Buckingham

[Adam in Stroud]

Sept 10, 2019 13:18:20 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Adam in Stroud ,we do seem to think of the past as fairly honourable compared to now. But some of the biggest crooks and wrong 'uns in any of the parties could be seen in the Sixties and Seventies, on a scale that wouldn't be imaginable amongst the current crop, regardless of what one thinks of them.

Not sure which post of mine you're referring to Devil - what I was noting upthread was that a radical strand in the Conservative Party has been about for some decades, which I think arose from a sense that merely resisting excessive change wasn't enough, because it was felt that things had gone too far; and that this strain now seems to be in total control. In a Brexit context that means mere Euroscepticism about further integration isn't enough, absolute departure from the EU is needed.

I don't comment on whether there was greater honour in the past. In fact, now you get me thinking about it, it seems to me that we have had fewer scandals in the last few years than normal - a couple of errant MPs (O'Mara and Onasanya), a little bit of "Me Too" but not out of line with the rest of society (maybe less,) a couple of leaks (normal)...... Priti Patel seems to me the only really dodgy case. Nothing like the expenses scandal.

Shock horror, maybe we have quite an honourable bunch of politicians, even if they are useless?

[neilm]

Sept 11, 2019 2:35:15 GMT Andrew_S said:

Profile of a young and until very recently rather right-wing Tory MP who might make waves in the future.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2396507.stm

"However, his Euroscepticism has not faltered, as befits a member of the Council of the Freedom Association and a supporter of the Bruges Group."

I may have mentioned before, but Bercow was a sabbatical officer at the University of Essex in the early 1980s. About 15 years ago I was going through some old SU paperwork and came across some of his publicity- basically it said 'do you like rugby, beer and women? Do you hate snivelling vegan lefties? VOTE BERCOW.' I wish I'd kept it but I put it back in the archive- when I contacted the then SU general manager (sorry, 'chief executive', like SUs are BP or something) in 2009 about something else I asked where the archive was and got told that a large part of it had got lost in the intervening five years.

[middyman]

That Bercow went to Essex University explains a lot.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/does-essex-university-still-live-up-to-its-radical-reputation-9978700.html

[Deleted]

Sept 11, 2019 2:35:15 GMT Andrew_S said:

Profile of a young and until very recently rather right-wing Tory MP who might make waves in the future.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2396507.stm

"However, his Euroscepticism has not faltered, as befits a member of the Council of the Freedom Association and a supporter of the Bruges Group."

I knew him slightly back in the 1980s through a mutual friend who, I think, knew him through the Monday Club. Back then, Bercow took ridiculously right-wing positions, which, combined with a certain protean quality and air of insecurity, made him difficult to take altogether seriously. I had little contact with him after he became an MP.

It's generally agreed that it was his awful wife who made him what he has become today, rather than the promptings of some inner voice.

[wallington]

Sept 11, 2019 2:35:15 GMT Andrew_S said:

Profile of a young and until very recently rather right-wing Tory MP who might make waves in the future.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2396507.stm

"However, his Euroscepticism has not faltered, as befits a member of the Council of the Freedom Association and a supporter of the Bruges Group."

I once did some work with Lambeth Archives cataloguing council minutes from the 1980s. Certain Bercow parts were certainly eyebrow raising.

Edit: they would probably make Carlton look like a wet in comparison.

[John Chanin]

My respect for Bercow dates back to 1997-8. I was cabled in the mid 1990s, and with the new-fangled multi channel options, I often watched the Parliament channel in the evening. This was of course before the Blair government abolished evening sittings. The Conservatives generally went AWOL after their crushing defeat in 1997, having neither the heart nor the ability to oppose. But night after night Bercow sat in the Commons opposing Labour all on his own. And he was very effective too, because he actually listened to what Labour MPs were saying (this is of course very rare), which enabled him to address and often demolish their arguments directly.

I suspect this ability to actually listen to your opponents arguments has played a part in the moderating of his views over time. Direct argument is how people’s views change- you can’t change the views of someone who won’t engage with you. Obviously some Labour opinions were valid and well thought out, and Bercow would acknowledge this.

