Don does not seem to understand that GO's backtracking has nothing to do with Labour and everything to do with his leadership hopes. Labour is almost entirely irrelevant.
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
looking at the urban dictionary definition of lawnmower, I wouldn't say that's the type of thing you should be boasting about on a public website
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
If it was as bad as you make it seem, we'd never not have Tory governments. I cannot dispute the specifics because I do not have the experience with it you have, but I am skeptical it could be as bad as all that.
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because at root, British politics requires everyone playing the game plays by the rules, which means there has to be a certain level of trust. Without this, for example, "the usual channels" don't function.
This, incidentally, is why it's a problem if a Leader of the Opposition can't or won't join the Privy Council.
No. The "usual channels" are simply one of several devices to obfuscate the truth that patriotism requires a one-Party State (Tory in England, SNP north of the Border) - David Herdson has rightly pointed out that only three times since Gladstone's death has a Party opposed to the Tories won a clear majority (Blair, of course, was/is a crypto-Tory) which it has always lost at the election following. Anyone who owns, or aspires to owning, a lawn-mower is a Tory au profond however much energy they put into hiding this fact from themselves.
I have 3 lawnmowers , don't tell me I am doomed to be a diehard Tory.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
One wonders how we don't already have 649 constituencies for Kensington, to return Tory members, and one constituency at large for the rest of the country. (and I don't for one moment buy the argument that the Tories are the only ones that can afford lawyers)
A structural bias - that can be fixed and is likely to grow and evolve with time. Figures 2 and 3 show combined bias due to national effects and constituency sizes of around +17 to Labour. That can be brought closer to zero by appropriate and regular redrawing of boundaries. I think the saw tooth nature of one of the lines reflects this process.
That it is a minor part of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it. We should, because we can.
There's the abstention bias - fewer Labour voters per MP. I think one of the side effects of equalising the constituencies will be to reduce this from its current bias in the mid-20s to Labour. And the voter registration will get rid of the ghost voters that also lead to this bias.
Again, minor but we can do things to mitigate it. And we should.
There's not much we can do about the Third Party bias - when the electoral map gets so fundamentally redrawn, you're going to get *odd* results. Don't forget a big part of this was Labour's inability to fight in both Scotland and Middle England in 2015.
The last graph - that's not a bias, chaps, that's tactics. That's political skill.
That's what wins majorities from positions that once looked unwinnable.
As I mentioned last night to one or two people at the pb gathering, one of my Labour-leaning colleagues gave a description of Jeremy Corbyn which I now can't shake out of my head: "he's like Brian from Life of Brian".
"You are all individuals."
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"You're all different!"
"Yes, we ARE all different!"
I had a dream last night that Corbyn had taken over as player manager of my football team, insisted on playing up front and made me play defensive midfield instead of my favoured no 10 role!
And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
Bollocks
One of the main reasons the Tories lost Edinburgh South West to Labour (having held Pentlands for years) is the boundaries were redrawn to heavily favour labour wards over Tory wards
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
At the 2015 election, the bias favoured the Conservatives. The changes were conceived when Labour benefited from a so-called bias which, as we occasionally pointed out on pb, was not really a bias at all but just differential turnout.
Not true - read the full LSE analysis for the details.
@RobD Labour can possibly afford some - but they are not in a good state financially, so not likely to be able to afford them on the same scale as the Tories. SNP possibly. Otherwise, almost certainly not UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, or anybody else. Not on the industrial scale that will guarantee nationwide oversight. The Tories see this like EVEL - a way of giving themselves the best chance of keeping power more or less permanently. That's the only reason they want to do it.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
If it was as bad as you make it seem, we'd never not have Tory governments. I cannot dispute the specifics because I do not have the experience with it you have, but I am skeptical it could be as bad as all that.
As I mentioned last night to one or two people at the pb gathering, one of my Labour-leaning colleagues gave a description of Jeremy Corbyn which I now can't shake out of my head: "he's like Brian from Life of Brian".
"You are all individuals."
"Yes, we are all individuals!"
"You're all different!"
"Yes, we ARE all different!"
I had a dream last night that Corbyn had taken over as player manager of my football team, insisted on playing up front and made me play defensive midfield instead of my favoured no 10 role!
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
As far as I remember, the last two reviews have been a fair bit less favourable to the Tories than would be expected by a 'neutral' review. The review between 92 and 97 was described in great detail in Robert Waller's excellent 'almanac of British Politics' of about 1995 and the commissioners seemed to accept the Labour representations more often than the Conservatives'.
@RobD Labour can possibly afford some - but they are not in a good state financially, so not likely to be able to afford them on the same scale as the Tories. SNP possibly. Otherwise, almost certainly not UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, or anybody else. Not on the industrial scale that will guarantee nationwide oversight. The Tories see this like EVEL - a way of giving themselves the best chance of keeping power more or less permanently. That's the only reason they want to do it.
