Boundaries Archive

[Deleted]

Mike Smithson says the amendment is being formally backed by the LDs.

[greatkingrat]

To be more precise, if we ignore Sinn Fein and the Speaker/Deputies, then they need 321 votes, and there will be 304 Conservatives (assuming they lose Corby).

[the_bullies]

There are 253 Labour (+3 extra possible in 15th Nov by-elections) which would give 256 seats. They can normally rely on the support of the Green mp, the Respect mp Galloway, The Independent Mp Sylvia Hermon (who votes with Labour against the coalition) & the Northern Ireland Alliance candidate for East Belfast. to give a total of 260. Plus 57 Lib Dems give 317. The 3 Plaid Mp's have said that they would only support the coalition if 'substantial powers' were devolved including, Criminal Justice & Policing, Welfare & Full Tax raising powers without a referendum. If we assume that this is definately not going to happen (& they couldnt do it even if they wanted too) that gives 320. We also know that at least one Tory Mp the member for Devon West & Torridge (rumoured to be one against a few rebels) who is on record as saying he will vote against the bill that gives 321 against. Also the 3 SDLP mp's normally support Labour & did so against the Boundary bill too we have a possible total of 324 even without the Croydon North & Middlesborough byelections. So I think the Tory's with 303 (minus 1 rebel & including the Speaker who doesnt vote) will not be enough even with the DUP's 9 which are not guaranteed.

[Deleted]

The LabourLordsUK twitter feed says "No 10 forces Lords leader to pull tomorrow's debate on #electionsbill"

[East Anglian Lefty]

I don't think the DUP will back the Boundary Changes anyway. Glenshane makes it a seriously tough sell, Northern Ireland losing seats isn't something they'd be keen on in a vacuum and the Tories don't have very much they could plausibly offer them.

[Deleted]

"The coalition has been cast into further disarray after David Cameron confronted Nick Clegg over constitutional reforms, and the Liberal Democrats hit out at Tory plans to slow the introduction of new wind farms in the UK.

In a sign of the deterioration in relations, the prime minister vented his fury at Clegg after the Lib Dem leader authorised his peers to support a Labour move to delay plans to reduce the size of the Commons until 2018.

Downing Street was understood to have moved to avoid a double parliamentary defeat on Wednesday – a Commons rebellion is due on Europe – by pulling its business in the House of Lords. This is designed to postpone Lib Dem support for a backbench Labour amendment to delay a review of Commons boundary changes until 2018.

The row over the changes to the size of the Commons came as the two coalition parties clashed over renewable energy policy. Lib Dems reacted furiously after John Hayes, the Tory energy minister, told the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail that wind turbines can no longer be imposed on communities.

Hayes told the Daily Telegraph: "We can no longer have wind turbines imposed on communities. I can't single-handedly build a new Jerusalem, but I can protect our green and pleasant land.

"We have issued a call for evidence on wind. That is about cost but also about community buy-in. We need to understand communities' genuine desires. We will form our policy in the future on the basis of that, not on a bourgeois left article of faith based on some academic perspective."

The Lib Dems regard Hayes, a rightwinger who delivered the Cornerstone Group of traditionalists to David Cameron in the 2005 Tory leadership contest, with suspicion. The prime minister was said to have instructed Hayes to put the brakes on onshore wind farms when he appointed him to the department of energy and climate change, which is led by the Lib Dem Ed Davey.

Hayes told the Daily Telegraph that only a small minority of wind turbines currently being assessed for planning permission will win approval. "Even if a minority of what's in the system is built, we are going to reach our 2020 target," Hayes said. "I'm saying enough is enough."

One Lib Dem source said: "This government is committed to being the greenest government ever. We are committed to a mixed energy source, of which onshore wind will play a part. That is what the recent renewable obligation certificates sought to set out and that is what the government is sticking to."

The Lib Dems were being equally forthright over their plans to vote with Labour to delay plans to reduce the size of the Commons until 2018.

Clegg withdrew his support for plans to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, which would overcome disadvantages faced by the Tories in the electoral system, after Conservative MPs killed off Lords reform in the summer.

A Lib Dem source said: "The Labour amendment is in line with what the Lib Dems have been saying publicly. So it should come as no surprise that the Lib Dems should be supporting it."

The Labour amendment to the electoral registration and administration bill, tabled by Lord Hart, would amend the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 to delay the boundary reviews until 2018.

A source close to the Labour leadership in the Lords said: "With the threat of yet another defeat in the Lords, the government has clearly been panicked into pulling its business. As it's not clear that the leader of the house has the authority to do this, we will challenge the government's decision today.""

[Deleted]

Thwere are more Tories who would not vote for it, Richard Shepherd for one would never vote for a bill that takes away his beloved Streetly. I giuess now Dorries is safe she would vote for it now but the numbers were rumoured to be 30 Tories.

[greatkingrat]

Dorries isn't necessarily safe unless Peter Lilley retires.

[Tangent]

Oct 31, 2012 10:16:25 GMT greatkingrat said:

Dorries isn't necessarily safe unless Peter Lilley retires.

Perhaps, not even then: A. N. Other would have a good chance against Dorries. The party hierarchy wouldn't explicitly come out against her, but informal help might be given to a plausible alternative....

[Deleted]

Philip Hunt @lordphilofbrum

Govt have pulled Elections Bill from Lords business on Monday. Fear defeat on amendment to delay boundary changes till after next election

Where does that leave the actual bill ?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The Government's reason for pulling the Electoral Registration Bill were given in a business statement yesterday. It is that the amendment put down by Lord Hart (and supported by Lord Rennard) to stop the Boundary Commission is outside the Bill's scope. If this sort of thing happens in the Commons the Table Office just refuses to accept it (with a possibility of appeal to the Speaker).

