Defection of MP Sir George Gardiner
Henry Potts
[Newsgroups altered.]
In article <3322B5...@sable.ox.ac.uk>, jdc <kebl...@sable.ox.ac.uk>
writes
>Phil Hunt wrote:
>> In article <97030818...@election.demon.co.uk>
>> da...@election.demon.co.uk "David Boothroyd" writes:
>> >
>> > Sir George Gardiner has joined the Referendum Party. He will sit as
>> > a Referendum Party MP.
>>
>> Will he vote against the Tories in a confidence motion?
>
>No, apparently. :(
But surely he would if it was triggered by a vote on Europe?
So, Gardiner says he'll continue to sit on the Government benches, but
surely the Tory whips will just send him to the other side? To fail to
do so would be a tacit admission to a Conservative/Referendum Party
coalition after all. Who decides who sits on either side of the House
anyway?
--
Henry
Nicholas Davis
Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So, Gardiner says he'll continue to sit on the Government benches, but
>surely the Tory whips will just send him to the other side? To fail to
>do so would be a tacit admission to a Conservative/Referendum Party
>coalition after all. Who decides who sits on either side of the House
>anyway?
Isn't it up to him where he sits. The supporters of the Monarch's
ministers traditionally sit behind the ministers. I don't think the
whips have anything to do with it. Perhaps he'll become a cros
bencher (don't they have sort of boxes to it in? - it's a while since
I've visited the Palace of Westminster).
Nick Davis ni...@walden.u-net.com
http://www.u-net.com/~walden
NEWS JUST IN: Blair in new drive to eliminate vampires.
He calls the plan 'the stake holder society'
J Isaby
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Nicholas Davis wrote:
> Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >So, Gardiner says he'll continue to sit on the Government benches, but
> >surely the Tory whips will just send him to the other side? To fail to
> >do so would be a tacit admission to a Conservative/Referendum Party
> >coalition after all. Who decides who sits on either side of the House
> >anyway?
>
> Isn't it up to him where he sits. The supporters of the Monarch's
> ministers traditionally sit behind the ministers. I don't think the
> whips have anything to do with it. Perhaps he'll become a cross
> bencher (don't they have sort of boxes to it in? - it's a while since
> I've visited the Palace of Westminster).
There are a couple of benches on each side that are at the opposite end to
the Speaker, facing her, but MPs of the respective side sit there. I think
that I've seen Paisley sitting on the 'cross bench' on the Government
side. After all, there is no such thing as a cross bencher in the House
of Commons as such, although from time to time we've had the likes of
Peter Thurnham temporarily.
However, there probably are examples of people being elected officially as
Independents which I cannot recall. Answers anyone? David...?
Jonathan Isaby
University of York
Michael Hopkins
J Isaby (ji...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: There are a couple of benches on each side that are at the opposite end to
: the Speaker, facing her, but MPs of the respective side sit there. I think
: that I've seen Paisley sitting on the 'cross bench' on the Government
: side. After all, there is no such thing as a cross bencher in the House
: of Commons as such, although from time to time we've had the likes of
: Peter Thurnham temporarily.
: However, there probably are examples of people being elected officially as
: Independents which I cannot recall. Answers anyone? David...?
W.G. Brown represented Rugby for many years this century
Nicholas Davis
J Isaby <ji...@york.ac.uk> wrote (on the subject of cross-benchers):
>There are a couple of benches on each side that are at the opposite end to
>the Speaker, facing her,
Yes, thank for jogging my memory. They look almost like "boxes" if I
recall corectly
>but MPs of the respective side sit there. I think
>that I've seen Paisley sitting on the 'cross bench' on the Government
>side. After all, there is no such thing as a cross bencher in the House
>of Commons as such,
I think there used to be, in the days before the modern monolithic
party structures.
P.S. What are you studying at York? You can't find out for me the
email address of the grapevine office could you?
David Boothroyd
[uk.politics.electoral deleted]
In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.97031...@tower.york.ac.uk>, J Isaby
writes:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Nicholas Davis wrote:
> > Henry Potts <he...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >So, Gardiner says he'll continue to sit on the Government benches, but
> > >surely the Tory whips will just send him to the other side? To fail to
> > >do so would be a tacit admission to a Conservative/Referendum Party
> > >coalition after all. Who decides who sits on either side of the House
> > >anyway?
> >
> > Isn't it up to him where he sits. The supporters of the Monarch's
> > ministers traditionally sit behind the ministers. I don't think the
> > whips have anything to do with it. Perhaps he'll become a cross
> > bencher (don't they have sort of boxes to it in? - it's a while since
> > I've visited the Palace of Westminster).
>
> There are a couple of benches on each side that are at the opposite end to
> the Speaker, facing her, but MPs of the respective side sit there.
These are known as the cross benches of the House of Commons. There are
only four seats. With no independent MPs, they are just occupied as if they
were party benches.
> I think that I've seen Paisley sitting on the 'cross bench' on the
> Government side.
He probably has occasionally but his normal seat is on the fourth row
back on the government side, below the gangway. This is a handy seat
to have because it is very close to the BBC Radio commentary booth.
> After all, there is no such thing as a cross bencher in the House
> of Commons as such, although from time to time we've had the likes of
> Peter Thurnham temporarily.
The only true independents in recent years are the Members for North Down;
Jim Kilfedder used to sit on the front bench below the gangway, and Robert
McCartney sits among the Labour members.
> However, there probably are examples of people being elected officially as
> Independents which I cannot recall. Answers anyone? David...?
The last member returned to the House of Commons as a straight-out
Independent was Frank Maguire, who represented Fermanagh and South Tyrone
1974-81. He rarely attended at all.
--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
I wish I was in North Dakota. Next General Election must be before 22nd May '97
The House of Commons now : C 321, Lab 272, L Dem 26, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, RP 1, Ind UU 1, Spkrs 4, Vac 2. Government minority = 3. Tel. Tate 6125
David Boothroyd
In article <5g6uj2$6...@mercury.dur.ac.uk>, Michael Hopkins writes:
> J Isaby (ji...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : However, there probably are examples of people being elected officially as
> : Independents which I cannot recall. Answers anyone? David...?
>
> W.G. Brown represented Rugby for many years this century
All the people returned as a Member of Parliament not from the main parties
are in this file:
PARTY ABBREVIATIONS
C Conservative and Unionist Party
Co Coalition candidate (when prefixed)
Com Communist
Const Constitutionalist
Co-op Co-operative Party
CP Christian Pacifist
CW Common Wealth
ILP Independent Labour Party
Ind Independent (indicates an unofficial candidate when prefixed)
Irish LP Irish Labour Party
L Liberal Party
Lab Labour Party
N Irish Nationalist
Nat National (supporter of the National government)
Nat P National Party
NDP National Democratic and Labour Party
NL National Liberal (supporters of Lloyd George in 1922); also Liberal
Nationals 1931-48
N Lab National Labour
NSP National Socialist Party
Prog Progressive
Rep LP Republican Labour Party
SF Sinn Féin (pronounced 'Shin Fane' - Ourselves Alone)
SPP Scottish Prohibition Party
1918: Co C 332, Co L 127, Co NDP 9, Co Lab 4, Co Ind 1 - total Coalition
473; SF 73, Lab 57, C 50, L 36, N 7, Ind 3, Ind Lab 2, Nat P 2,
Co-op 1, Ind C 1, Ind L 1, NSP 1. Total 707.
Three Independents:
* R.H. Barker (Yorkshire (WR), Sowerby): Barker had been sponsored by the
local branch of the National Association of Discharged and Demobilized
Sailors and Soldiers due to pressure from the Conservatives, after the
incumbent Liberal MP refused to accept the coalition 'coupon'. He had a
lot of support from the Conservatives locally and in Parliament gave
general support to the Coalition. He did not seek re-election in 1922.
* N.P. Billing (Hertfordshire, Hertford): Billing had won a 1916 byelection
on a policy of increased air defences. He was not opposed by a Conservative
in 1918 but the National Party (formed by some right-wing Conservative MPs)
did put up a candidate who was also sponsored by the National Farmers'
Union. Billing resigned in 1921; he fought several elections in 1941 on a
policy of aerial reprisals against Germany. He was an aeronautical
engineer who designed some distinctly odd fighter aircraft; politically he
was a right winger.
* H.W. Bottomley (Hackney, South): Several books have been written about
Horatio Bottomley. He had originally been elected in 1906 as a Liberal and
founded the patriotic publication 'John Bull'; he fought a series of legal
actions against people who accused him of fraud. He was forced to resign
from Parliament in 1912 but stormed back in 1918 with nearly 80% of the
vote. His political stance was very iconoclastic. On 29th May 1922 he was
convicted of fraudulent conversion for his part in a fraud on Victory Bonds
and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; he was expelled from the
House of Commons on 1st August 1922.
Two Independent Labour:
* F.H. Rose (Aberdeen, North): Rose joined the Labour Party immediately on
his election and though the whip was suspended for a time in the 1918
Parliament, he was re-elected as an official candidate from 1922 until
his death in 1928 (his successor was Tony Benn's father). Rose did have
very independent views and wrote a book called 'Our Industrial Jungle'
outlining them.
* Sir O. Thomas (Anglesey): Thomas joined the Labour Party immediately on
his election but resigned from it in July 1919 and contested the next
election as an Independent Labour candidate (winning). He died in 1923.
I know nothing of Sir Owen Thomas' politics.
