|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 14, 2018 15:56:21 GMT
Allowable electorate ranges on 2017 figures with this amendment would be 66,824 to 77,660. If Northern Ireland is excluded from the calculation along with the islands it would be 66,909 to 77,759. (Mean: 72,334) Northern Ireland seats would have an average of 69,309 and permitted range 63,861 to 74,217 |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Jan 19, 2018 17:35:50 GMT
I might be mistaken but I believe the amendment would involve no boundary changes in Northern Ireland during this parliament. Any reason given? I presume it's to get the DUP on board/to vote down the current process in favour of this. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 19, 2018 19:14:07 GMT
Northern Ireland would be reviewed at the same time as the rest of the UK, it is just that if we stay at 650 seats, there will still be 18 in NI and any changes will likely be minor.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Jan 19, 2018 19:39:19 GMT
greatkingrat I have Northern Ireland just below (about 2000 electors) getting an 18th seat on the 2017 GE electorate. While the UK electorate grew, Northern Ireland itself actually lost electors compared to the current boundary review.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 19, 2018 19:51:06 GMT
greatkingrat I have Northern Ireland just below (about 2000 electors) getting an 18th seat on the 2017 GE electorate. While the UK electorate grew, Northern Ireland itself actually lost electors compared to the current boundary review. The proposed legislation specifies that Northern Ireland has 18 seats, regardless of how many electors it has. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 19, 2018 21:36:19 GMT
greatkingrat I have Northern Ireland just below (about 2000 electors) getting an 18th seat on the 2017 GE electorate. While the UK electorate grew, Northern Ireland itself actually lost electors compared to the current boundary review. The proposed legislation specifies that Northern Ireland has 18 seats, regardless of how many electors it has. Clearly inserted to make sure the DUP will consider backing it, since neither Scotland nor Wales are guaranteed a minimum number of seats under the proposed legislation. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Apr 21, 2018 23:25:20 GMT
Alternate Northern Ireland Proposals 18 Seat  1. Fermanagh and South Tyrone - 71,038 (Sinn Fein - UUP marginal) 2. West Tyrone - 63,176 (Safe Sinn Fein) 3. Foyle - 71,398 (Sinn Fein - SDLP marginal) 4. Coleraine and Limavady - 67,395 (Safe DUP) 5. East Tyrone and Magherafelt - 66,684 (Safe Sinn Fein)  6. North Down - 62,451 (Independent Unionist - DUP marginal) 7. Strangford - 65,436 (Safe DUP) 8. Belfast East - 67,266 (Safe DUP) 9. Belfast South - 66,731 (DUP - SDLP marginal) 10. Belfast West - 68,825 (Safe Sinn Fein) 11. Belfast North - 67,007 (DUP - Sinn Fein marginal) 12. South Antrim - 67,191 (DUP - UUP marginal) 13. East Antrim - 67,741 (Safe DUP) 14. North Antrim - 75,032 (Safe DUP) 15. Lisburn and Banbridge - 75,445 (Safe DUP) 16. Upper Bann - 74,668 (Safe DUP) 17. South Down - 70,250 (Sinn Fein - SDLP marginal) 18. Newry and Armagh - 75,635 (Safe Sinn Fein) 2017 Notional Results Northern IrelandDUP - 10 (No Change) Sinn Fein - 7 (No Change) Independent Unionist - 1 (No Change) |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on May 15, 2018 9:13:33 GMT
A second committee session for the Afzal Khan bill (was Pat Glass) and still no progress - the Government are refusing a money resolution so it can't be debated.
I won't claim to be an expert, but how can it be right that the Government can block a bill the house of Commons has voted to proceed? Time to scrap that lousy system if the Government won't make it automatic in my view - if they don't agree with the bill then vote against it, even more so with no majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 15, 2018 9:28:09 GMT
The Tories are deliberately delaying it until after the Boundary Commissions have reported, in the hope that the reports prove generally acceptable to Conservative MPs and those who lose out can be bought off.
It's a contempt of Parliament, because the Government is under an obligation to move Money Resolutions for any Private Members' Bills which get a second reading.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 15, 2018 11:25:51 GMT
The Tories are deliberately delaying it until after the Boundary Commissions have reported, in the hope that the reports prove generally acceptable to Conservative MPs and those who lose out can be bought off. It's a contempt of Parliament, because the Government is under an obligation to move Money Resolutions for any Private Members' Bills which get a second reading. And when is this expected? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 15, 2018 11:48:31 GMT
Sometime this autumn.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 15, 2018 12:26:16 GMT
Ah right, so not that long to wait then......
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 15, 2018 12:42:01 GMT
The Tories are deliberately delaying it until after the Boundary Commissions have reported, in the hope that the reports prove generally acceptable to Conservative MPs and those who lose out can be bought off. It's a contempt of Parliament, because the Government is under an obligation to move Money Resolutions for any Private Members' Bills which get a second reading. How is this enforced? A vote of the whole house? |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on May 15, 2018 12:45:08 GMT
The Tories are deliberately delaying it until after the Boundary Commissions have reported, in the hope that the reports prove generally acceptable to Conservative MPs and those who lose out can be bought off. It's a contempt of Parliament, because the Government is under an obligation to move Money Resolutions for any Private Members' Bills which get a second reading. How is this enforced? A vote of the whole house? I did wonder whether Labour could move it on an opposition day debate. But like I said I'm no expert. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 15, 2018 13:05:04 GMT
How is this enforced? A vote of the whole house? I did wonder whether Labour could move it on an opposition day debate. But like I said I'm no expert. No, it can't. A Money Resolution must be moved by a minister of the Crown. Standing Order 48 says so implicitly: "This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, unless recommended from the Crown." (emphasis added) |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on May 15, 2018 15:49:43 GMT
Chloe Smith said in the Bill Cttee that they would keep the bill 'under review' until the BC had reported. Is it possible to keep Khan's bill on ice as it were until then? Or does it fall without a money resolution?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2018 16:24:39 GMT
Chloe Smith said in the Bill Cttee that they would keep the bill 'under review' until the BC had reported. Is it possible to keep Khan's bill on ice as it were until then? Or does it fall without a money resolution? The problem then is the timeframe between the new Bill/Act and the next election. I remember very well that parties demanded public consultations as part of the review process and adequate response times. This all eats into the available time between now and 2022. It all adds up to a shambles, and I wonder, another piece of legislation which David Cameron might be accused of barely thinking about, alongside the Brexit referendum! |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on May 15, 2018 17:47:03 GMT
Chloe Smith said in the Bill Cttee that they would keep the bill 'under review' until the BC had reported. Is it possible to keep Khan's bill on ice as it were until then? Or does it fall without a money resolution? I wouldn't be surprised if she lets the review fail, considering it turns her slim Conservative majority into a solid Labour majority. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on May 15, 2018 17:57:57 GMT
Chloe Smith said in the Bill Cttee that they would keep the bill 'under review' until the BC had reported. Is it possible to keep Khan's bill on ice as it were until then? Or does it fall without a money resolution? I wouldn't be surprised if she lets the review fail, considering it turns her slim Conservative majority into a solid Labour majority. Do you mean the 600 seats review? |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on May 15, 2018 18:10:44 GMT
The initial Boundary proposals for Norwich North would be likely to cost Chloe Smith her seat. Effectively a Labour/Green ward from Norwich South is moved to Norwich North.
|
|
