Earl Peel

voted strongly against the policy

Fox hunting - Ban

by scoring 19.2% compared to the votes below

Why Majority/minority instead of Aye/No?
HouseDateSubjectEarl PeelPolicy vote
Lords19 Mar 2002Hunting with dogs: Ban Majorityminority (strong)
Lords19 Mar 2002Hunting with dogs: Supervision minorityMajority (strong)
Lords21 Oct 2003Hunting Bill — amendment — registered hunting Majorityminority (strong)
Lords28 Oct 2003Hunting Bill: amendment — tests for registration Majorityminority
Lords26 Oct 2004Hunting Bill: amendment — registered hunting Majorityminority (strong)
Lords11 Nov 2004Hunting Bill: amendment — registered hunting MajorityMajority (strong)

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 votesPointsOut of
Most important votes (50 points)   
MP voted with policy15050
MP voted against policy40200
MP absent000
Less important votes (10 points)   
MP voted with policy000
MP voted against policy1010
Less important absentees (2 points)   
MP absent*000
Total:50260

*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.

agreement score
MP's points
total points
 = 
50
260
 = 19.2 %.


About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive