|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 29, 2013 11:50:33 GMT
Another rumour that the DUP have been promised a new airport in Northern Ireland, and that the 2013 Boundary Changes will not be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Tories are also trying something naughty in an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment. It would remove the requirement for a separate vote on implementing the 2013 reports. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0127/amend/pbc1272901m.pdf |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 29, 2013 12:22:17 GMT
I'm not sure if there are any depths to which Dave's henchmen won't sink today   Strongly rumoured that the Nats have confirmed they will vote against the government, though. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 29, 2013 12:37:13 GMT
If they genuinely think they have enough votes to pass the review, then I guess the amendment makes sense otherwise there is the risk they will win this vote, then lose the actual vote on the order. So essentially, this is the de facto vote on the changes rather than just a vote on cancelling the review.
I'm not sure how they could spin letting NI keep its current seats though. Maybe claiming that if you ignore SF, NI only has 13 MPs attending Westminster anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 12:40:41 GMT
I've been thinking about that. They could, just about, use a very tenuous explanation to the effect that the split ward, loss of one Belfast seat and greater quota allowance all add up to a situation which has been created unsatisfactory constituencies and following consultation with Northern Irish MPs it has been agreed to postpone the NI review until such time as blah blah blah
As I've said, we shouldn't even be in the desperate mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 29, 2013 13:39:54 GMT
Actually, looking at the proposed amendment, I don't think NI can be exempted. The amendment requires the Government to submit all the draft Orders to Her Majesty before 1/1/14, there is no provision to make orders for some countries and not others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 15:02:22 GMT
This "debate" might as well be going on here.
Tories are in the wrong for supporting unelected, unaccountable peers
Labour on the wrong for supporting smaller urban seats
Only we look remotely good out of this.
Reform agenda? More like Reform offenders....
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 29, 2013 16:22:41 GMT
Lords amendment agreed with by 334 to 292, majority 42.
Roll on Royal Assent!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:25:31 GMT
Disgraceful.
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jan 29, 2013 16:27:39 GMT
All day I have been worried that the Tories wouldn't deliberately make themselves look stupid with a deafeat and that they must have something up their sleeves.
Turns out they were in fact deliberately making themselves look stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 29, 2013 16:35:04 GMT
Turns out they were in fact deliberately making themselves look stupid. I do not consider voting in favour of more equal electorates to be "stupid". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:35:43 GMT
At least both Tories and Labour achieved the unelected, self-appointed, unaccountable House of Lords which both parties were formed to protect, eh?
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jan 29, 2013 16:40:16 GMT
Pushing it to a vote and losing by that much is stupid.
My real problem though is that anyone is seen to be a winner out of this apart from MPs.
At the end of this process MPs have ensured that their retirement home is still there, that most voters don't really matter because the result in their constituencies is a foregone conclusion and that there will be 650 seats available for them instead of 600.
MPs as a group have protected themselves nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 29, 2013 16:42:36 GMT
Pushing it to a vote and losing by that much is stupid. They didn't have a choice. The only way to avoid the vote was to drop the entire bill which would mean losing all the changes to individual voter registration. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:44:14 GMT
Pushing it to a vote and losing by that much is stupid. They didn't have a choice. The only way to avoid the vote was to drop the entire bill which would mean losing all the changes to individual voter registration. The Tories had the choice to support Lords reform The real nasty party in all this is, of course, Labour. I notice yonder numpty for the very safe, very small Rhondda is gloating about saving democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 29, 2013 17:00:57 GMT
The real nasty party in all this is, of course, Labour. Interesting that you should be coming here to taunt Labour supporters while Tricky is applauding Lib Dem success and Mark Senior has gone over to ConservativeHome to taunt the Tories. Good to see one united party! |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 29, 2013 17:04:25 GMT
This "debate" might as well be going on here. No, it might at well not, because we've heard everything you have to say. It was tedious. Only we look remotely good out of this. Welching on a deal is of course a position of utmost honour. |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 29, 2013 17:13:02 GMT
This "debate" might as well be going on here. Tories are in the wrong for supporting unelected, unaccountable peers Labour on the wrong for supporting smaller urban seats Only we look remotely good out of this. Reform agenda? More like Reform offenders.... Except you broke an agreement that if the Tories supported an AV referendum you would support the boundary changes. I'm pleased the changes won't happen because the proposed boundaries were awful and the names were worse. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 29, 2013 17:20:43 GMT
So much for all the bluster from Grant Shapps and co Three (Tory) cabinet members absent, apparently. That suggests the Tory whips knew they were likely to lose this a while ago....... As for Shapps, he could yet turn out to be a greater liability for the Tories than they - or he - yet realise  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 29, 2013 17:52:00 GMT
Four Tory rebels: David Davis (because the payroll vote wouldn't be descreasing), Philip Davies (allegedly the same reason, but Shipley would have gone several different ways under the initial proposals), John Baron (would have been lumped with an absolute abomination of a seat, though an exceedingly safe one) and Richard Shepherd (Ian has mentioned he wasn't keen on losing Streetly).
Andrew Percy (seat effectively eliminated by being combined with David Davis') and Glyn Davies abstained.
Nadine Dorries did vote with the government. There were suggestions that the whip was withheld precisely in order to guarantee her support on votes like these.
William Hague, Ken Clarke and (I think) Helen Grant missed the vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 18:22:29 GMT
No surprise on Shepherd, the ONLY reason I wanted the changes so he would lose Streetly that would have been hilarous.
Of course Dok's bitterness really should be directed to his own party whose votes ensured this failed.
|
|
