The standard is – sorry, has been – that if a party gets even just the one MP elected to the Commons – and it has to be elected, someone jumping ship is not included – then they get a peerage nomination the next time there’s a list of political peers.
This is how the Greens have been nominating people over the years.
Performance at Regional, European, Council elections does not count. But one MP, elected, in the Commons, does.
So, imagine that Reform wins Rochdale. No, go on, just imagine.
We actually end up with two questions here.
1) Will the deal be maintained? Or will there be some mumbling about “Well, we didn’t really mean that the likes of you get to nominate!”. The BBC used to try that trick all the time with things like political party broadcasts, talking heads on TV during election campaigns and so on.
2) If the deal holds who will Reform nominate for the first peerage?
And question 2a) – Will Nige want to accept it?
In the immediate future after the Workers Party of Britain win in Rochdale will Galloway overcome his aversion to the British establishment and permanently cement his own spot in the Lords (meaning he’d have to share the chamber with fair few Jewish peers, that might be an issue) or will he instead really fcuk up the system by nominating Baroness Begum of Bethnal Green?
Can’t see them allowing this, because everybody knows it would lead to “Lord Farage of Farnborough” and that can’t be allowed to happen.
Not ever.
In the unlikely event that Reform wins a seat I reckon Nige will accept a nomination and not just for the trolling value. The EU Parliament allowed him to make some great speeches which were really good Brexit campaign material, not least because of the reactions for the rest of the EU MPs. If he can get the same HoL reactions it would be better for Reform than having him swallowed up in the HoC.
Depends if Nigel is planning to stand somewhere. There’s been some speculation both that Clacton (Carswell’s old seat, and where he won in a by-election and a general election for UKIP) would be winnable, and that Farage coming back as a candidate would add several percentage points to the Reform vote share overall (to the extent that they’d be damn close to overtaking the tories…)
Sorry, Tim. I can’t imagine Reform winning Rochdale.
Islam will win Rochdale, with the help of deluded elderly white people who are proud to have learned nothing from Rochdale’s recent history.
How many Sinn Fein peers are there, or have there been?
Steve,
As the Islamic vote in Rochdale will be split between fundamentalist George and slightly less batshit crazy but still way too much for Labour (that other bloke who’s now really showing his true colours) the 51% white/38% Christian demographic according to the 2021 census could easily defeat both of them were they not so deluded and scared.
Mind you in that scenario the ever-reliable ethnic community postal votes would come into play.
You don’t have to nominate – the SNP don’t. But you can.
John – Yarp.
Moslems may (or may not, do you trust government statistics on immigration?) be only 30% of the Rochester electorate, but the by-election has been captured by Moslem interests:
At a meeting at the town’s Kashmir Youth Project, he says that, if elected, he will “enter the chamber of the House of Commons like a tornado” and “shake the walls for Gaza”
Whoever wins, MPs will appear on telly – perhaps with their new bodyguards in the background – to solemnly disavow dangerous extremists such as Lee Anderson MP.
were they not so deluded and scared.
Religious intimidation is almost as old as sin. John tells us about how Jesus’ disciples had to meet behind closed doors and men were afraid to discuss Jesus openly “for fear of the Jews”.
Of course, he was referring to the hatred of the Pharisees, who could have you arrested and killed for being a Christian, if the mob didn’t kill you first.
We’ve seen who our MPs fear, and it’s not the Jews. Unfortunately it’s not us either.
I hadn’t been following the Rochdale by-election, but I’ve just looked it up, and golly isn’t it a steaming pile of shit?
The Labour and Green candidates have both been disavowed by their parties, both over comments relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The Conservative and LibDem candidates are dull (the former runs a gardening business and wants the government to plant more trees, the latter a university administrator who frets about water pollution).
Galloway is competing for the Muslim vote, against the Labour candidate (who is Muslim and was dropped by his party for being too pro-Palestinian, but is apparently thought to be too soft on Israel by some of his co-religionists).
Reform seem to be chasing the anti-Muslim vote, but can’t use the local Rotherham-like child sex abuse scandal to gain support because they’ve chosen a candidate who had to resign when he was previously an MP for inappropriate behaviour to a 17 year old.
There’s also some independents:
– the former vicar, who was jailed last year for a ‘Just Stop Oil’ protest in London;
– a pub owner, who is presumably not expecting many votes from the Muslim community;
– someone campaigning against the local child sex abuse ring (which one would have expected Reform to do, if their candidate didn’t have problems uncomfortably close to that, see above);
– a bloke who plays rugby and owns a small business, who wants government subsidies for rugby and small businesses.
Then there’s the Monster Raving Loony candidate, who wants there to be a 99p coin so we don’t have pockets full of pennies. That’s sounding like the most sensible.
Lee Anderson’s profile has never been this high. He is expressing the views of millions of people in a way the Conservatives have never managed in 13 years.
They will get hammered this autumn but the rotten core will survive in its few remaining safe seats with the archaic voting system ensuring that only “one of us, a safe pair of hands” will be elected as the next irrelevant and deeply disappointing leader.
There will never be a better time to jump ship and join Reform, WTF is he waiting for?
On the House of Lords nomination point, is there any precedent (either way) for a party who has only won an MP in a by-election? Otherwise, an obvious way out would be that it only counts if it’s won in a general election.
I had to look it up but Carswell won his in a byelection for Ukip. Peerage nomination to the party did not follow…..