So we've already gone from "no one can afford representation apart from the Tories", to, "well, Labour can afford some". OK.
If what you say seriously happens, why don't we already see boundaries which massively favour the Tories? This isn't the first boundary review.
Scott - what, one constituency, and in Scotland, and you think that proves the Tories are not going to manipulate the boundaries review in their favour? I feel a malcolmg moment coming on - you must be a numpty if you genuinely believe that.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
As far as I remember, the last two reviews have been a fair bit less favourable to the Tories than would be expected by a 'neutral' review. The review between 92 and 97 was described in great detail in Robert Waller's excellent 'almanac of British Politics' of about 1995 and the commissioners seemed to accept the Labour representations more often than the Conservatives'.
That can't be right. The evil baby-eating Tories spent the big bucks on those lawyers to ensure that wouldn't happen!
Scott - what, one constituency, and in Scotland, and you think that proves the Tories are not going to manipulate the boundaries review in their favour? I feel a malcolmg moment coming on - you must be a numpty if you genuinely believe that.
As an example it disproves your theory, but feel free to put on your tinfoil hat and wait for the sky to fall...
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
Ranting Lib Dem complaining about 'dirty tricks' by other parties? How we laughed. History has shown that the Yellow Peril are experts when it comes to skullduggery.
@Cookie and in 1992-1997 it was Labour who were in a rising position, heading toward 1997, and who had the money and resources to distort the reviews in their favour. Since 2001 the pendulum has been swinging towards the Tories. So they will fix this round in their favour this time. THat's how it works.
Scott - what, one constituency, and in Scotland, and you think that proves the Tories are not going to manipulate the boundaries review in their favour? I feel a malcolmg moment coming on - you must be a numpty if you genuinely believe that.
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
At the 2015 election, the bias favoured the Conservatives. The changes were conceived when Labour benefited from a so-called bias which, as we occasionally pointed out on pb, was not really a bias at all but just differential turnout.
Not true - read the full LSE analysis for the details.
This bit? this ‘efficiency bias’ was by far the largest source of the major pro-Labour biases in the 1997, 2007 and 2005 elections [graph]. But it had already evaporated in 2010 (when the Conservatives mounted a far more effective target seat strategy than in previous elections). And this year, it worked substantially in the Conservatives’ favour -– worth a whopping 60 seats over Labour.
The Labour Party is very good at making a lot of noise, but its parliamentarians just do not carry through.
Remember their mass rally to protest over the shortening of the period for individual registration before the Tory gerrymander of the new boundaries?
If Labour peers had stayed and voted with the Lib Dems, the government would have been defeated. But most of the Labour peers went home.
Labour are not serious about standing up against the Tories.
Simply calling it gerrymandering doesn't make it gerrymandering.
There is a reason that we have an independent Boundaries Commission trusted by all sides to be impartial, and it's so that unlike a number of other countries there is no gerrymandering in the UK. Thankfully.
Why is it in the interests of "all sides" to trust the Boundaries Commission?
Because it means that when in opposition you can be sure the boundaries are drawn fairly and not to favour the party in power. It's when the boundaries are not re drawn that some bias will affect one part or another, probably not the party in power.
I'll try again. Why is it in the interest of the activists of the Party in power (who presumably believe that it has a monopoly of wisdom, or they wouldn't be activists) that the boundaries aren't drawn in their favour?
Because then they would no longer be legitimate, if it looks like the election was stolen.
Indeed.
It's worth noting, however, that there is a distinction between introducing a bias and removing a bias. Just because removing Labour's inbuilt bias benefits the Tories doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.
At the 2015 election, the bias favoured the Conservatives. The changes were conceived when Labour benefited from a so-called bias which, as we occasionally pointed out on pb, was not really a bias at all but just differential turnout.
Not true - read the full LSE analysis for the details.
This bit? this ‘efficiency bias’ was by far the largest source of the major pro-Labour biases in the 1997, 2007 and 2005 elections [graph]. But it had already evaporated in 2010 (when the Conservatives mounted a far more effective target seat strategy than in previous elections). And this year, it worked substantially in the Conservatives’ favour -– worth a whopping 60 seats over Labour.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
Ranting Lib Dem complaining about 'dirty tricks' by other parties? How we laughed. History has shown that the Yellow Peril are experts when it comes to skullduggery.
Frank Field is very unlikely to stand again. It is surprising he stood this time. This makes him a somewhat unlikely candidate to resist deselection but very little makes sense in the Labour party these days.
The government is of course not much weaker but much stronger than it looks after the passing of the EVEL rules. It can pass pretty much whatever legislation it wants in England and Wales with or without the awkward squad.
As for the comments about McDonnell, well, it does little for the credibility of Don's views more generally that he can come out with such nonsense.