One Independent Conservative:
* Sir R.H. Woods (Dublin University): Woods joined the Conservative Party
on election. He was one of the only southern Irish MPs actually to take
his seat, as a Unionist.
One Independent Liberal:
* J.C. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme): Wedgwood had been elected as a
Liberal in 1906 and was selected by the local Liberal association in
1918, and even offered the Coalition 'coupon', but repudiated it and
fought as an Independent Liberal. In August 1919 he took the Labour
whip and sat as a Labour MP from then until 1931 when he was re-elected
unopposed as an unofficial Labour candidate; he again took the Labour
whip and sat until raised to the peerage in 1942.
One National Socialist Party:
* J.J. Jones (West Ham, Silvertown): Jones was a well-known moderate and
was opposed by an ILP-sponsored Labour candidate. He probably won most
of the considerable Liberal vote in the constituency; on election he
took the Labour whip and sat as a Labour MP until 1939.
1922: C 344, Lab 142, L 62, NL 53, Ind 3, Ind C 3, N 3, Com 1, Const 1,
Ind L 1, Ind Lab 1, SPP 1. Total 615.
Three Independents:
* A. Hopkinson (Lancashire, Mossley): Austin Hopkinson had been elected
as a Coalition Liberal in 1918 though he stated during the election that
this was just a 'badge' he had taken; he was not a member of any party.
In that election he was adopted by both the Conservative and Liberal
parties. From 1922 he was opposed by the Liberals and in 1931 by the
Conservatives also; he managed to win every election until 1945 with
the exception of 1929 when Labour won. In 1945 he came fourth, bottom
of the poll, with Labour winning and the Conservatives and the Liberals
also in the field.
Hopkinson was the supreme example of the successful independent. His
politics were those of a moderate Conservative and from 1931-45 he
generally supported the National government.
* O.E. Mosley (Middlesex, Harrow): Oswald Mosley, who had not yet inherited
his Baronetcy, had been elected as a Coalition Unionist in 1918 but began
to dissent in a decidedly socialist direction. However he felt that his
constituency would not accept a Labour member and so retained his formal
independence, successfully seeking re-election in 1922 and 1923. In 1923
he did join the Labour Party and though not seeking re-election in 1924
he returned in 1926 for Smethwick. His subsequent politics are a matter
of record.
* Rt. Hon. G.H. Roberts (Norwich): Roberts had originally been elected in
1906 as a Labour member, but accepted office in the wartime government
despite a vote by the Labour Party against it and so was repudiated. He
was re-elected as a Coalition Labour member in 1918 and with the demise
of the Coalition stood as an independent. On election he took the
Conservative whip and fought and lost as a Conservative in 1923.
One Constitutionalist:
* G.W.S. Jarrett (Kent, Dartford): Jarrett had been nominated both by the
National Liberal and Conservative associations. He described himself as
a 'constitutionalist' in a letter to the Times. In 1923 he sought
re-election under the same label, with the official backing of both the
Liberal and Conservative Parties; he lost. He fought several elections
as an official Conservative candidate subsequently.
One Independent Liberal:
* J.R.M. Butler (Cambridge University): Butler appears to have squeezed
through the STV system used in multi-member University constituencies.
He fought in 1923 and 1924 but lost.
One Independent Labour:
* Sir O. Thomas (Anglesey) - see 1918
One Scottish Prohibition Party:
* E. Scrymgeour (Dundee): Scrymgeour had begun fighting elections in Dundee
in 1908 under a prohibitionist banner. His general politics were however
left-wing and he had an undoubted popularity in the constituency, so from
1922 he was effectively the second Labour candidate in the two-member seat.
In 1922, 1923 and 1929 he topped the poll; after defeat in 1931 he retired.
1923: C 258, Lab 191, L 158, N 3, Ind 2, CP 1, Ind L 1, SPP 1. Total 615.
Two Independents:
* A. Hopkinson (Lancashire, Mossley) - see 1922.
* O.E. Mosley (Middlesex, Harrow) - see 1922.
One Christian Pacifist:
* G.M.L. Davies (University of Wales): The University of Wales had
traditionally been a Liberal stronghold but the incumbent MP died just
before the 1923 election. The official Liberal candidate was opposed by
an unofficial candidate and they split the vote almost evenly, allowing
Davies to win with 35.7%. On election he joined the Labour Party. This
remains the only occasion in history that a Labour member has sat for a
University constituency.
One Independent Liberal:
* R.H. Morris (Cardiganshire): Morris had opposed the Lloyd George supporting
incumbent MP for the constituency in 1922 and refused to accept him as
the candidate of the reunited Liberal Party. Helped by a Conservative
intervention he won as an unofficial candidate and took the Liberal whip
on election, sitting as a Liberal MP until 1932 and returning from 1945 in
Carmarthen. He died in 1957.
One Scottish Prohibition Party:
* E. Scrymgeour (Dundee) - see 1922.
1924: C 412, Lab 151, L 40, Const 7, Ind 2, Com 1, SPP 1.
Seven Constitutionalists:
The label Constitutionalist was used by right-wing Liberals disillusioned
with their party's support for the Labour government. Some were official
Liberals.
* W.L.S. Churchill (Essex, Epping): An ex-Liberal who joined the Conservatives
on election, being appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer.
* J.H. Edwards (Accrington): Joined the Liberal Party.
* A. England (Lancashire, Heywood and Radcliffe): Joined the Liberal Party.
* Sir H. Greenwood, Bt. (Walthamstow, East): Joined the Conservative Party.
* A.H. Moreing (Cornwall, Camborne): Joined the Conservative Party.
* Sir T. Robinson (Lancashire, Stretford): Robinson was the product of a local
Liberal-Conservative pact and stood under the label 'Independent Free Trade
and Anti-Socialist' though he was officially a Liberal candidate. See 1929.
* J. Ward (Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke): Joined the Liberal Party. Ward had been
elected as a Liberal-Labour MP in 1906 and stood as an 'Independent Labour'
candidate in 1918 to 1929 despite being the product of a local anti-Labour
pact and being a Liberal MP in the House of Commons.
Two Independents:
* Dr. E.G.G. Graham-Little (London University): Dr. Graham-Little was a
medical specialist who was elected after the incumbent MP died shortly
before the election. He was generally Conservative in his views and
specialised in raising medical issues in the House of Commons, sitting
for the seat until it was abolished.
* A. Hopkinson (Lancashire, Mossley) - see 1922.
One Scottish Prohibition Party:
* E. Scrymgeour (Dundee) - see 1922.
1929: Lab 287, C 260, L 59, Ind 4, N 3, Ind Lab 1, SPP 1. Total 615.
Four Independents:
* Dr. E.G.G. Graham-Little (London University) - see 1924.
* Sir R.H.S.D.L. Newman (Exeter): Sir Robert Newman had been the Conservative
MP for Exeter from a 1918 byelection but had an increasingly independent
stance on issues such that in 1927 the local Conservative Association voted
not to readopt him. He immediately announced that he would fight the next
election as an Independent and had the Conservative whip withdrawn. He
retired in 1931.
* Miss E.F. Rathbone (Combined English Universities): Eleanor Rathbone had
helped to found the Social Science Department of Liverpool University and
became one of its lecturers; in 1922 she fought Liverpool East Toxteth
as an Independent with Liberal support having already been elected to
Liverpool City Council. In parliament she supported efforts to raise the
status of women and to help children; she was largely responsible for the
introduction of family allowances. She died in 1946.
* Sir T. Robinson (Lancashire, Stretford) - see 1924. In 1929 Robinson wrote
to the Daily News to state that the Liberals had given him the whip as
a matter of courtesy and that he was in reality an Independent MP; in order
to stop any misunderstanding arising, he declined the Liberal whip in the
1929 Parliament.
One Independent Labour:
* N. Maclean (Glasgow, Govan): Maclean had been the Labour MP for Glasgow
Govan from 1918, sponsored by the Govan ILP. In April 1929 this branch
refused to renominate him and another ILP member, T.A. Kerr, was selected
in his place. Maclean decided to seek re-election as an Independent and
Kerr withdrew; there was obviously no question of Maclean receiving the
official Labour endorsement but he did accept the Labour whip in Parliament.
One Scottish Prohibition Party:
* E. Scrymgeour (Dundee) - see 1922.
1931: C 469, NL 35, L 33, N Lab 13, Nat 4 - total National 554; Lab 46,
Ind Lab 6, Ind L 4, N 2, Nat Ind 2, Ind 1. Total 615.
Six Independent Labour:
Many Labour candidates did not get official endorsement in 1931 owing to
the hurried calling of the election and the unwillingness of the ILP to
accept the Standing Orders of the Labour Party which they were required to
sign. Those ILP members who were elected formed an ILP group in the new
Parliament:
* G. Buchanan (Glasgow, Gorbals): Joined the ILP.
* D. Kirkwood (Dumbarton District): Joined the ILP, though rejoined the
Labour Party in August 1933.
* J. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston): Joined the ILP.
* J. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton): Joined the ILP.
* R.C. Wallhead (Merthyr Tydfil, Merthyr): Joined the ILP, though rejoined
the Labour Party in September 1933.
* Rt. Hon. J.C. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme): See 1918. Wedgwood retained
his independence until the dissolution of Parliament.
Four Independent Liberals:
In reality this was the Lloyd George family group who opposed the National
government. Each was an official Liberal candidate in the General election
but split from the Liberal group in Parliament.
* Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George (Caernarvon District)
* G. Lloyd George (Pembrokeshire)
* Miss M. Lloyd George (Anglesey)
* G. Owen (Caernarvonshire)
Two National Independents:
'National Independents' is the label given to candidates who stood as
Independents but indicated that they would give support to the National
government.
* Sir E.G.G. Graham-Little (London University) - see 1924.
* A. Hopkinson (Lancashire, Mossley) - see 1922.
One Independent:
* Miss E.F. Rathbone (Combined English Universities) - see 1929.
1935: C 386, NL 33, N Lab 8, Nat 2 - total National 429; Lab 154, L 21,
ILP 4, Ind 2, N 2, Nat Ind 2, Com 1. Total 615.
Two Independents:
* A.P. Herbert (Oxford University): Sir Alan Herbert was the most famous of
the Independent university members. His 1945 manifesto, which was described
as 'easy to read, not easy to summarize' called for compulsory military
service, nationalisation of the coal mines, the single transferrable vote,
and remission of entertainment tax. While he was no Conservative he did
attack 'Leftism' in general and left-wing intellectuals in particular. In
Parliament he promoted many private members bills such as the Matrimonial
Causes Act, which was a divorce reform.
* Miss E.F. Rathbone (Combined English Universities) - see 1929.
Two National Independents:
* Sir E.G.G. Graham-Little (London University) - see 1924.
* A. Hopkinson (Lancashire, Mossley) - see 1922.
1945: Lab 393, C 197, NL 11, Nat 2 - total Conservative 210; L 12, Ind 8,
ILP 3, Com 2, Ind C 2, Ind L 2, Ind Lab 2, N 2, Nat Ind 2, CW 1,
Ind Prog 1. Total 640.
Eight Independents:
* Sir J. Boyd Orr (Combined Scottish Universities): Sir John Boyd Orr had
been elected at an April 1945 byelection. He was an expert in both
agriculture and nutrition and put himself to the electors as a scientist
and an opponent of wartime bureaucracy. He had Scottish nationalist
tendencies. In Parliament he fought a successful campaign to establish
the World Food Organisation.
* W.J. Brown (Warwickshire, Rugby): Brown had been Labour MP for Wolverhampton
West from 1929 to 1931 when he had left the party. He took advantage of the
wartime electoral truce to take the anti-Conservative vote. He was an
author and journalist and became Parliamentary secretary of the Civil
Servants Association. He was simultaneously anti-Trade Union corruption
and in favour of confiscatory policies on profits. He lost in 1950 and
fought Fulham, West in 1951 as an Independent supported by the local
Conservative association.
* H.W. Harris (Cambridge University): Wilson Harris was the Editor of the
Spectator. He wanted the Coalition to continue with Labour, but failing
that, without it; he was also in favour of collective security and
opposed advertising on radio. One observer said that the general character
of his election address was that of a Liberal or a National Liberal.
* A.P. Herbert (Oxford University) - see 1935
* W.D. Kendall (Lincolnshire, Grantham): Kendall was a businessman who took
advantage of the electoral truce to win a 1942 byelection. He claimed to
be a member of the Labour Party and during the earlier part of the 1942
election campaign had Labour support, but after the national Labour Party
reminded the local organisation of the electoral truce they observed it.
Labour opposed him in 1945. Kendall was defeated in 1950 and fought the
1951 election as a Liberal, thereafter retiring from politics.
* K.M. Lindsay (Combined English Universities): Lindsay had fought previous
elections as a Labour candidate and represented Kilmarnock as a National
Labour MP from 1933 to 1942 when he resigned and sat as a National
Independent. He was a member of the Coalition government during the war.
His election was thought to be hindered by the fact that he was a graduate
of Oxford, not one of the Combined English Universities. His election
address concentrated on education issues - the Ministry in which he had
been a Minister.
* Miss E.F. Rathbone (Combined English Universities) - see 1929.
* Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. Salter (Oxford University): Sir Arthur Salter had won
a 1937 byelection against a Conservative and an Independent Conservative
but accepted office in the Caretaker administration formed by Churchill
after Labour left the coalition; Churchill sent him a letter of support.
He did however advocate a measure of state control in industry. Like
many other University members he opposed the Burnham pay scales for
teachers which were felt to be insufficient for those with University
qualifications.
Two Independent Conservatives:
* Rev. Dr. J. little (Down): Dr. Little had been elected unopposed in 1939
as a Unionist but when the local association decided that his readoption
would have to be voted on, he announced that he would fight as an
Independent Conservative and walked out of the meeting. He was re-elected
top of the poll and a supporter of the Unionist line in Parliament.
* J.H. Mackie (Galloway): Mackie had been the Conservative MP for the
constituency from 1931 but was refused re-adoption; he was granted the
Conservative whip in March 1948.
Two Independent Liberals:
Both of these MPs were essentially Liberal Nationals who supported Churchill
and none was opposed by the Conservatives.
* Sir M. Macdonald (Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty, Inverness): He
had been MP for the constituency since 1922, latterly as a Liberal
National. In March 1942 he resigned from that group in the House of Commons
whilst asserting that he would remain an adherent in the country. A group
of supporters in the constituency formed a new Liberal association. He
retired in 1950.
* J. MacLeod (Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty, Ross and Cromarty):
Macleod was nominated by the Ross and Cromarty Liberal Association, but
this was an independent group not connected with the Liberal Party
nationally. He officially became a National Liberal and Conservative in
1951 and sat until defeated in 1964.
Two Independent Labour:
* J. Beattie (Belfast, West): Beattie had won a 1943 byelection due to the
Unionist vote being split; like other wartime byelections he was not
officially endorsed by the Labour Party but joined the party on election.
Later he resigned the Labour whip and fought as an Independent Labour
candidate; he later joined the Irish Labour Party (ie the one headquartered
in Dublin).
* D.N. Pritt (Hammersmith, North): Pritt had been selected at the last
moment due to the death of the incumbent MP. Because of his increasing
independence and pro-Soviet views, he was expelled from the Labour Party
on 20th March 1940. Roy Jenkins, who was approached to stand against
Pritt, described him as 'almost a communist'. In 1949 he became chairman
of the Labour Independent Group which had been formed by other left-wing
MPs expelled from the party. He lost in 1950 and returned to his practice
at the Bar.
Two National Independents:
* Sir E.G.G. Graham-Little (London University) - see 1924.
* D.L. Lipson (Cheltenham): Lipson had won a 1937 byelection as an Independent
Conservative opposing an official candidate, having been Master of
Cheltenham College. He remained a fairly consistent supporter of the
Conservative line but retained his independence in fighting elections. He
lost in 1950.
One Independent Progressive:
* C.V.O. Bartlett (Somerset, Bridgwater): Vernon Bartlett, a well-known
journalist and broadcaster, had won a 1938 byelection in the immediate
aftermath of the Munich crisis as an anti-appeasement candidate supported
by the Liberals; he initially supported Common Wealth in 1942 but then
returned to his independence. He was not opposed by the Liberals in 1945.
In 1950 he retired but Commander Stephen King-Hall who had sat for
Lancashire, Ormskirk from 1939-45 (defeated by Harold Wilson) did stand
in his place.
1950: Lab 315, C 298, L 9, N 2, Ind L 1. Total 625.
One Independent Liberal: J. MacLeod (Inverness-shire and Ross and Cromarty,
Ross and Cromarty) - see 1945.
1951: C 321, Lab 295, L 6, N 2, Irish LP 1. Total 625.
One Irish Labour Party: J. Beattie (Belfast, West) - see 1945.
1955: C 345, Lab 277, L 6, SF 2. Total 630.
1959: C 365, Lab 258, L 6, Ind C 1. Total 630.
One Independent Conservative:
* Sir D. Robertson (Caithness and Sutherland): Robertson had been the
Conservative MP for the seat from 1950 (and before that for Wandsworth,
Streatham). He resigned the Conservative whip on 30th January 1959,
because he was opposed to the government's handling of Scottish affairs,
and fought the general election without Conservative opposition. He
retired in 1964 but his supporters had formed an unofficial Conservative
Association which split the vote and ensured a Liberal victory.
1964: Lab 317, C 304, L 9. Total 630.
1966: Lab 364, C 253, L 12, Rep LP 1. Total 630.
1970: C 330, Lab 288, L 6, Unity 2, Ind Lab 1, Prot U 1, Rep LP 1, SNP 1.
Total 630.
One Independent Labour:
* S.O. Davies (Merthyr Tydfil): Davies had been the Labour MP for the
seat from 1934, but was deselected due to his advanced age. He fought
the election as an Independent and was expelled from the Labour Party;
he died in 1972 and the seat was taken back by Labour.
One Protestant Unionist:
* Rev. I.R.K. Paisley (Antrim, North): Paisley had won the Bannside seat
in the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1969 on the basis of uncompromising
unionism. He subsequently founded the Protestant Unionist Party, later
renamed the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party.
1974(F): Lab 301, C 297, L 14, SNP 7, UU 7, VUPP 3, PC 2, Dem Lab 1,
Ind Lab 1, SDLP 1, UDUP 1. Total 635.
