goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610 
|
Post by goose on May 15, 2018 20:19:45 GMT
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? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on May 16, 2018 7:56:23 GMT
doesn't it give a minor but significant boost to the Tories - going from 8 short of a majority to a majority of 4 on the 2017 results? : www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2018.htmlI agree it might not be worth May going through the pain though. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 16, 2018 11:49:17 GMT
The pro-Tory effect is massively reduced when compared to after the 2015 GE, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by catking on May 16, 2018 13:58:38 GMT
What is the process for the 600 review getting parliamentary approval? Am I right in thinking it just needs to win a single vote in the Commons? Or do the Lords have to vote on it as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on May 16, 2018 14:04:32 GMT
an Order in Council in both Houses - so a single vote in both following the final Boundary Commission proposals, in September. Though I assume the Government could decide not to proceed with the Order if it thinks its going to lose
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 16, 2018 14:09:27 GMT
It's just one vote on all the changes because of a change made in the 2011 Act. Note s. 3 of the 1986 Act has been amended to say that after the reports are submitted, "the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect to the recommendations contained in them." (my emphasis) |
|
|
|
Post by catking on May 16, 2018 14:30:19 GMT
So the governemnt just needs to win a single vote in the Commons and then the Lords. Thanks.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 16, 2018 14:39:09 GMT
an Order in Council in both Houses - so a single vote in both following the final Boundary Commission proposals, in September. Though I assume the Government could decide not to proceed with the Order if it thinks its going to lose I am opposed to this reduction in numbers. But if the government puts this to the vote I think it will pass both houses because to oppose can so easily be made to seem partisan, unfair and to prolong the delay in having more equal-sized electorates. It never pays to paint oneself into the 'unfair' corner in Britain, especially where it will stink of partisan self-interest. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on May 16, 2018 14:44:58 GMT
an Order in Council in both Houses - so a single vote in both following the final Boundary Commission proposals, in September. Though I assume the Government could decide not to proceed with the Order if it thinks its going to lose I am opposed to this reduction in numbers. But if the government puts this to the vote I think it will pass both houses because to oppose can so easily be made to seem partisan, unfair and to prolong the delay in having more equal-sized electorates. It never pays to paint oneself into the 'unfair' corner in Britain, especially where it will stink of partisan self-interest. I think you are significantly overestimating the British public's level of interest in boundaries or the need for equal sized electorates. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on May 16, 2018 14:55:09 GMT
an Order in Council in both Houses - so a single vote in both following the final Boundary Commission proposals, in September. Though I assume the Government could decide not to proceed with the Order if it thinks its going to lose I am opposed to this reduction in numbers. But if the government puts this to the vote I think it will pass both houses because to oppose can so easily be made to seem partisan, unfair and to prolong the delay in having more equal-sized electorates. It never pays to paint oneself into the 'unfair' corner in Britain, especially where it will stink of partisan self-interest. This is constitutional vandalism. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on May 16, 2018 15:45:13 GMT
I am opposed to this reduction in numbers.
It means larger numbers of electors in seats on average and thereby reduces accountability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 17:01:07 GMT
I'm in favour of reducing the size of the Commons and equalising constituency sizes. We have too many MPs in this country, and too many Councillors.
What should happen in tandem is a reduction in Ministers and the like.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on May 16, 2018 17:44:41 GMT
I am opposed to this reduction in numbers. It means larger numbers of electors on average and thereby reduces accountability. It also increases the relative size of the executive (interestingly, a point made by Nigel Dodds at PMQs today). |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on May 17, 2018 8:10:54 GMT
..which is significant because if DUP abstain rather than back the Government vote, its very difficult to see how it could go through. On my maths it would only need 3 Tory rebels to block boundaries if DUP abstain (allowing for SF, speaker etc)
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on May 17, 2018 12:59:06 GMT
and now an urgent debate in the House of Commons about the Government's refusal to submit a money resolution. I know this is a much wider point of principle than the boundaries themselves, but it surely merits this.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 23, 2018 16:01:21 GMT
an Order in Council in both Houses - so a single vote in both following the final Boundary Commission proposals, in September. Though I assume the Government could decide not to proceed with the Order if it thinks its going to lose I am opposed to this reduction in numbers. But if the government puts this to the vote I think it will pass both houses because to oppose can so easily be made to seem partisan, unfair and to prolong the delay in having more equal-sized electorates. It never pays to paint oneself into the 'unfair' corner in Britain, especially where it will stink of partisan self-interest. Even if the public care about this, all the opposition parties have to do to avoid that accusation is portray the rule changes as partisan gerrymandering. If the government cared about making elections "fairer" they'd be introducing some form of PR, rather than tinkering with FPTP boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2018 20:11:21 GMT
And also reforming/abolishing the unelected House of Lords, ever increasing in size.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2018 16:03:37 GMT
And also reforming/abolishing the unelected House of Lords, ever increasing in size. To be honest I'd much rather see it abolished (with the possibility of something from scratch) than reformed; if the current second chamber is changed, particularly if elected than it could undermine what I would consider to be the legitimacy of the House of Commons. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on May 25, 2018 17:10:30 GMT
And also reforming/abolishing the unelected House of Lords, ever increasing in size. To be honest I'd much rather see it abolished (with the possibility of something from scratch) than reformed; if the current second chamber is changed, particularly if elected than it could undermine what I would consider to be the legitimacy of the House of Commons. Not necessarily, it depends on what its legally expected to do. I certainly believe we need a second chamber (after all there needs to be some checks and balances on the commons) but equally agree the 2nd chamber shouldn't supersede it.
My preferred option has always been a fully elected Lords by straight PR (with a min threshold) ensuring no single party ever has a majority and a legal mandate that it is a reviewing chamber only aka it can't propose legislation or block things the commons backs indefinitely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2018 19:11:20 GMT
To be honest I'd much rather see it abolished (with the possibility of something from scratch) than reformed; if the current second chamber is changed, particularly if elected than it could undermine what I would consider to be the legitimacy of the House of Commons. Not necessarily, it depends on what its legally expected to do. I certainly believe we need a second chamber (after all there needs to be some checks and balances on the commons) but equally agree the 2nd chamber shouldn't supersede it.
My preferred option has always been a fully elected Lords by straight PR (with a min threshold) ensuring no single party ever has a majority and a legal mandate that it is a reviewing chamber only aka it can't propose legislation or block things the commons backs indefinitely.
i fear direct elections as a low turnout will undermine its role in scrutinising the gov. But electing senators to a second chamber in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party in the GE is a good comprimise i think |
|
