My guess is that should a Labour government be elected in 2015, new legislation would be passed scrapping this review & amending the current modified rules back to what they were. Then a new review would be commenced. People forget Labour never ever signed up to the Tories & Liberals ideas on reducing the commons or equalizing electorates. It used to be said 'if it aint broke dont fix it' & that can be said of the boundary commission before the changes were made by the coalition.
So Labour agree that there should be 650 MPs, at full cost, not 600. Labour agree that constituencies should be whatever size at all, rather than as equal and fair as can be reasonably formed.
That's the great divide. The Coalition wants to save money an ensure a vote in Shap is worth as much as a vote in Sheppey. The Labour Party wants to waste money and gerrymander the system to ensure there's too many MPs for Manchester and too few in Oxfordshire.
So Labour agree that there should be 650 MPs, at full cost, not 600.
What the fuck does this even mean? I'm not going to ask about the rest, because it was tedious enough 3 years ago and the vintage hasn't improved with age, but are the coalition calling for cuts in money spent per MP? Or is it just your usual non-ending stream of bile, non-sequiturs, and bollocks?
And yes, we oppose a reduction in the number of MPs. Given how many hissy fits you've thrown over it, I'm surprised you've forgotten that we voted against the legislation establishing the reduction.
shall we ask Dok what he thinks of the coalition policy before the Tories pulled it of massively increasing the number of lords at great cost of expenses ?
I've been a party member since the year 2000. Before then, during, and since, I've been against the House of Lords. Full stop. No question.
It is perfectly understandable why both Cameron and Clegg would require nominating members of the HoL. It needs to be balanced, it needs to be able to support Government policy.
But I don't agree that it should be there at all. It shouldn't be stuffed full of appointments. Remember that Blair filled the Lords will more appointments than the Pope made Saints, so it's not as though the previous government were innocent.
It is perfectly understandable why both Cameron and Clegg would require nominating members of the HoL. It needs to be balanced,
It is balanced. Current state of the parties is almost exactly balanced between the largest two parties.
it needs to be able to support Government policy.
The second part of the sentence is in blatant contradiction to the first. Only a Liberal Democrat would not notice that.
Remember that Blair filled the Lords will more appointments than the Pope made Saints, so it's not as though the previous government were innocent.
And then even more contradiction. When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, the composition of the House of Lords was:
Conservatives 478 Cross-Bench 318 Others 234 Labour 117 Liberal Democrat 57
When he left (taking nearest figures), it was:
Labour 214 Cross-Bench 206 Conservative 199 Liberal Democrat 74 Others 40
That raises an important point. Blair declared that in appointing party political Peers he wanted to aim at parity between the two main parties. His successor but one says the composition should balance the votes for the parties at the previous election, which would mean the Government of the day having a lead. Had Tony Blair taken that stance, he would have appointed more than twice as many Peers as he in fact did.
Socialism makes war upon a system, not upon a class
So do the Commissions have the option to scrap what they have done already and start again from scratch with 2015 electorates? There doesn't seem to be anything in the amendment to allow this.
It doesn't need to be on the face of the Bill. All that the existing legislation says is that they need to report by 2013; it doesn't say they have to use the 1 December 2010 electoral register.
Yes it does - 9(2) of Schedule 2 of the PVS&C Act says they need to use the electorate on the review date and 9(5) sets the review date as being 2 years and 10 months before the deadline, so December 2010.
By my reading of the Act, as it would be amended the BCs would have to hand in a report between Sept and Oct 2018 based on the electorate figures 2 years and 10 months before the deadline - so Dec 2015. Hence handing in a report based on 2010 electorates wouldn't meet the requirements of the legislation.
In moving the amendment at third reading Lord Hart made clear that the intention of the tweak was to ensure that the December 2015 register would be used for the 2018 review, which would as a byproduct have the effect of cancelling the current review as it is based on the Dec 2010 register. The government and BCs appear to be happy that this is the unambiguous meaning of the amendment as passed at third reading. I think we can therefore assume that if the Commons passes the amendment, the 2013 review will be cancelled in short order.
"I enjoyed Nick Clegg losing his seat and it also proved how clueless all these political journalists are. The barmaid knows more about politics then they do, they’re all f***ing bluffers."