The House of Lords is a self-regulating House so what happens if a member puts down an amendment is that it can still be debated but the Leader of the House advises the House of the decision of the Clerks.

But it is still possible, if the amendment is agreed, for the House to agree a corresponding amendment to the long title of the Bill to include it in the Bill's scope.

[the_bullies]

The Following Appeared on the FT's website today:-

Lib Dems to hinder plans for boundaries
By Kiran Stacey, Political Correspondent
Liberal Democrat peers are set to give David Cameron a bloody nose next week over coalition plans to change constituency boundaries.
The party’s members of the House of Lords will back a Labour amendment delaying a review of boundaries until 2018, scuppering lingering Conservative hopes of implementing the changes in time for the 2015 general election.
Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, said this year that his party would vote against the changes, which would make it easier for their coalition partners to win a majority, after Tory rebels voted down Lords reforms in the House of Commons.
But senior Tories have since openly discussed the possibility of persuading their coalition partners to change their stance by offering them a deal on state funding of political parties.
The issue has now come to a head after Labour tabled an amendment to the electoral registration bill, calling on the boundary commission not to conduct a review until 2018.
Acting with the consent of Mr Clegg, Lib Dem peers, led by Lord Rennard, have backed that proposal, which is now likely to pass the Lords and be offered for debate in the Commons.
Mr Clegg’s position triggered a sharp exchange with the prime minister late on Tuesday night, after which the amendment was withdrawn by government business managers, only to be reinstated for debate on Monday.
A Lib Dem official confirmed the party would also back the clause in the Commons.

[/i][/quote]

[Tangent]

I must say, looking at the amendment and the debate, that I strongly suspect that the LDs are the actual instigators of the amendment under Labour cover, and that they are trying to force defeat onto the Conservatives as swiftly as possible to give Clegg a boost. It might have worked if the European issue hadn't arisen at the same time.

[greatkingrat]

The amendment is flawed anyway. It doesn't tell the boundary commissions to start a new review in 2018, just to not submit the current review until 2018.

[The Bishop]

Does that matter? The effect of either would be the same - to finally kill off any changes this parliament.

[greatkingrat]

The difference is whether the 2018 Review will be the current review delayed for five years (still using the 2010 electorates), or whether they start again from scratch using 2015 electorates.

[the_bullies]

Any future incoming Labour Government is likely to scrap this review & start afresh after amending legislation. A similar thing happened with the entire local government boundary review in Wales, an independent review was commissioned (The Mathias Report) which was critical. The Boundary Commissioners were all sacked & new more like minded commissioners were appointed. My guess is new legislation would beef up the independence of the commission by giving it regulatory status & the ability to 'self govern' that is be the only body to be able to suggest changes in it's remit to avoid the unfortunate gerrymandering that has taken place by the Tories which has meant that much of the non partisan approach of the commission has been lost. In Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland I think it's likely that Parliament will lose the right to changes boundaries & that this will only become the right of the respective develoved assemblies/parliament in these countries where the Tories have no majority. A simple change could mean that 66% of Am's, Msp's from across all parties would have to agree changes to boundaries before changes were made. This removes the temptation to 'fiddle' the boundaries to suit yourself & returns us to the 'whats best for the communities we represent approach'.

[stepney]

Nov 3, 2012 12:16:54 GMT the_bullies said:

Any future incoming Labour Government is likely to scrap this review & start afresh after amending legislation. A similar thing happened with the entire local government boundary review in Wales, an independent review was commissioned (The Mathias Report) which was critical. The Boundary Commissioners were all sacked & new more like minded commissioners were appointed. My guess is new legislation would beef up the independence of the commission by giving it regulatory status & the ability to 'self govern' that is be the only body to be able to suggest changes in it's remit to avoid the unfortunate gerrymandering that has taken place by the Tories which has meant that much of the non partisan approach of the commission has been lost. In Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland I think it's likely that Parliament will lose the right to changes boundaries & that this will only become the right of the respective develoved assemblies/parliament in these countries where the Tories have no majority. A simple change could mean that 66% of Am's, Msp's from across all parties would have to agree changes to boundaries before changes were made. This removes the temptation to 'fiddle' the boundaries to suit yourself & returns us to the 'whats best for the communities we represent approach'.

I know I shouldn’t engage, I know it’s perfectly pointless, but where’s the sodding gerrymandering in mandating roughly-equal constituency electorate sizes then giving it to an independent Commission to draw the actual boundaries?

[Deleted]

unfortunate gerrymandering that has taken place by the Tories which has meant that much of the non partisan approach of the commission has been lost.

I would hardly call it gerrymandering. It's more about creating a level playing field.
Labour have a huge bias in their favour with the present constituency boundaries and they know it.
Had the Tory and Labour shares of the vote been switched in 2010, Brown would have back by over 70 seats.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Nov 3, 2012 12:47:13 GMT swanarcadian said:

I would hardly call it gerrymandering. It's more about creating a level playing field.
Labour have a huge bias in their favour with the present constituency boundaries and they know it.
Had the Tory and Labour shares of the vote been switched in 2010, Brown would have back by over 70 seats.

It is gerrymandering, because the reason for the system producing more seats for Labour than the Conservatives is not down to any defect in the rules for distributing constituencies. It is overwhelmingly down to (a) differential turnout; (b) the effect of party political campaigning within the existing constituencies. Neither of these factors are ones which it is legitimate for the system to attempt to correct for.

If you don't like a system in which parties can get a proportion of the seats which is different to their proportion of the votes, then you have to favour an electoral system which links the two factors. Our present one doesn't and if Conservatives favour it, then they can't complain if they are treated poorly by it.