One Democratic Labour:
* D. Taverne (Lincoln): Taverne had been Labour MP for the seat from 1962
but never enjoyed good relations with his constituency party. When he
supported British membership of the European Community against a three-
line whip he was deselected and resigned to force a byelection, which
he won as a Democratic Labour candidate. His supporters then founded a
Democratic Labour organisation in the constituency and the Campaign for
Social Democracy in the country. In October 1974 he lost and stood
down as candidate himself (though a replacement was found); he later
joined the SDP and fought the Southwark, Peckham byelection in October
1982 as an SDP candidate. In 1995 he was created a life Baron and took
his seat on the Liberal Democrat benches.
One Independent Labour:
* E.J. Milne (Blyth): Milne's book 'No Shining Armour' (John Calder, London
1976) explains in detail his dispute with the local Labour Party,
though the essence is that Milne pressed his objections to Labour Party
corruption in the north east too far and was deselected. He was
narrowly defeated in October 1974; the Labour agent went to jail for
fraudulent election expenses. Milne stood in 1979 and polled a decent
vote but died soon after; his vote appears to have transferred to the SDP.
1974(O): Lab 319, C 277, L 13, SNP 11, UU 6, PC 3, VUPP 3, Ind Rep 1,
SDLP 1, UDUP 1. Total 635.
One Independent Republican:
* M.F. Maguire (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): Maguire was a local publican
with republican sympathies who managed to persuade other nationalist
parties to step down in his favour. He rarely attended Westminster.
His death in 1981 allowed IRA hunger-striker Bobby Sands to win his
seat.
1979: C 339, Lab 269, L 11, UU 5, UDUP 3, PC 2, SNP 2, Ind Rep 1, Ind UU 1,
SDLP 1, UUUP 1. Total 635.
One Independent Republican:
* M.F. Maguire (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) - see 1974(O).
One Independent Ulster Unionist:
* J.A. Kilfedder (Down North): Kilfedder had represented Belfast West 1964-6
and North Down from 1970 as an Ulster Unionist but became increasingly
independent. His supporters founded the Ulster Progressive Unionist Party
in 1980, later renamed the Ulster Popular Unionist Party. He represented
the seat until his death in March 1995, which was famously not hastened
by any letters at all.
1983: C 397, Lab 209, L 17, SDP 6 - total Alliance 23; UU 11, UDUP 3, PC 2,
SNP 2, SDLP 1, SF 1, UPUP 1. Total 650.
1987: C 376, Lab 229, L 17, SDP 5 - total Alliance 22; UU 9, PC 3, SDLP 3,
SNP 3, UDUP 3, SF 1, UPUP 1. Total 650.
1992: C 336, Lab 271, L Dem 20, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 3, UDUP 3, UPUP 1.
Total 651.
Gareth Ashley
I always thought MPs could sit where they want and vote how they want,
clearly the bitter Sir George wants to continue to be an embarasment to the
Conservatives even after party ties have been cut.
Incidentally, although you could measure my regard for the man on a
nanometer, at least this Parliament is getting *intersting* in contrast to
the political boredom of the last 18 years!!
Louis Epstein
David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: [uk.politics.electoral deleted]: >
: > There are a couple of benches on each side that are at the opposite end to
: > the Speaker, facing her, but MPs of the respective side sit there.
:
: These are known as the cross benches of the House of Commons. There are
: only four seats. With no independent MPs, they are just occupied as if they
: were party benches.
Where do the Deputy Speakers sit?They are members of party caucuses but
never vote in the House...
Nigel Ashton
In article <01bc300e$720b4d70$5960989e@lcepc696>, Gareth Ashley
<gar...@helpdesk.demon.co.uk> writes
>I always thought MPs could sit where they want and vote how they want
ROFL, welcome to uk.politics
--
Nigel Ashton
ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk
http://www.ashton.demon.co.uk/
David Boothroyd
In article <E721p...@nonexistent.com>, Louis Epstein writes:
> David Boothroyd (da...@election.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Where do the Deputy Speakers sit? They are members of party caucuses but
> never vote in the House...
They formally retain their political allegiance but do not take any actual
part and do not receive the party whip.
They rarely sit in the House of Commons when not 'on duty', but when they
do, they sit on the opposition benches behind the speaker's chair - the
similar benches on the government side are used by the Civil Servants.
--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
UK General Election: Swing -0.75 C lose majority: Swing -4.11 Lab win majority.
Ed Unneland
David Boothroyd wrote:
> * H.W. Bottomley (Hackney, South): Several books have been written about
> Horatio Bottomley. He had originally been elected in 1906 as a Liberal and
> founded the patriotic publication 'John Bull'; he fought a series of legal
> actions against people who accused him of fraud. He was forced to resign
> from Parliament in 1912 but stormed back in 1918 with nearly 80% of the
> vote. His political stance was very iconoclastic. On 29th May 1922 he was
> convicted of fraudulent conversion for his part in a fraud on Victory Bonds
> and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; he was expelled from the
> House of Commons on 1st August 1922.
Any relation to Virginia (?) Bottomley, IIRC was/is a Minister.
Ed Unneland
David Stone
In Article <E721p...@nonexistent.com>, l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
> Where do the Deputy Speakers sit?They are members of party caucuses but
> never vote in the House...
Only in the Speaker's Chair - watch PMQs followed by budget. A deputy
speaker takes over from Speaker after PMQs. IIRC, one is only chair of ways
and means. I think he chairs when the House is in committee and the mace
is set down.
--
Rick Martin
David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> ... (opposition benches behind the speaker's chair) ...
> the similar benches on the government side are used by the Civil Servants.
What Civil Servants?
David Boothroyd
She is Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Horatio Bottomley is no relation to Virginia Bottomley. Virginia Bottomley
is a Bottomley only by marriage (to Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP for
Woolwich West 1975-83, Eltham 1983-97). Her maiden name was Garnett.
Peter Bottomley is no relation to Horatio Bottomley either.
David Boothroyd
Senior Civil Servants get seats inside the chamber so they can assist
Ministers in giving accurate answers. They communicate by means of notes.
There was a minor argument a few weeks ago when a PPS went up to the
civil servants box and started discussing matters.
Bernard Ingham usually used to be present in the Civil Servants box during
Margaret Thatcher's appearances at PMQs.
Julian White
Rick Martin wrote in eloquent prose on the uk.politics.parliament newsgroup:
!.> ... (opposition benches behind the speaker's chair) ...
!.> the similar benches on the government side are used by the Civil Servants.
!.
!.What Civil Servants?
The ones who sit and give advice to their Ministers should they need any
difficult questions answering.
--
Julian White. u4...@cc.keele.ac.uk bo...@whirlwind.co.uk
British Politics Page: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/table/brit/brit.htm
NEW!!! GENERAL ELECTION PAGE: http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/po/ge97.htm
COMING SOON: http://www.whirlwind.co.uk/
"Only the shallow know themselves"-Oscar Wilde
David Boothroyd
The current Chairman of Ways and Means is Michael Morris. The Speaker
herself must step down from the chair when the House goes into Committee.
The procedure on going into committee is that the occupant of the Chair
sits on the chair at the right (government) side at the Clerk's table.
The House of Commons mace is moved down onto the lower bracket.
mike
In article <97031823...@election.demon.co.uk> da...@election.demon.co.uk wrote...
> The House of Commons mace is moved down onto the lower bracket.
...and we all move our coats onto a lower peg.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
*Spam deflecting e-mail address used* : Junk e-mails charged at $1000 US
john whittingdale
In article <97031821...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>
>Senior Civil Servants get seats inside the chamber so they can assist
>Ministers in giving accurate answers. They communicate by means of notes.
>There was a minor argument a few weeks ago when a PPS went up to the
>civil servants box and started discussing matters.
>
>Bernard Ingham usually used to be present in the Civil Servants box during
>Margaret Thatcher's appearances at PMQs.
>
>--
Ingham (as Press Secretary to the Prime Minister) used to sit in the
Press Gallery for Prime Minister's Questions alongside the lobby
journalists. The civil servants box was (and is) used by the civil
servants from the No 10 Private Office and the Political Secretary to
the Prime Minister (me from 1988 to Nov 1990).
John Whittingdale OBE MP
Nigel Ashton
In article <332EBC...@pixel.co.uk>, Rick Martin <ri...@pixel.co.uk>
writes
>David Boothroyd wrote:
>>
>> ... (opposition benches behind the speaker's chair) ...
>> the similar benches on the government side are used by the Civil Servants.
>
>What Civil Servants?
The Civil Servants who sit in the box behind the Speaker's chair on the
government side.
--
Nigel Ashton
Liberal Party General Election Internet Co-ordinator
http://www.libparty.demon.co.uk/
Nigel Ashton
In article <AfAlpBAc...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
<jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
[snip]
>John Whittingdale OBE MP
Shouldn't you be knocking on doors or something?
David Boothroyd
In article <CheetahPRO_...@blackcat.demon.co.uk>, Mike Dickson writes:
> In article <97031823...@election.demon.co.uk> da...@election.demon.co.uk
wrote...
>
> > The House of Commons mace is moved down onto the lower bracket.
>
> ...and we all move our coats onto a lower peg.
But only if we have a younger brother in school and are doing gym this
afternoon. And now that funny bit with the fish.
Gareth
On 18 Mar 1997, Julian White wrote:
> Rick Martin wrote in eloquent prose on the uk.politics.parliament newsgroup:
> !.What Civil Servants?
>
> The ones who sit and give advice to their Ministers should they need any
> difficult questions answering.
>
Unless you happen to be a Minister involved in a cover-up, in which cas
they're the Civil Servants who haven't told their Ministers anyhting about
what's about to blow up....
____ ____
{ }------------------------------------------------{ }
{ }Gareth Marklew, { }
{ } G.J.M...@durham.ac.uk { }
{ }University of Durham. { }
{____}------------------------------------------------{____}
john whittingdale
In article <eidqhNBx...@ashton.demon.co.uk>, Nigel Ashton
<ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <AfAlpBAc...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
><jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
>
>[snip]
>
>>John Whittingdale OBE MP
>
>Shouldn't you be knocking on doors or something?
>
Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
--
john whittingdale
Nigel Ashton
In article <qGi$PBAL8X...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
<jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
>In article <eidqhNBx...@ashton.demon.co.uk>, Nigel Ashton
><ni...@ashton.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <AfAlpBAc...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
>><jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>John Whittingdale OBE MP
>>
>>Shouldn't you be knocking on doors or something?
>>
>Parliament is still sitting. I was voting at 1.57 am this morning on the
>Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
Very commendable, I apologise. Which way did you vote BTW :-)
--
Nigel Ashton
Liberal Party General Election Internet Co-ordinator
Liberal Party manifesto now online at
http://www.libparty.demon.co.uk/ge97/manifest.htm
Stephen Turner
Nigel Ashton wrote:
>
> In article <qGi$PBAL8X...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
> <jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
> >>
> >Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
>
> Very commendable, I apologise. Which way did you vote BTW :-)
>
He voted in favour of the motion (That the draft Public Order (Amendment)
(Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before [the] House on 17th
March, be approved). See for yourself at
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/
cm970319/debtext/70319-67.htm#70319-67_div100
The Ayes were 59 and the Noes 6. All of the noes and their two tellers were
Ulster Unionists or Democratic Unionists. (I thought "tellers for the noes"
were ayes counting "no" votes, but I must have got it the wrong way round).
--
Stephen Turner sr...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, England
"This store will remain open during modernisation. We apologise
for any inconvenience this may cause" Topshop, Cambridge
Nigel Ashton
In article <97031923...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>In article <CheetahPRO_...@blackcat.demon.co.uk>, Mike Dickson writes:
>> In article <97031823...@election.demon.co.uk> da...@election.demon.co.uk
>wrote...
>>
>> > The House of Commons mace is moved down onto the lower bracket.
>>
>> ...and we all move our coats onto a lower peg.
>
>But only if we have a younger brother in school and are doing gym this
>afternoon. And now that funny bit with the fish.
ROTFL, was it a haddock BTW, Marcel Proust had an haddock!
David Boothroyd
In article <33327A...@cam.ac.uk>, Stephen Turner writes:
> Nigel Ashton wrote:
> > In article <qGi$PBAL8X...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
> > <jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> writes
> > >>
> > >Parliament is still sitting. I was voting at 1.57 am this morning on the
> > >Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
> >
> > Very commendable, I apologise. Which way did you vote BTW :-)
>
> He voted in favour of the motion (That the draft Public Order (Amendment)
> (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before [the] House on 17th
> March, be approved). The Ayes were 59 and the Noes 6. All of the noes and
> their two tellers were Ulster Unionists or Democratic Unionists. (I thought
> "tellers for the noes" were ayes counting "no" votes, but I must have got
> it the wrong way round).
There are two tellers appointed from each side, who swap over. One teller
from each side is in each lobby to count. The famous miscounted vote on the
social protocol to the Maastricht Treaty resulted from the Conservative
teller mishearing the cry "All out", meaning all MPs had voted, for the
name of another MP and counting it. The Labour teller noticed but did not
raise any objection.
If a side can't find two tellers, then the other side wins the vote. It is
considered bad form to object to a motion, then fail to provide two tellers
for your side; this happens in some Ten Minute Rule Bills.
David Stone
In Article <AfAlpBAc...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale <jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> wrote:
> It is unusual to have to correct David Boothroyd. However, Bernard
[snip]
>
> John Whittingdale OBE MP
So can we take it you agree with David Boothroyd's assessment of your party's
chance of retaining office on 2 May?
--
David Boothroyd
In article <E7KMo...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone writes:
> In Article <AfAlpBAc...@email.tory.org.uk>, john whittingdale
<jwhittin...@email.tory.org.uk> wrote:
> > It is unusual to have to correct David Boothroyd. However, Bernard
>
> > John Whittingdale OBE MP
>
> So can we take it you agree with David Boothroyd's assessment of your party's
> chance of retaining office on 2 May?
Can I also chuck in the opinion of another psephologist called David B.
(Butler) who I overheard this evening saying that when he gave his
private estimate of the GE result, Peter Mandelson started shouting at
him not to make it public?
David Stone
> > > It is unusual to have to correct David Boothroyd. However, Bernard
> >
> > > John Whittingdale OBE MP
> >
> > So can we take it you agree with David Boothroyd's assessment of your party's
> > chance of retaining office on 2 May?
>
> Can I also chuck in the opinion of another psephologist called David B.
> (Butler) who I overheard this evening saying that when he gave his
> private estimate of the GE result, Peter Mandelson started shouting at
> him not to make it public?
>
Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
Mandy might start shouting at you if s/he/it hears you have ruled out AV from
Labour's electoral reform possibilities.
--
Guy Barry
In article <E7u6q...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
David Stone <d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
>Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
>a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
So what? The important figure is Labour's lead over the Tories,
not the absolute vote share of either party.
Guy Barry
--
David Boothroyd
In article <E7u6q...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone writes:
> In Article <97032523...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Can I also chuck in the opinion of another psephologist called David B.
> > (Butler) who I overheard this evening saying that when he gave his
> > private estimate of the GE result, Peter Mandelson started shouting at
> > him not to make it public?
>
> Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
> a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
The Labour lead is greater than the Conservative lead at this time. Labour's
percentage of the vote in the low fifties is greater than any one party
has ever achieved.
> Mandy might start shouting at you if s/he/it hears you have ruled out AV from
> Labour's electoral reform possibilities.
Tony Blair has done so explicitly.
M J Drew
Guy Barry (gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <E7u6q...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
: David Stone <d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
:
: >Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
: >a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
: So what? The important figure is Labour's lead over the Tories,
: not the absolute vote share of either party.
That is patently not true - Labour could have a 20% percent lead over the
Tories and another party could have 50% of the vote.
: Guy Barry
: --
--
Mike Drew
South Gloucestershire Unitary Council:Lab 31, Lib Dem 30, Con 8, Ind 1
Yate Town Council: Lab 1, Lib Dem 20
Northavon Constituency S. Glos Councillors (Lab 2, Lib Dem 25, Con 4)
Guy Barry
[Followups to uk.politics.electoral]
In article <E80M8...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, M J Drew <lw...@mail.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>Guy Barry (gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
>: In article <E7u6q...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
>: David Stone <d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
>:
>: >Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
>: >a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
>:
>: So what? The important figure is Labour's lead over the Tories,
>: not the absolute vote share of either party.
>:
>That is patently not true - Labour could have a 20% percent lead over the
>Tories and another party could have 50% of the vote.
Obviously it could do in theory. What I meant to say was "what
decides elections in Britain, given our electoral system and
our political demography, is principally the difference in
vote share between the Tories and Labour".
Guy Barry
--
David Stone
Article <97033017...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The Labour lead is greater than the Conservative lead at this time. Labour's
> percentage of the vote in the low fifties is greater than any one party
> has ever achieved.
>
Let's suppose you are right. I do not have the party manifestos yet so I
will work on what I garner from the media [i.e. the same as every other voter].
Labour is offering a few minor adjustments to economic and social policy.
Most important, this windfall tax to help young unemployed. This will, they
claim, save future benefit expenditure and this will fund health and education
spending. [ROFL]
They will cut NH administration costs and use the savings to fund better
services. I've heard that somewhere before.
Cut class sizes for 5, 6 & 7 year olds with the money from *phasing out* APS.
Does that add up to make any difference, let alone before the next election?
Cut in half time from arrest to sentancing for young offenders. AFAIK, this
means removing their legal aid (a Labour barrister went suddenly deaf when I
asked how else it could be achieved).
A minimum wage. We already have one (social security - try persuading someone
to work for less). It might mean something if they indicated its level.
Social Chapter: a lot of unenforceable platitudes no sensible employer
would ignore.
Everything else (except constitution) is the same as Conservatives. Yet we
have this massive swing to Labour over five years of falling inflation and
unemployment. It does not say much about the electorate does it?
Yet Labour does offer an alternative, unbeknown to the voters. They propose
freedom of information legislation, a bill of rights and removing the voting
rights of heritary peers. Should Labour win, this could be the last election
under fptp and the Scottish parliament could make a UDI.
So, if you are right, the electorate will opt for change, without knowing it.
I wonder if the electorate have ever known what they are voting for and
why does democracy lead to better government, as I am sure it does.
--
David Stone
> Guy Barry (gba...@spuddy.mew.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <E7u6q...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>,
> : David Stone <d...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> : >Why is this election the most obvious in living memory? The polls indicate
> : >a bigger Consevative share of the popular vote than Labour achieved in 83.
> :
> : So what? The important figure is Labour's lead over the Tories,
> : not the absolute vote share of either party.
> :
> That is patently not true - Labour could have a 20% percent lead over the
> Tories and another party could have 50% of the vote.
>
We were talking about the real world. Nigel does not pretend his party will
do any better than retain the odd deposit. Why bother insulting the rest of
us with irrelevant pedantry.
