voted strongly against the policy
by scoring 19.2% compared to the votes below
|House||Date||Subject||Lord Kimball||Policy vote|
|Lords||19 Mar 2002||Hunting with dogs: Ban||tellno||minority (strong)|
|Lords||19 Mar 2002||Hunting with dogs: Supervision||minority||Majority (strong)|
|Lords||21 Oct 2003||Hunting Bill — amendment — registered hunting||Majority||minority (strong)|
|Lords||28 Oct 2003||Hunting Bill: amendment — tests for registration||Majority||minority|
|Lords||26 Oct 2004||Hunting Bill: amendment — registered hunting||Majority||minority (strong)|
|Lords||11 Nov 2004||Hunting Bill: amendment — registered hunting||Majority||Majority (strong)|
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||4||0||200|
|Less important votes (10 points)|
|MP voted with policy||0||0||0|
|MP voted against policy||1||0||10|
|Less important absentees (2 points)|
*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.