In retrospect someone with such a respect for, and ability in, debate, becoming Speaker is not such a surprise. Bercow is pretty.much a one-off - it’s hard to think of any other MP with such an interest in debate. And certainly not Gray Hoyle.

[andrew111]

Sept 11, 2019 16:30:36 GMT @goodoldcause2 said:

Sept 11, 2019 2:35:15 GMT Andrew_S said:

Profile of a young and until very recently rather right-wing Tory MP who might make waves in the future.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2396507.stm

"However, his Euroscepticism has not faltered, as befits a member of the Council of the Freedom Association and a supporter of the Bruges Group."

I knew him slightly back in the 1980s through a mutual friend who, I think, knew him through the Monday Club. Back then, Bercow took ridiculously right-wing positions, which, combined with a certain protean quality and air of insecurity, made him difficult to take altogether seriously. I had little contact with him after he became an MP.

It's generally agreed that it was his awful wife who made him what he has become today, rather than the promptings of some inner voice.

I am sure if it hadn't been for that awful husband Thatcher would never have been so keen on the Single Market..

[Deleted]

I used to live in Olney which was in this seat until 1983.

The old Buckingham seat must have had a huge electorate in the early 1980s, and the old Milton Keynes seat only lasted for 9 years before being split.

[Yaffles]

Sept 12, 2019 11:18:02 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I used to live in Olney which was in this seat until 1983.

The old Buckingham seat must have had a huge electorate in the early 1980s, and the old Milton Keynes seat only lasted for 9 years before being split.

Yep - over 100k in 1979 probably well over 200k today. This is one of the parts of England that has, not surprisingly, seen the most population growth in recent years.

[ricmk]

Sept 12, 2019 11:27:08 GMT Yaffles said:

Sept 12, 2019 11:18:02 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I used to live in Olney which was in this seat until 1983.

The old Buckingham seat must have had a huge electorate in the early 1980s, and the old Milton Keynes seat only lasted for 9 years before being split.

Yep - over 100k in 1979 probably well over 200k today. This is one of the parts of England that has, not surprisingly, seen the most population growth in recent years.

Yep -and we'll deserve 3 seats before too long.

The (aborted? stuck? forgotten?) boundary review makes a complete mess of MK with 2 seats and a third which slices off the bit that shouted least loudly (or for conspiracy theorists, taking the Labour voting bit out of the marginal) and connects to Buckingham (I think it ended as "Buckingham and Milton Keynes West" which was a really horrible seat.)

Far more sense to be forward thinking and allow 3 smallish seats for Milton Keynes - they won't stay small for long. 

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 12, 2019 12:18:06 GMT ricmk said:

Sept 12, 2019 11:27:08 GMT Yaffles said:

Yep - over 100k in 1979 probably well over 200k today. This is one of the parts of England that has, not surprisingly, seen the most population growth in recent years.

Yep -and we'll deserve 3 seats before too long.

The (aborted? stuck? forgotten?) boundary review makes a complete mess of MK with 2 seats and a third which slices off the bit that shouted least loudly (or for conspiracy theorists, taking the Labour voting bit out of the marginal) and connects to Buckingham (I think it ended as "Buckingham and Milton Keynes West" which was a really horrible seat.)

Far more sense to be forward thinking and allow 3 smallish seats for Milton Keynes - they won't stay small for long. 

On the old rules that would have made sense. On the current rules it is not possible to deviate from the quota by more than 5% so it would be illegal

[bjornhattan]

Sept 12, 2019 12:18:06 GMT ricmk said:

Sept 12, 2019 11:27:08 GMT Yaffles said:

Yep - over 100k in 1979 probably well over 200k today. This is one of the parts of England that has, not surprisingly, seen the most population growth in recent years.

Yep -and we'll deserve 3 seats before too long.

The (aborted? stuck? forgotten?) boundary review makes a complete mess of MK with 2 seats and a third which slices off the bit that shouted least loudly (or for conspiracy theorists, taking the Labour voting bit out of the marginal) and connects to Buckingham (I think it ended as "Buckingham and Milton Keynes West" which was a really horrible seat.)

Far more sense to be forward thinking and allow 3 smallish seats for Milton Keynes - they won't stay small for long. 