--
Jason E. Price
David Boothroyd wrote:
> It is offering a completely different approach. New Labour is
> fundamentally different from the Conservative approach.
apart from privatisation, which was Tony's U turn yesterday on the
Panorama interview. Amongst others.
> The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young
> long-term unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work.
> That's 250,000 lots of income support which won't need to be paid;
Don't forget to add the unemployment benefit that you'll have to pay
out to all those people made redundant because of the restrictions
of the social chapter and the job destroying effects of the minimum
wage. Even John Prescott has admitted that the minimum wage is likely
to cost jobs. The figures for the benefit for those unemployed don't
feature anywhere in Labour's programme of costs. Another hole to add
to the 1.5bn from privatisation revenues lost. Oh, sorry, they've U
turned on that.
> Less bureaucracy means that patients will be treated quicker anyway.
and of course, everyone in business knows how successful a project or
business can be when running without effective management. Why is it
that managers in the health service are constantly seen as providing no
benefit? Okay, they don't provide any medical health care directly to
patients, but I know where I'd place my money given a choice between
a team of 10 unmanaged doctors and 9 doctors with 1 manager in who'd
treat the most patients effectively. Good management is an essential
part of providing a quality service - anyone in business can tell you
that.
> £180 million is to be spent on Assisted Places for the few this year. > This money would be far better spent on cutting class sizes for the
> many. The cost of doing so could be met by phasing out the APS.
that's not correct though, is it? labour's figures (say the teaching
profession btw) don't include the cost of sending all those pupils to
state schools instead of independent schools. When you add that in, it
leaves about 60 million quid left to bring class sizes down. That isn't
enough to commit to Labour's promise of bringing them below 30, so where
is the extra money coming from?
Or are you going to now agree with Labour's candidate in Warwick and
leamington, who backed down on my doorstep and told me they're *not*
actually going to bring class sizes to under 30, but "make steps in
that direction with the money that is available." They'll tell you
one thing in public and another in private.
> The new fast track punishment for persistent young offenders will be
> done by reviewing the systems of youth courts and speeding up police
> and CPS procedures.
why does a party that has failed to support virtually every measure to
increase action against criminals in the last 18 years so insistent on
it's being tough on crime? They've failed to support the increased
sentences for repeat violent offenders, they've failed to support the
mandatory sentences for repeat drug pushers and they've failed to
support the prevention of terrorism act every year for the last 18.
This year, they courageously abstained, instead of voting *against* for
the last 17 years. Tough on crime, tough on terrorism? Voting actions
speak louder than spindoctored rhetoric, do they not?
> The level has to be set sensibly, by discussion between employers
> and workers, and everyone else.
who will have the final say? the employers who have to meet the
increased costs or the unions who sponsor the backbenchers on whom
Labour will have to rely to push through the measures if they're in
Government? Increased costs on business means less jobs means more
social security payments for those unemployed. Windfall tax to not
become a one-off to cover this or *another* hole in Labour's finances?
Or is that today's U turn to plug this gap?
> It does say a great deal. New Labour will be good for all the country
> and the voters are increasingly recognising it.
except in rural constituencies of course, where Labour's spokesman on
the environment lives in the centre of London. Where industry in the
countryside is to be targetted by bills voted through by urban MPs
with little understanding of the issues. Do the minimum of the 3000
jobs lost by the ban on hunting feature in your unemployment statistics?
The list goes on. So they're not good for the whole country - the
figures don't add up, they're U turning on a daily basis to plug the
gaps and ditching their principles as fast as they can.
If Blair can't stand firm on a principle he's held for 18 years, how
can he stand firm for Britain's interests against opposition in, say,
Europe?
Jason
--
Dr. Jason E Price |\ _,,,---,,_
Parallax Group Plc., ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
StoneCourt, Siskin Drive, Coventry, U.K. |,@- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
Tel: +44 (0)1203 514465. Fax: 514401. '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
jas...@parallax.co.uk http://www.parallax.co.uk/~jasonp/
David Boothroyd
In article <334A17...@parallax.co.uk>, "Jason E. Price" writes:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > It is offering a completely different approach. New Labour is
> > fundamentally different from the Conservative approach.
>
> apart from privatisation, which was Tony's U turn yesterday on the
> Panorama interview. Amongst others.
No, even on the matter of public vs. private sector, new Labour's
approach is quite different from the Conservatives. Whereas the
Conservatives are pursuing a dogmatic pro-privatisation appraoch,
Labour believes in examining the circumstances to see whether a
particular asset is more appropriately in the public sector or in the
private sector.
> > The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young
> > long-term unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work.
> > That's 250,000 lots of income support which won't need to be paid;
>
> Don't forget to add the unemployment benefit that you'll have to pay
> out to all those people made redundant because of the restrictions
> of the social chapter ..
None. Neither of the two pieces of legislation in the social chapter are
at all likely to damage employment.
> .. and the job destroying effects of the minimum wage.
The minimum wage will be set by a low pay commission in order to prevent
any job destruction while improving the employment conditions of the
most low-paid workers. At present, the government subsidises bad
employers at the expense of the good employer; the minimum wage makes
everyone play fair.
> > Less bureaucracy means that patients will be treated quicker anyway.
>
> and of course, everyone in business knows how successful a project or
> business can be when running without effective management. Why is it
> that managers in the health service are constantly seen as providing no
> benefit?
No-one is talking about leaving the NHS unmanaged. The number of managers
in the NHS is excessive and stops patients being treated.
> > £180 million is to be spent on Assisted Places for the few this year.
> > This money would be far better spent on cutting class sizes for the
> > many. The cost of doing so could be met by phasing out the APS.
>
> that's not correct though, is it?
It is correct.
> labour's figures (say the teaching profession btw) don't include the cost
> of sending all those pupils to state schools instead of independent schools.
The APS will be phased out, but those pupils currently in the scheme would
stay in it.
> > The new fast track punishment for persistent young offenders will be
> > done by reviewing the systems of youth courts and speeding up police
> > and CPS procedures.
>
> why does a party that has failed to support virtually every measure to
> increase action against criminals in the last 18 years so insistent on
> it's being tough on crime?
What measures were those? The Conservatives have produced measures which
will not help the fight against crime one bit. Labour will be tough on
crime, and tough on the causes of crime by healing social divisions.
> They've failed to support the increased sentences for repeat violent
> offenders, ..
And rightly so, because increasing sentences does not deter crime. It
just increases prison costs, and encourages even more violent crime because
the offender has nothing to lose.
> they've failed to support the mandatory sentences for repeat drug pushers
For the same reason.
> and they've failed to support the prevention of terrorism act every year
> for the last 18.
Labour is opposed to some of the provisions of the PTA because they have
no adequate safeguards, and some because they are useless. Exclusion orders
for instance, by implication regard Northern Ireland as a dumping ground.
> > The level has to be set sensibly, by discussion between employers
> > and workers, and everyone else.
>
> who will have the final say?
The Low Pay Commission, of course.
> > It does say a great deal. New Labour will be good for all the country
> > and the voters are increasingly recognising it.
>
> except in rural constituencies of course, where Labour's spokesman on
> the environment lives in the centre of London.
Labour's rural affairs spokesman has a rural constituency and lives in
it. The environment is everyone's, whether in town or country.
The Conservative 'Minister for London' lives in Suffolk.
Jason E. Price
David Boothroyd wrote:
> Labour believes in examining the circumstances to see whether a
> particular asset is more appropriately in the public sector or in the
> private sector.
so let's get this clear for the viewing public then. You're saying that
Labour's policy on public sector resources is to examine them and sell
them off to the private sector if they are better served in the private
sector? That, David, is the very definition of Privatisation and just
the point of the U-turn.
Andrew Smith was quoted at Labour's last conference on the issue of
Air Traffic Control privatisation as saying that it would never happen
under a Labour Government. "Our air is not for sale" he said. The
Labour manifesto makes no commitment to privatise the NATCC, yet on
Panorama the other day, Tony Blair specifically said that Labour would
look at the NATCC with a view to privatisation.
All of this during an election campaign, contradicting his own party
conference and manifesto, to try and plug the large hole that appeared
in Labour's funding plans when they committed to sticking with the
Conservative's funding plans in their manifesto.
> None. Neither of the two pieces of legislation in the social chapter
> are at all likely to damage employment.
firstly, that's not what businessmen are saying. Secondly, if the
social chapter has no effect on employment, is it mere coincidence that
other countries in Europe who *have* adopted it have rising unemployment
whereas the U.K. without it is below the European average on
unemployment and falling still? Germany saw half a million added to
it's unemployment total just last month. I don't see the social chapter
having helped them to keep unemployment down.
> > .. and the job destroying effects of the minimum wage.
> The minimum wage will be set by a low pay commission
elected or appointed? elected by whom? Surely they can't be appointed
as Labour keeps going on about wanting to cut down on Quangos and to
increase accountability to the people. Maybe you'd like to enunciate
Labour's stated policy on the make-up of the low pay commission so we
can all be enlightened as to whom is accountable for the rate that is
to be set, given that they refuse to say so in advance of the election?
Of course, it'll undoubtedly be a quango though, won't it? But wouldn't
that mean Labour compromising a principle and contradicting a stated
policy? surely not.
