ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,026
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 29, 2020 21:13:16 GMT
Technically, yes. Because without RA it isn't law and therefore the Commission would have no legal basis to start a review at this point in time. There may also be budgetary implications as it probably has money assigned just for reviews. I doubt it would be illegal for them to start working (e.g. internal preparations) before Royal Assent, and the chances of them being sued to stop seem low. AFAIK the budget isn’t set by the bill. They can definitely start preparatory, regular work. But we know from experience how deliberate they are to avoid commenting on or reacting to anything speculative and that they follow instructions only when officially issued or required by law. By budgetary I meant they won’t want to use their money for something until it is required of them officially. Otherwise they could potentially be accused of misusing funds.
|
|
robert1
Conservative
Posts: 705
Member is Online
|
Post by robert1 on Nov 3, 2020 17:00:17 GMT
I posted previously on the 2019 electorates thread that I expected the March 2nd 2020 data would probably be available by the end October. Obviously it isn't. I have therefore put down a written question asking when ONS will publish the data.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 3, 2020 19:29:01 GMT
I posted previously on the 2019 electorates thread that I expected the March 2nd 2020 data would probably be available by the end October. Obviously it isn't. I have therefore put down a written question asking when ONS will publish the data. Presumably you mean an FOI request?
|
|
robert1
Conservative
Posts: 705
Member is Online
|
Post by robert1 on Nov 3, 2020 20:29:05 GMT
I posted previously on the 2019 electorates thread that I expected the March 2nd 2020 data would probably be available by the end October. Obviously it isn't. I have therefore put down a written question asking when ONS will publish the data. Presumably you mean an FOI request? Sorry, I should not have abbreviated my question. I have asked the Government what steps the ONS is taking......
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Nov 4, 2020 5:51:24 GMT
Presumably you mean an FOI request? Sorry, I should not have abbreviated my question. I have asked the Government what steps the ONS is taking...... Are you a parliamentarian, or are you talking about an FOI request?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 4, 2020 6:05:33 GMT
Sorry, I should not have abbreviated my question. I have asked the Government what steps the ONS is taking...... Are you a parliamentarian, or are you talking about an FOI request? He’s a parliamentarian, and in an hour or so I shall be in his former constituency.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 5, 2020 15:57:11 GMT
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,625
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 5, 2020 18:46:48 GMT
Today is Thursday, so that's *next* Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Nov 5, 2020 19:36:48 GMT
Thank you for the update greentudorrose. I’ll tune in.
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Nov 5, 2020 23:02:16 GMT
Are we expecting it to receive royal assent by the end of the month? Presumably the commons will reject the Lords amendments. Is it clear that the Lords will then accept the unamended version?
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 10, 2020 10:22:49 GMT
|
|
poi
Newbie
Posts: 9
|
Post by poi on Nov 10, 2020 10:44:23 GMT
The Government are opposing most of the Lords amendments, apart from those relating to the laying of the Order in Council, so it will go back to the Lords for another go before any thought of Royal Assent.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 10, 2020 15:08:15 GMT
They are debating the Bill now.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 10, 2020 18:23:14 GMT
The Government are opposing most of the Lords amendments, apart from those relating to the laying of the Order in Council, so it will go back to the Lords for another go before any thought of Royal Assent. In all of the votes so far held, every single one of the Lords' amendments has gone down, however I wonder whether the government will mention "the Salisbury convention" in their reply to these votes (as this was in the Conservative manifesto)
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Nov 10, 2020 20:23:24 GMT
I’d missed the Chloe Smith news - diagnosed with breast cancer on 2 November and in treatment.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 11, 2020 1:08:43 GMT
The Government are opposing most of the Lords amendments, apart from those relating to the laying of the Order in Council, so it will go back to the Lords for another go before any thought of Royal Assent. In all of the votes so far held, every single one of the Lords' amendments has gone down, however I wonder whether the government will mention "the Salisbury convention" in their reply to these votes (as this was in the Conservative manifesto) The official reasons given by the Commons for rejecting the amendments were: Lords Amendment 1 & 2 Because the Commons consider that eight years is a balanced and appropriate approach to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated sufficiently regularly. Lords Amendment 6 Because the Commons consider that the existing public appointments system and the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 are sufficient. Lords Amendment 7 Because the Commons consider that the existing law on this matter is sufficient to ensure equal parliamentary constituency boundaries. Lords Amendment 8 Because the Commons consider the Government has provided sufficient explanation of appropriate action the Government has taken and is taking to improve the completeness of the electoral registers.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 11, 2020 14:41:24 GMT
In all of the votes so far held, every single one of the Lords' amendments has gone down, however I wonder whether the government will mention "the Salisbury convention" in their reply to these votes (as this was in the Conservative manifesto) The official reasons given by the Commons for rejecting the amendments were: Lords Amendment 1 & 2 Because the Commons consider that eight years is a balanced and appropriate approach to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated sufficiently regularly. Lords Amendment 6 Because the Commons consider that the existing public appointments system and the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 are sufficient. Lords Amendment 7 Because the Commons consider that the existing law on this matter is sufficient to ensure equal parliamentary constituency boundaries. Lords Amendment 8 Because the Commons consider the Government has provided sufficient explanation of appropriate action the Government has taken and is taking to improve the completeness of the electoral registers. To which I am sure their Lordships are going to disagree with the Commons and we are in parliamentary ping pong once again, therefore posing the question I asked about how the deadlock gets broken.
|
|
robert1
Conservative
Posts: 705
Member is Online
|
Post by robert1 on Nov 11, 2020 15:23:00 GMT
In general, the Lords acquiesces on legislation once it has been over-turned by the Commons and certainly on electoral matters. The issue of breaches in international law may be a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 11, 2020 15:45:00 GMT
Regarding Wendy Chamberlain's point about the proportion of constituencies that would be changed due to a 5% tolerance: it would be much more than 2/3; my own set of hypothetical boundaries resulted in approximately 6/7 of all existing UK Parliamentary constituencies being changed, even if only slightly in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 11, 2020 18:20:24 GMT
Has the Commons accepted the Lords amendment on the range being 7.5% instead of 5%?
|
|