating as a loose association of nations operating as a free market free trade area but that's all.
EFTA negotiates its own free trade deals with other countries. Indeed it had a FTA with Canada for many years before the EU finally got one.
Schengen is your normal red herring. Neither membership of EFTA nor the EEA requires membership of Schengen.
EFTA is a pretty meaningless organisation and the notion of us joining it and making it something wonderful is laughable.0 -
The problem with a "House of Experts" is that the experts you pick decide the ideological composition. If you have a third from business, a third from farming and a third from trade unions, you will get a heavy right wing majority. If you have a third from business, a third from academia and a third from trade unions, you get a heavy left wing majority. So effectively you are taking the power to choose the ideological slant of the chamber away from the public and giving it to the Prime Ministers.0
-
NickPalmer,
That poll was very must reported in the mainstream press as being the views 'of business', and it has been cited a number of times when BBC journalists say that business is 'pro-EU'.0 -
Is this a Yorkshire debate or can anyone join in?MarqueeMark said:
Inches of snow? Luxury...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Mark, luxury.
I once walked home from school with inches of snow, ice everywhere, no buses running (waited for one that never showed up).
I used to dream of walking through dense fog.
I once walked to school through four foot snow drifts. I was only three foot high....0 -
No, a rebuttal means making sure the information is got out to as wide a public as possible so they know where his loyalties really lie.antifrank said:
I'm not sure that a rebuttal that involves "revealing" facts listed on his Wikipedia site with overtones of a Bilderberg conspiracy theory is particularly effective, a few days later or on the spot.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.JEO said:
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.isam said:
The same should be done for people like Professor Iain Begg who keeps being rolled out by the media as some sort of impartial academic expert without ever mentioning the fact that he was a long time Council Member of the Federal Trust that campaigns for UK membership of a Federal EU.0 -
I don't know about others, but it's getting to the point where I'm wondering whether I can trust anything the Remain campaign says. What they need to do is what the Leave side did: sidelined Leave.EU and established VoteLeave as a credible, trustworthy and moderate alternative. BSE's reputation has just taken one hit after another. They seem like a joke organisation right now. At a minimum, new leadership is required.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Is it a mistake? The damage is done with the headlines within a Project Fear strategy. It would need a full onslaught by a very able and well briefed communicator to take each headline on the moment it appears. The Leave campaign needs a rebuttal unit. Doing it a few days later is often too late.JEO said:
The Remain campaign seems to be making one mistake after another.isam said:0