> in order to prevent any job destruction while improving the
> employment conditions of the most low-paid workers.
how do you achieve this exactly? If you increase the wages of the low
paid workers by law, the costs on the business employing them go up and
(as businessmen will tell you), that means they can now afford to employ
less people as the cost per person has risen. if you don't increase
the costs to business, then you can hardly be helping the lower paid
can you? I'd be interested to hear where you think business is to get
this extra money from to increase the pay of people below your minimum
wage level (whomever sets it whenever - Labour won't tell before they're
elected for just this reason) or how it operates to achieve both.
> At present, the government subsidises bad employers at the expense
> of the good employer;
how does the government subsidise them?
> No-one is talking about leaving the NHS unmanaged. The number of
> managers in the NHS is excessive and stops patients being treated.
can you produce some figures to back this up? How many managers are
required to run a health service and ensure effective patient treatment?
I'd like to see your references that support this assertion.
> > >The cost of doing so could be met by phasing out the APS.
> > that's not correct though, is it?
> It is correct.
so why does Labour's parliamentary spokesman for Warwick and Leamington
tell me on the doorstep that the money will be used to bring class
sizes *towards* it when I point this out to him, rather than backing
the published labour commitment to guarantee a class size below 30?
it's teacher's organisations that are saying the costs don't add up.
The children who would have received education at the independent school
now have to go to state schools - that figure just isn't accoutned for
in Labour's published savings. Removing the assisted places scheme,
whether it's phased out or not, gives you a figure of ŁX. This isn't
the amount you have to spend though, because all those children who will
no longer receive assisted places grants now go into local authority
education, at an additional cost of ŁY. The saving to the taxpayer is
ŁX-Y, not ŁX as Labour have published.
it's another hole in the numbers.
> The APS will be phased out, but those pupils currently in the scheme
> would stay in it.
so how long will it be before Labour meet their promise to bring class
sizes below 30? that's not been made clear. They tell us that class
sizes will be reduced to below 30, but not "in five years time" - oh no.
Secondly, you still have the additional cost of the children whom you're
now *not* sending to assisted places who would otherwise have gone, so
the costs on state education still rise accordingly.
> > why does a party that has failed to support virtually every measure
> > to increase action against criminals in the last 18 years so
> > insistent on it's being tough on crime?
> What measures were those?
The Crime (Sentences) Bill to toughen sentences against repeat violent
offenders and drug dealers. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Acts
and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (annually) are three examples. I'll
dig up some more if I have to - there's plenty of them. Every bill to
increase the abilities of the police and courts to fight crime put
forward by the Government has failed to receive opposition support.
> Labour will be tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime by
> healing social divisions.
'healing social divisions' is a lovely woolly phrase - is that the
extent of their criminal justice legislative provision? How do they
intend to 'heal social divisions' and how will this lead directly to a
reduction in crime? Over what timescale? How much does it cost and
where is the money coming from?
What are Labour's specific proposals to be tough on crime and the
causes of it that differ from the Government's measures they've
repeatedly failed to support over the last 18 years?
> And rightly so, because increasing sentences does not deter crime.
No, it prevents violent criminals from being on the streets to offend
again. Actually, there is evidence from the United States that a tough
sentencing regime has an extremely positive effect on deterring crime.
After california's introduction of 'three strikes and you're out'
legislation, the state has seen the biggest fall in recorded crime in
it's history.
Locking away persistent violent offenders *protects the public*, which
is entirely the point - if that offender has *again* committed a violent
offence, they're behind bars and they can't get at the victims to do it.
That protects the public.
> It just increases prison costs, and encourages even more violent
> crime because the offender has nothing to lose.
and how exactly does leaving that offender on the street to re-offend
after another small sentence actually help to protect the public and
prevent another incidence of violence by a demonstratedly violent
criminal?
> > they've failed to support the mandatory sentences for repeat drug
> > pushers
> For the same reason.
that reason being that they can stay on the street and continue to sell
drugs to our children. Yup, that's being tough on crime isn't it?
I'm sure we can all see that.
> Labour is opposed to some of the provisions of the PTA because they
> have no adequate safeguards, and some because they are useless.
> Exclusion orders for instance, by implication regard Northern Ireland
> as a dumping ground.
well, by your implication maybe. What do you mean by a 'dumping ground'
exactly? Restricting the freedom of a terrorist fundraiser to openly
run around the U.K. gaining support and money to put bullets in the
backs of British soldiers and shrapnel in the legs of children is
hardly an action I'd disagree with.
Right, here's your chance to clear it up for people. What *will*
Labour do on terrorism? We're living in a country in which citizens
are subjected to the threat of bombs and bullets on a random basis by
an organisation that refuses to accept democracy and the rule of law.
We know what the government proposes - they annually pass legislation
that gives the police the power they require to prevent terrorist
activities taking place, by neutralising the threat before it happens.
Without that appropriate level of surveillance and ability to move, the
recent successes we've seen in preventing terrorist attacks would have
been turned into tragedies and dead british citizens.
What precise measures do Labour propose to protect the security of the
British citizen on the streets of the United Kingdom? The government
has laid out it's stall in annual legislation. What's Labour's? Apart
from letting Sinn Fein into talks the moment there's a ceasefire, if
you listen to Mo Mowlem this week.
> Labour's rural affairs spokesman has a rural constituency and lives in
> it. The environment is everyone's, whether in town or country.
right, but the townspeople get to visit it and go home. Those living
in the countryside actually earn their livelihoods from it. What action
has Labour taken to assess the impact of their proposed ban on hunting
(for example) on the rural areas they intend to impose it over? Where
have the public meetings been held, or where are they planned for?
> The Conservative 'Minister for London' lives in Suffolk.
presumably though, he lives in London for a large amount of the time
whilst he's at Parliament. Can the same be said for Frank Dobson who
spouts forth on the countryside? How much time living outside of his
inner London constituency does he spend?
James Kirkup
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Jason E. Price wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
> > And rightly so, because increasing sentences does not deter crime.
> No, it prevents violent criminals from being on the streets to offend
> again.
So the most effective way to prevent crime is to temporarily lock people
up? Hmmm. Better build more prisons, and quickly then.
Actually, there is evidence from the United States that a tough
> sentencing regime has an extremely positive effect on deterring crime.
The USA has, arguably, the harshest penal code in the Western world, makes
free use of the death penalty, and has a frighteningly large
proportionate prison population. Which must be why its crime rate is so
low?
> After california's introduction of 'three strikes and you're out'
> legislation, the state has seen the biggest fall in recorded crime in
> it's history.
...as well as cases like the man who recieved a life sentence for the
theft of a pizza, if memory serves...
> What do you mean by a 'dumping ground'
> exactly? Restricting the freedom of a terrorist fundraiser to openly
> run around the U.K. gaining support and money to put bullets in the
> backs of British soldiers and shrapnel in the legs of children is
> hardly an action I'd disagree with.
Exclusion orders are, I think, a fairly arbritrary sanction: we think
you're a bit suspicious, but we can't prove it, so we'll just keep you
hemmed in "over the water" where you may well be then sort of person to
engage in the sort of unpleasantness above, but you can do it there, and
not here, thank you very much.
>
> > Labour's rural affairs spokesman has a rural constituency and lives in
> > it. The environment is everyone's, whether in town or country.>
> > The Conservative 'Minister for London' lives in Suffolk.
> presumably though, he lives in London for a large amount of the time
> whilst he's at Parliament. Can the same be said for Frank Dobson who
> spouts forth on the countryside? How much time living outside of his
> inner London constituency does he spend?
Isn't this all a tad distracting? I'm sure it's possible to be acquainted
with the issues facing certain area/group without living/belonging?
Just ask William Hague...
James Kirkup
EdUni PolDept
Jason E. Price
James Kirkup wrote:
> So the most effective way to prevent crime is to temporarily lock
> people up?
no, it's to lock them up permanently. :^)
> Hmmm. Better build more prisons, and quickly then.
it'd help the construction industry, which people keep saying needs
support from Government.
</flippant>
:^)
Julian Barker
In article <8OXhxKAF...@rodent.demon.co.uk>, Julian Barker
<jul...@rodent.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <334CEE...@parallax.co.uk>, "Jason E. Price"
><jas...@parallax.co.uk> writes
>>
>>> At present, the government subsidises bad employers at the expense
>>> of the good employer;
>>how does the government subsidise them?
>>
>
>
>employers who will not, or cannot pay a living wage, to the tune of
>several tens of billions of pounds a year. Family Credit is a subsidy
>that has no regard for the profits that the subsidised companies make
>and just encourages artificially low wages.
>
>Indeed it is likely that there is a high rate of employer collusion in
>making inflated claims for Family Credit.
>
>
Just to correct this, the figure for 1996 was 2 billion not 20 billion
as I thought. However, this has more than quadrupled since 1991. Indeed
the numbers of families supported by a person in work is well over three
quarters of a million and is about three times higher than it was in
1991.
That accounts for a lot of the drop in unemployed doesn't it?
(Source - Social Security Statistics 1996 published by HMSO)
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
David Stone
In Article <334A17...@parallax.co.uk>, "Jason E. Price" <jas...@parallax.co.uk> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> > The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young
> > long-term unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work.
> > That's 250,000 lots of income support which won't need to be paid;
> Don't forget to add the unemployment benefit that you'll have to pay
> out to all those people made redundant because of the restrictions
> of the social chapter and the job destroying effects of the minimum
> wage. Even John Prescott has admitted that the minimum wage is likely
> to cost jobs.
