The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 29, 2023 11:33:04 GMT
Did these changes finally officially become law with prorogation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 29, 2023 13:14:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 29, 2023 13:18:09 GMT
The legislation says the draft order must be submitted to "Her Majesty in Council", so looks like we won't have any new boundaries until next time a Queen is on the throne! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 29, 2023 13:22:26 GMT
The legislation says the draft order must be submitted to "Her Majesty in Council", so looks like we won't have any new boundaries until next time a Queen is on the throne! Ooops. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 29, 2023 13:25:13 GMT
Can we get Anne on the throne please? That would be a win win really.
|
|
jimboo2017
Non-Aligned
Posts: 5,911
Member is Online
|
Post by jimboo2017 on Oct 29, 2023 14:14:02 GMT
David Torrance
@davidtorrance
Unless I’m imagining things, the Government has missed the statutory deadline for submitting the new parliamentary boundaries order to a meeting of the Privy Council: the 2020 Act says within four months of the reports being laid b4 parliament, and that happened on 28 June 2023…
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 29, 2023 14:15:24 GMT
David Torrance @davidtorrance Unless I’m imagining things, the Government has missed the statutory deadline for submitting the new parliamentary boundaries order to a meeting of the Privy Council: the 2020 Act says within four months of the reports being laid b4 parliament, and that happened on 28 June 2023… Is it possible that the Order has been submitted, but won't be approved until whenever the next meeting is? |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 29, 2023 14:19:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 29, 2023 14:20:58 GMT
David Torrance @davidtorrance Unless I’m imagining things, the Government has missed the statutory deadline for submitting the new parliamentary boundaries order to a meeting of the Privy Council: the 2020 Act says within four months of the reports being laid b4 parliament, and that happened on 28 June 2023… Aah beat me to it. Not to mirror @weld here but does this mean: Zombie Review #1: rejected Zombie Review #2: neglected Zombie Review #3: forgotten? Scotland will be represented at the next election by boundaries drawn in 1999! |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 29, 2023 15:29:31 GMT
David Torrance @davidtorrance Unless I’m imagining things, the Government has missed the statutory deadline for submitting the new parliamentary boundaries order to a meeting of the Privy Council: the 2020 Act says within four months of the reports being laid b4 parliament, and that happened on 28 June 2023… If this is true, it must be cock-up rather than deliberate. I don’t think that any significant people, or numbers of significant people, actually want the new boundaries not to go ahead. So if it’s really true, then I expect they can be enacted by a quick bit of ad-hoc primary legislation anyway, just to fix the cock-up. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Oct 29, 2023 15:36:03 GMT
David Torrance @davidtorrance Unless I’m imagining things, the Government has missed the statutory deadline for submitting the new parliamentary boundaries order to a meeting of the Privy Council: the 2020 Act says within four months of the reports being laid b4 parliament, and that happened on 28 June 2023… If true, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth at Labour Party HQ (well, more than usual!) as a giant tranche of new membership cards has just this week been mailed to the faithful to reflect the new boundaries ...... I am now a member in South-West Hertfordshire rather than Watford. (Bad for me, but good for Labour.) |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Oct 29, 2023 15:43:12 GMT
DLUHC claiming it is has been submitted to the Privy Council already.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 29, 2023 16:14:51 GMT
DLUHC claiming it is has been submitted to the Privy Council already. So does that mean it’s been “submitted” but not yet actuallyified? So it’s in a queue, or a waiting list, or whatever? Presumably that means it has been “submitted” only in the last few days, since the previous Privy Council meeting happened which was mentioned the other week. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Oct 29, 2023 16:35:06 GMT
Was there any good reason to leave it until the last possible moment? This government is so useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 29, 2023 17:12:50 GMT
If the review has indeed been submitted to the Privy Council as DLHCC says, why cannot they just get on with approving it? It is just a formality and candidates have already been selected on the new boundaries by all parties!
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 29, 2023 17:15:44 GMT
Was there any good reason to leave it until the last possible moment? This government is so useless. The reports have to be "translated" into the format required for legislation. Plus it all has to be checked and double checked, it would be more embarassing if the order was passed and then it was found a ward was in the wrong constituency or something. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Oct 29, 2023 17:21:56 GMT
There is the overriding fact that this government have been living off fumes for years and probably find something like boundary change legislation about as important as regulations concerning shoe polish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Oct 29, 2023 17:25:59 GMT
Was there any good reason to leave it until the last possible moment? This government is so useless. The reports have to be "translated" into the format required for legislation. Plus it all has to be checked and double checked, it would be more embarassing if the order was passed and then it was found a ward was in the wrong constituency or something. That really shouldn’t be four months of work. And the primary legislation should have provision to correct an obvious error. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 29, 2023 17:41:12 GMT
There is the overriding fact that this government have been living off fumes for years and probably find something like boundary change legislation about as important as regulations concerning shoe polish. But this is the government that told the Commisioners to do this in the first place (or is the Johnson ministry seperate from the Truss ministry and seperate from the Sunak ministry, meaning that we have had three governments since the last election instead of the usual one)? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 29, 2023 17:46:31 GMT
There is the overriding fact that this government have been living off fumes for years and probably find something like boundary change legislation about as important as regulations concerning shoe polish. If they've mucked up the shoe polish regulations they should be booted out. |
|
