|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 21, 2014 20:48:10 GMT
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6,156 
|
Post by maxque on Oct 22, 2014 2:01:20 GMT
Among notable candidates, there is the grandson of Harold Macmillan and the great-grandson of HH Asquith.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 22, 2014 15:34:58 GMT
Among notable candidates, there is the grandson of Harold Macmillan and the great-grandson of HH Asquith. Aren't they all descended from someone notable? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 22, 2014 15:52:14 GMT
Thanks Devonian. Oh dear! What a motley crew? There are about three worth interviewing before the vote: The rest are either dotty or in need of medication. They are a very poor advertisement for the Hereditary Segment and deeply disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 22, 2014 16:11:29 GMT
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith was voted in with an absolute majority on the first count. This was some question over whether the 'Carter convention' that Peers elected by the whole house should be replaced by other peers of the same party. Evidently the convention held. The results were Oxford and Asquith, E. (Liberal Democrat) 155 Napier and Ettrick, L. (Crossbench) 35 Stockton, E. (Conservative) 31 Kennet, L. (Liberal Democrat) 29 Margadale, L. (Conservative) 13 Massereene and Ferrard, V. (L. Oriel) (Crossbench) 6 Somerleyton, L. (Crossbench) 6 Harlech, L. (Conservative) 4 Calverley, L. (Crossbench) 1 Layton, L. (Conservative) 1 Middleton, L. (Conservative) 1 Sudeley, L. (Conservative) 1 Biddulph, L. (Conservative) 0 Cadman, L. (Conservative) 0 Rowallan, L. (Conservative) 0 Total Votes 283 Votes needed to be elected 142 www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-finance-office/2013-14/Hereditary-Peers-by-election-result-Methuen.pdf |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 17,712
|
Post by neilm on Oct 22, 2014 16:43:17 GMT
Isn't Sudeley a bit dotty? Hangs out with some dubious South African/Rhodesian types?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 22, 2014 17:14:27 GMT
From a UKIP point of view the interesting thing is the 6 votes that Viscount Massereene and Ferrard got. In the last whole house by election he ran with the following statement
That time he got 3 votes which is the same number as the number of UKIP peers, so they voted for him and no one else
On this occasion he ran with this statement
and got 6 votes, which suggests that there may be at least three more peers sympathetic to UKIP
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6,156
|
Post by maxque on Oct 22, 2014 23:37:01 GMT
Among notable candidates, there is the grandson of Harold Macmillan and the great-grandson of HH Asquith. Aren't they all descended from someone notable? Yes, but some are more notable than other. Lord Kennel is grandson of Hilton Young, some Cabinet member of the 30's, which isn't probably notable anymore. Lord Margadale is the greatson of a Chairman of the 1922 committee. Much less known than Asquith or Macmillan. Lord Napier and Ettrick is realted to John Napier, the discoverer of logarithms. |
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Oct 22, 2014 23:59:41 GMT
The Barony of Margadale is notable for being the last non-Royal hereditary peerage created before the practice died out, except for Mrs Thatcher's brief revival in the mid-80s. Two of the present Lord Margadale's uncles were Conservative MPs: Charles Morrison (Devizes 1964-92) and Peter Morrison (City of Chester 1974-92), the latter being Mrs Thatcher's PPS who mishandled her re-election campaign in 1990 and has also been the subject of some recent press coverage which is not to his credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 27, 2014 17:03:32 GMT
I sometimes feel the Conservatives don't make enough of the massive coincidence that just when the world economy had its biggest postwar crisis, the British economy suffered as well. The success of the Labour government in 2008 was to ensure that there was an economy for the present government to inherit. The Conservative opposition was happy to endorse its spending plans up to 2008 and had the Conservatives had their way the banks would have been even less regulated than they in fact were. You mean caused by government's that allowed expanse of credit without banks having reserves. The government's that avoided this, Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the Anglo speaking nations, China (who got rich of the bill Clinton ' s most stupid action.) Weathered the storm yet you lefties seem to nightly annoyed that the Conservatives point out your lefty economics left this country with a structural deficit that surpassed the economic basket cases of southern Europe. If it makes you sleep better at night feel free to argue black is white, you carry on and enjoy opposition. In what way was the last Labour government into "lefty" economics? Their economic policy was a variety of neoliberalism, which is very clearly a right-wing economic framework. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 17:59:19 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't.
Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. As I have always said, in 2008 as in 1979, Labour showed us what happens when the country trusts them with the economy.
I wouldn't trust them with a wet match.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 6,156
|
Post by maxque on Oct 27, 2014 21:17:47 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't. Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. As I have always said, in 2008 as in 1979, Labour showed us what happens when the country trusts them with the economy. I wouldn't trust them with a wet match. Australia was managed by Labor during the crisis (and was endorsed by The Economist last election). |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 27, 2014 21:49:57 GMT
In what way was the last Labour government into "lefty" economics? Their economic policy was a variety of neoliberalism, which is very clearly a right-wing economic framework. They spent all the money whilst saving none! No reduction of debt levels during the good years and no allowing banks to borrow more then they had in savings, which I have argued before on this site, is not a right wing position. There have been plenty of right-wing governments which spent all the money and saved none, and let debt go up in the good years (George W Bush's administration being the first that comes to mind). Which leaves one rule about banking as the entire substance of your claim that they were left-wing in their economics. |
|
|
|
Post by David Boothroyd on Oct 28, 2014 9:26:54 GMT
Yesterday in Parliament:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 9:51:33 GMT
There have been plenty of right-wing governments which spent all the money and saved none, and let debt go up in the good years (George W Bush's administration being the first that comes to mind). Which leaves one rule about banking as the entire substance of your claim that they were left-wing in their economics. George W bush may have stood on a conservative manifesto but followed a pork barrel budget and heavily spent on a military budget without actually needing half of the stuff. Not many Conservatives would argue that his budgets were particularly right wing as Richard, Neil M and boogie have so ably argued before me. Regan again spoilt his conservative principles by only going into surplus once. At least he had the excuse of ending the cold war. I'll be contraversial and annoy Richard by saying The last real conservative president in terms of managing the state involvement was eisenhower and even he overspent but at least he recognised that government's should not be in the business of spending all its money So your argument is: 1. Right wing governments are good* at managing the economy. 2. A government which is bad* at managing the economy is not a right wing government - even if elected under a right wing label. Kind of a circular argument really? *by your criteria |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 26,761
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 28, 2014 11:23:55 GMT
Shades of the "not real communism" line that is a favourite on a certain section of the far left  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 13:51:43 GMT
But. He. Was. Elected. As. A. Right. Wing. President.
|
|
|
|
Post by boogieeck on Oct 28, 2014 17:19:26 GMT
I think that is a fair point Stuart. I consistently point out that we should judge parties and movements by their track record and by their own words not by the intentions and motives ascribed to them by either their friends or their enemies. **
The Republicans in the USA are as culpable as anyone of pork barrel politics and irresponsible spending.
(** as with supervised homes, Rotherham etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by strinity on Oct 28, 2014 22:29:15 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't. Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. Yes, vast natural resources in both cases, meaning the financial sector contributed a relatively far smaller share of national income. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 17,712
|
Post by neilm on Oct 29, 2014 2:46:35 GMT
Formerly a member of ILEA. Father of Emily. |
|