Then he went to USA & changed his mind. One has to be a bit more than a fool
to realise poor people spend more of their income on domestic produce and,
therefore, redistributing wealth reduces unemployment.
As Ted Heath pointed out, it is the level of minimum wage not its principle.
Oh and do not forget the money you lot saved on unemplyment benefit by
reducing its rate, at least twice. Tough on the poor or what?
Next dumm question for Tory leaflets: are you against the minimum wage even
if it would mean lower unemployment?
--
David Stone
> David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> > The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young
> > long-term unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work.
> > That's 250,000 lots of income support which won't need to be paid;
> Don't forget to add the unemployment benefit that you'll have to pay
> out to all those people made redundant because of the restrictions
> of the social chapter and the job destroying effects of the minimum
> wage. Even John Prescott has admitted that the minimum wage is likely
> to cost jobs.
Then he went to USA & changed his mind. One has to be a bit more than a fool
to realise poor people spend more of their income on domestic produce and,
therefore, redistributing wealth reduces unemployment.
As Ted Heath pointed out, it is the level of minimum wage not its principle.
Oh and do not forget the money you lot saved on unemplyment benefit by
reducing its rate, at least twice. Tough on the poor or what?
Next dumm question for Tory leaflets: are you against the minimum wage even
--
David Stone
> > Let's suppose you are right. I do not have the party manifestos yet so I
> > will work on what I garner from the media [i.e. the same as every other
> > voter]. Labour is offering a few minor adjustments to economic and social
> > policy.
>
> It is offering a completely different approach. New Labour is fundamentally
> different from the Conservative approach.
I do not know why you say that. This is not the opinion of some well read
Labour supporters who are hoping Labour in office will be more radical than
the mainfesto.
>
> You then go on to run through four of the five early pledges.
Yes because I was trying to look at it from the elector's point.
>
> > Most important, this windfall tax to help young unemployed. This will,
> > they claim, save future benefit expenditure and this will fund health
> > and education spending. [ROFL]
>
> The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young long-term
> unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work. That's 250,000
> lots of income support which won't need to be paid; it also plays a major
> role in healing society and therefore cutting government spending caused
> by societal breakdown.
Government training is not v good at keeping people out of unemployment.
Since the tax is one off, those who go on the dole after its introduction
will not benefit. So how will it have a long term benefit?
>
> > They will cut NHS administration costs and use the savings to fund better
> > services. I've heard that somewhere before.
>
> The Shadow Health Secretary has spelled out exactly how the administration
> could be cut in order to provide the funds to treat 100,000 more patients.
> Less bureaucracy means that patients will be treated quicker anyway.
Didn't Margaret Beckett say NH is under-managed? I have not seen Chris
Smith's (who I respect & admire) proposals so nor has the average elector.
So why, given they've heard this all their lives, and hitherto no party ever
did anything about it, are they believing it now?
My local health authority used the "internal market" to kick out some rum
managers. It's not all bad.
>
> > Cut class sizes for 5, 6 & 7 year olds with the money from *phasing out* APS.
> > Does that add up to make any difference, let alone before the next election?
>
> £180 million is to be spent on Assisted Places for the few this year. This
> money would be far better spent on cutting class sizes for the many. The cost
> of doing so could be met by phasing out the APS.
Hang on. It will take at least a year to get this controversial legislation
through parliament. Labour is not going to take an assisted place from any
child (rightly), so you're not going to get those savings in time.
The gifted children who will not have an assisted place, will still have
special needs, and you will still have to pay (rightly) for giving them an
appropriate education. Surely, that will take at least half of the APS fund.
Geoge Walden's "We should know better - solving the education crisis" book
is helpful. Another sad loss to public life, from *their* side.
>
> > Cut in half time from arrest to sentancing for young offenders. AFAIK, this
> > means removing their legal aid (a Labour barrister went suddenly deaf when I
> > asked how else it could be achieved).
>
> It will not be done by removing legal aid. Obviously you have made this up.
> The new fast track punishment for persistent young offenders will be done by
> reviewing the systems of youth courts and speeding up police and CPS
> procedures.
That's waffle. How?
>
> > A minimum wage. We already have one (social security - try persuading
> someone
> > to work for less). It might mean something if they indicated its level.
>
> The level has to be set sensibly, by discussion between employers and workers,
> and everyone else. The level of social security benefits is not relevant
> because low paid workers are often part time; it has to be an hourly rate.
> (Unofficially look for a rate somewhere between £3 and £3.50 per hour)
£3 and £3.50 per hour will reduce unemployment. Social security is very
relevant. Few work willingly for less than £3 per hour. Those who do have
no choice. It's that or the real dole. Given this, most of the savings will
be to the state but that is not my main point.
I agree with you about the rate and ISTR it was higher. Nevertheless, most
voters do not know this and they do not know what they are voting for.
>
> > Social Chapter: a lot of unenforceable platitudes no sensible employer
> > would ignore.
>
> Two measures of legislation.
No answer. Social Chapter will not change working conditions. It has nothing
to do with 48 hour week or minimum wage, contray to popular misconception. So
what are they voting for?
>
> > Everything else (except constitution) is the same as Conservatives.
>
> No, it's not. I posted all the 98 pledges in the Conservative manifesto
> yesterday and will post the Labour pledges (there are many more, incidentally)
> some time soon. (Liberal Democrats may follow)
Page 34, "council capping should go, we will retain reserve powers to control
excessive council tax rises." Waste of space, or what? Page 23 "to get more
officers back on the beat." Doesn't work. A myth to placate the ignorant.
>
> > Yet we have this massive swing to Labour over five years of falling
> > inflation and unemployment. It does not say much about the electorate
> > does it?
>
> It does say a great deal. New Labour will be good for all the country and
> the voters are increasingly recognising it.
It does not look that way to me. They "I've voted Conservative all my life
but never again." I heard the same, in reverse, five years ago. I have not
heard a good reason, either then or now apart from constitution but Joe
--
David Boothroyd
In article <E8JLG...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, David Stone writes:
> In Article <97040723...@election.demon.co.uk>, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > New Labour is fundamentally different from the Conservative approach.
>
> I do not know why you say that. This is not the opinion of some well read
> Labour supporters who are hoping Labour in office will be more radical than
> the mainfesto.
The Labour manifesto is radical anyway.
> > The windfall levy will be used to train and educate 250,000 young
long-term
> > unemployed people and get them off benefit and into work. That's 250,000
> > lots of income support which won't need to be paid; it also plays a major
> > role in healing society and therefore cutting government spending caused
> > by societal breakdown.
>
> Government training is not v good at keeping people out of unemployment.
There is a partnership needed. The training program will be supplemented by
a citizen's service, and by allowing people more control over the money paid to
TECs to pay for their own training. British industry will also be encouraged
and modernised.
> Since the tax is one off, those who go on the dole after its introduction
> will not benefit. So how will it have a long term benefit?
The tax will be a one-off, but will raise enough money to pay for the whole
program.
> > The Shadow Health Secretary has spelled out exactly how the administration
> > could be cut in order to provide the funds to treat 100,000 more patients.
> > Less bureaucracy means that patients will be treated quicker anyway.
>
> Didn't Margaret Beckett say NH is under-managed? I have not seen Chris
> Smith's (who I respect & admire) proposals so nor has the average elector.
> So why, given they've heard this all their lives, and hitherto no party ever
> did anything about it, are they believing it now?
The amount of NHS management is one thing, the amount of bureaucracy is
another. I have been to a lecture by Chris Smith when he said how many pieces
of paper have to be sent around because of one 'patient episode'. I think it
was 18.
> > > Cut class sizes for 5, 6 & 7 year olds with the money from *phasing
> > > out* APS. Does that add up to make any difference, let alone before
> > > the next election?
> >
> > £180 million is to be spent on Assisted Places for the few this year.
> > This money would be far better spent on cutting class sizes for the many.
> > The cost of doing so could be met by phasing out the APS.
>
> Hang on. It will take at least a year to get this controversial legislation
> through parliament.
No, it won't. There is no need for any legislation for this pledge.
> The gifted children who will not have an assisted place, will still have
> special needs, ..
The assisted places scheme isn't about pupils with special educational needs.
> .. and you will still have to pay (rightly) for giving them an appropriate
> education. Surely, that will take at least half of the APS fund.
The costs of educating those who would have got an assisted place are
accounted for in the budget for this pledge.
> > > Cut in half time from arrest to sentancing for young offenders. AFAIK,
> > > this means removing their legal aid (a Labour barrister went suddenly
> > > deaf when I asked how else it could be achieved).
> >
> > It will not be done by removing legal aid. Obviously you have made this
up.
> > The new fast track punishment for persistent young offenders will be done
> > by reviewing the systems of youth courts and speeding up police and CPS
> > procedures.
>
> That's waffle. How?
The caution procedure for young offenders will be replaced by a single 'final
warning', and the youth courts will be streamlined. Further details have been
published.
--
\/ David Boothroyd, psephologist, Libertarian socialist.De minimis non curat DB
British Elections and Politics at http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~laws/election/home.html
House of Commons Dissolved: UK Election 1/5/97. New Parliament meets on 8/5/97.
SWING -20 -17.5 -15 -12.5 -10 -7.5 -5 -2.5 0
Lab 387 Lab 303 Lab 237 Lab 181 Lab 121 Lab 67 Lab 27 hung C 27.