Gentlemen,
I respectfully suggest it is a privilege which will be conferred on certain parties such as the greens but not others. As we have learned this week precedent is no longer binding,
Then there’s the Monster Raving Loony candidate, who wants there to be a 99p coin so we don’t have pockets full of pennies.
That’s a great idea.
By 2029 every constituency party will have an “anti-islamophobia” representative on the nomination committee.
By 2030 sharia courts will govern private life and appoint MPs in by elections.
Steve @ 11.37, someone, somewhere said that minorities don’t need a majorty to dominate, only a sufficiently large minority. His study says about 27%. This country is toast…..
The 99p coin would be a great idea if 2/3 of the places you go in in the UK say “no cash” when you try and pay.
Addolff – there’s a non trivial chance our Charles Martel and future king will be a Millwall supporter.
People like the strong horse, but the current British establishment has the smell of fear and death on them. Smells like urinal cake.
“No one likes us, we don’t care” needs to be tattooed onto the inner eyelids of every white man who still has half an ounce of self respect.
Tim, Carswell was elected as a UKIP MP at a by-election and re-elected at the 2015 general election.
UKIP has had peers who were orignally nominated as Conservatives and then defected.
The last bit I know of course. I worked for one of them. In the House of Lords….
RichardT,
“I hadn’t been following the Rochdale by-election, but I’ve just looked it up, and golly isn’t it a steaming pile of shit?”
Well, yes. But how many people get involved? How much do people want to pay for their MPs? How much do people expect so set impossible demands on their MPs?
You can be a senior manager in a manufacturing company earning what MPs earn. And not have to stay away from home all week. And if you shag the 17 year old next door, no-one cares. The people running the company just want to know that production output is met.
Personally, I want an MP who deals with crime, immigration, cutting all the red tape on businesses, cutting the waste in government. I believe everyone is a sinner, and if it’s not lust or gluttony, which tend to be a personal preserve, it’s going to be pride, envy or sloth which will (creating the Millenium Dome, taxing the rich, too hard not bothering to read various important things). I’d rather have an MP that likes doing disgusting things with consenting barely legal girls because that’s not going to cost me anything.
Lord Nige of Dundee ?
Nigel Farage is a completely unsuitable person to get a peerage as he is a politician. It should be offered to Tim instead.
@ Western Bloke
Some problems with giving MPs more money are:
1) If you just up the salary, you’ll get the same retards, just at a higher cost.
2) If you pay piece work, then you’ll end up with loads more useless leglislation/regulation.
3) A proper performance related pay (where they could earn millions) would require someone/group to come up with the relevant metrics and validate that they were reached.
None of these will make things better.
The closest to making a difference would be the 3rd option. However, just like corporate remuneration committees, IPSA and the IOPC, it’d be captured by the very people who it was supposed to regulate and thus would end up as option 1 again.
Joe Smith said:
“Some problems with giving MPs more money”
I always thought the answer was not to pay them, but to compensate them for lost earnings, based on their pre-election tax returns.
That way no-one would lose out by becoming an MP, but no-one would gain.
It might also have the useful side-effect of encouraging would-be MPs to get a proper job first, to boost their post-election income, which might broaden the House’s experience.
Very simple test; Does It Upset the Establishment?
If yes, go for it. Any result can’t be any more disastrous than allowing said Establishment to potter on….
Things have gotten Bad Enough for this to be an issue anyway….
Steve
February 25, 2024 at 10:35 am
“Islam will win Rochdale, with the help of deluded elderly white people who are proud to have learned nothing from Rochdale’s recent history.”
Deluded, or basically stuck hoping that voting with their neighbors keeps the local peace?
So just make it a simple formula, that can’t be gamed (or if it can, make it so the gaming benefits the people they represent too.) So, a few options:
1) Pay MPs nothing at all. Clearly the best option.
2) Pay MPs the national median salary. I like this option too, they won’t.
3) Start with the current salary, but freeze it on the day they are first elected MP. Annual increases (or decreases) are equal to the change in GDP per capita of their own constituency for the previous year. This should be trivial to calculate, the tax cunts know all the details required, and it aligns their incentives with ours.
BiW @ 10.33, missed that comment yesterday. Nige for Clacton? Oh yes please……
Bloke in Wales is right – pay them an increase proportional to increases in GDP per capita but make it *geared* to focus the minds.
If GDP/Capita goes down 1% they suffer a 5% fall in income. Same in reverse. Eventually if they screw it up enough people will be willing to take the risk they can reverse it. Trouble is you need a small number of people to run things in that case, not 649 muppets and one person with talent.
“Then there’s the Monster Raving Loony candidate, who wants there to be a 99p coin so we don’t have pockets full of pennies.
That’s a great idea.”
No its not. One of the main reasons things are priced at X-99 is because when cash is proffered as payment the cashier has to open the till to give change, thus ensuring they have to ring it up in the first place, rather than just pocketing the cash themselves. So businesses would just price things at X-98 instead to have the same effect.
@John
Lee Anderson’s profile has never been this high. He is…
There will never be a better time to jump ship and join Reform, WTF is he waiting for?
Ben Habib to apologise maybe:
Reform UK´s Ben Habib Slams Lee Anderson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aNpjr70UgE
@RichardT
I always thought the answer was not to pay them, but to compensate them for lost earnings, based on their pre-election tax returns
I’ve proposed same. Also for HoL where it’s two years “jury service”
@Jim
Good point, I’d never thought of that