Or a better way to solve it - treat Milton Keynes with Northamptonshire for electoral purposes. The more rural wards in the north of the borough could easily be paired with parts of South Northants.

But community ties and sanity come second to the sanctity of artificial regional borders...

[Pete Whitehead]

'artificial regional border' = real county boundary

[Pete Whitehead]

Anyway I don't see anything particularly wrojng with what is proposed in that area. I think the numbers didn't allow for removing a couple of Blethcley area wards instead (which might have been better) but Wolverton and Stony Stratford were in the Buckingham seat between 1983 adn 1992 as well

[bjornhattan]

Sept 12, 2019 13:56:37 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

'artificial regional border' = real county boundary

I'd not have a problem with respecting the county boundary, if it wasn't for the way they flagrantly deny county boundaries everywhere else. My issue is the way they treat the regions. Putting Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire together also has positive knock on effects (specifically I think it preserves the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border)

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 12, 2019 14:00:38 GMT bjornhattan said:

Sept 12, 2019 13:56:37 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

'artificial regional border' = real county boundary

I'd not have a problem with respecting the county boundary, if it wasn't for the way they flagrantly deny county boundaries everywhere else. My issue is the way they treat the regions. Putting Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire together also has positive knock on effects (specifically I think it preserves the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border)

Well it's the nature of the system - you had to have some kind of framework for braeking the country down. But I don't think you'll find any defenders of that awful piece of legislation on here. I think stepney was the only person who totally supported it and he's a lunatic as his recent outbursts under another username attest

[ricmk]

Sept 12, 2019 14:00:38 GMT bjornhattan said:

Sept 12, 2019 13:56:37 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

'artificial regional border' = real county boundary

I'd not have a problem with respecting the county boundary, if it wasn't for the way they flagrantly deny county boundaries everywhere else. My issue is the way they treat the regions. Putting Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire together also has positive knock on effects (specifically I think it preserves the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border)

Yes, with the current set of rules it's the least worst way of doing it, and it does help improve proposals for Northamptonshire.   There are much better transport links (the M1, the A5, the West Coast Mainline) from MK to Northampton than there are to Buckingham so it feels a stronger link even though it's over a county boundary.

But I am not sure we are ever going to see actual changes on the 5% (or even 10% quota) rules, if you try it twice and don't succeed, whoever thinks they will simply try again?  The boundaries are very out of date in places, surely someone will soon propose an old rules review, simply to get something sensible through?

[Pete Whitehead]

On the old rules it works out nicely

[Foggy]

Sept 12, 2019 14:00:38 GMT bjornhattan said:

Sept 12, 2019 13:56:37 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

'artificial regional border' = real county boundary

I'd not have a problem with respecting the county boundary, if it wasn't for the way they flagrantly deny county boundaries everywhere else. My issue is the way they treat the regions. Putting Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire together also has positive knock on effects (specifically I think it preserves the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border)

My solution to this is to create a tenth region of England, incorporating contiguous bits that don't fit neatly anywhere else (Northants, Rutland, Beds, Hunts & Peterborough, plus potentially all of Bucks but certainly MK). 

Then again, if we're really serious about respecting all county borders and having more flexibility in terms of electorates, then boundary reviews do not need to be undertaken on a regional basis at all. 

[Pete Whitehead]

Sept 12, 2019 18:16:44 GMT Foggy said:

Sept 12, 2019 14:00:38 GMT bjornhattan said:

I'd not have a problem with respecting the county boundary, if it wasn't for the way they flagrantly deny county boundaries everywhere else. My issue is the way they treat the regions. Putting Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire together also has positive knock on effects (specifically I think it preserves the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border)

My solution to this is to create a tenth region of England, incorporating contiguous bits that don't fit neatly anywhere else (Northants, Rutland, Beds, Hunts & Peterborough, plus potentially all of Bucks but certainly MK). 

Then again, if we're really serious about respecting all county borders and having more flexibility in terms of electorates, then boundary reviews do not need to be undertaken on a regional basis at all. 

Hertfordshire should also go in that region (though not sure it should include Rutland which is surely more closely tied to Leicestershire and Lincolnshire)