voted moderately for the policy
Gambling - Against permissiveness
by scoring 76.8% compared to the votes below
House | Date | Subject | Susan Kramer | Policy vote | ||
Commons | 14 Jun 2005 | National Lottery Bill (Reasoned amendment on second reading) | absent | minority | ||
Commons | 19 Jan 2006 | National Lottery Bill — Clause 14 — Functions | absent | minority (strong) | ||
Commons | 28 Mar 2007 | Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007 — 28 Mar 2007 — Division No. 88 | minority | minority (strong) | ||
Commons | 28 Apr 2008 | Finance Bill — Clause 21 — Amusement Machine licence duty | minority | minority | ||
House | Date | Subject | Baroness Kramer | Policy vote | ||
no votes listed |
How the number is calculated
The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.
Questions about this formula can be discussed on the forum.
No of votes | Points | Out of | |
---|---|---|---|
Most important votes (50 points) | |||
MP voted with policy | 1 | 50 | 50 |
MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MP absent | 1 | 25 | 50 |
Less important votes (10 points) | |||
MP voted with policy | 1 | 10 | 10 |
MP voted against policy | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Less important absentees (2 points) | |||
MP absent* | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Total: | 86 | 112 | |
*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference. |
total points
112