|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 24, 2013 17:05:57 GMT
It may be relevant to point out that this is because he was being crucified at the time. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Jan 24, 2013 20:00:25 GMT
It may be relevant to point out that this is because he was being crucified at the time. It may be pertinent to point out that he wasn't. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Jan 24, 2013 20:04:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the_bullies on Jan 24, 2013 21:58:29 GMT
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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 22:02:42 GMT
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 24, 2013 22:13:20 GMT
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 24, 2013 22:20:13 GMT
So Labour agree that there should be 650 MPs, at full cost, not 600. What the fuck does this even mean? Leave 'im, 'e's not worf it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 22:43:26 GMT
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 ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 22:50:22 GMT
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2013 22:53:35 GMT
So when the Lords keep beating labour policies were you against it then ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 24, 2013 23:04:07 GMT
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. The second part of the sentence is in blatant contradiction to the first. Only a Liberal Democrat would not notice that. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 24, 2013 23:10:59 GMT
Labour 214 Cross-Bench 206 Conservative 199 Liberal Democrat 74 Others 40 And the current figures are Conservative 212 Labour 224 Lib Dem 90 It really is disgraceful the way Cameron has packed the House of Lords to give the Conservatives such a large advantage over Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 24, 2013 23:14:32 GMT
It really is disgraceful the way Cameron has packed the House of Lords to give the Conservatives such a large advantage over Labour. The criticism is not that he has done so. It is that he has declared he intends to do so. |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 25, 2013 0:13:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyjwells on Jan 25, 2013 13:32:18 GMT
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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 14:44:31 GMT
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 28, 2013 15:55:42 GMT
This will give Kevin time to update his site to give demographic and (speculative) voting data by ward
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 28, 2013 23:43:53 GMT
Interesting tweet from Pete Wishart:
@petewishart
Boundaries vote tomorrow. Should we give Labour 30 seats of a start to help keep Scotland free of Tory Government?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 23:50:27 GMT
He clearly doesn't have faith in the referendum passing then.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 29, 2013 11:37:25 GMT
Speculation at least half a dozen Tories will vote for the amendment today, with others abstaining.
|
|