Indeed - English MPs now have far less effective power than they did previously. The Executive has been considerably strengthened. Fancy that.
Is that actually true?
AFAI all it means is that English MPs only consider at committee stage. All UK MPs get to vote at 2nd reading. After report stage, English MPs can only consent or veto specific clauses - they cannot introduce any new ones. It then goes to third reading where all UK MPs vote once again:
In effect it just stops Scottish MPs amending government bills as they progress through the House so, yes, in that sense strengthens the Tory majority - but the only real power is a power of veto.
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
I've never been to a review but I have read the reports.I think the issue with a lot of the ordinary people who make submissions is that they only focus on their own little patch and have no thought to the knock on consequences for other areas. The big parties have tended to get listened to a lot more because they put forward schemes for an entire area, I have also seen a few cases where a member of the public has put a whole scheme put forward and had it accepted. The commission do go on field trips to some of these places to investigate for themselves
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
For me to take this seriously, I'd have to know a bit more information. With all respect, an activist from another party complaining in high level terms about gerrymandering without specific charges doesn't have much weight.
- What were the outright lies? - What was the effect of these outright lies? - How did the misogyny of the Commission chair affect the gerrymandering? - What complaints by the non-lawyers were not sufficiently considered?
I do not feel the complaint about changing the Labour electorate holds much weight, as there was such rampant fraud in the system among certain communities before that it's not surprising the electorate reduces as false voters get stripped off the roll.
My biggest complaint is that we still allow Commonwealth citizens to vote, often in countries where British people have no reciprocal right, and in countries where village elders control voting patterns in the UK. Mirpur is a good example of this.
I'd rather spend an entirety stuck in a lift with Kippers and Kippers in Kilts than go to another 1D concert.
I concur, but based my decision not to go on empirical data rather than a participatory experiment.
On the other hand Download festival has some excellent headliners next year: Rammstein, Black Sabbath (with Ozzy) in their final UK appearance then Iron Maiden on Sunday. Heavy Metal Heaven! I cannot resist...
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
The tax credit business coming at the same time as Oldham West is fortuitous for the Tories - here's why:
I think it makes a passable result (On awful turnout no doubt) far more likely for Labour than the squeaky bum they may have had if the whole rumpus had not kicked off. This in turn should help cement Corbo, ex quo sequitur is good news for the blues.
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
You're being shouted down because you haven't actually given any examples of specific complaints, much less evidence for them. Repeating your high level claims in capital letters does not make the claim any more persuasive.
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010 and in 2015 the country said piss off.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
My plan is to unite Yorkshire and Lancashire and form the Plantagenet Party.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010 and in 2015 the country said piss off.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
My plan is to unite Yorkshire and Lancashire and form the Plantagenet Party.
Good luck with that endeavour. The Pennines are culturally higher than the Himalayas.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
My plan is to unite Yorkshire and Lancashire and form the Plantagenet Party.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010 and in 2015 the country said piss off.
Yes, they lost most of their seats with honour. Of course, they gained most of them through an all-things-to-all-men anti-politics, so it's swings and roundabouts really.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
They brought it on themselves.
It was a very strange positioning. They openly argue they needed to sign up to a coalition to implement an austerity drive for the good of the country. And then they complain that they had to back an austerity drive they didn't really agree with by the evil Tories.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
They brought it on themselves.
They should be able to make some political capital out of the tax credits debacle
In 2009 labour were in power, the tax threshold was 6k and you got tax credits
In 2010 the coalition enacted the lib dem policy of raising the threshold to 11k, and tax credits remained
In 2015 the tory majority cut tax credits
We are where we were in 2009 and it seems to me the Lib Dems can claim to have helped poor people more than the other two
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
Then, with respect, the Lib Dems should have allowed the boundary changes through when they still had a say in the process. Killing them off in the last parliament turned out to be unhelpful in the long run and didn't even help them save seats in the short term.
@MSmithsonPB: Today's ComRes phone poll for the Mail has the Tories in worst position than any survey from pollster since GE
Quick, retreat to the PBToryBunker!
I don't think any retreat is needed. I would happily go ten points down at this point as long as we are making real conservative reforms. We'd have to be further right wing than Genghis Khan before we lost to Corbyn. We have plenty of time to recover in the polls within the next five years. Now is the time to get things done.
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
You're the one doing all the shouting - now if I was an evil bab -eating Tory I'd say 'calm down dear' but i'm not so I won't - I'll settlefor 'you ok hun'?
To anyone who thinks there will be any fairness in the way the boundaries are redrawn
Get real. Have you been through a boundaries review? I have. The Commission will say they know exactly what they are doing and are impervious to political influence. Then they will listen to the people who employ barristers to argue their case (not called barristers while they are conducting a review - and won't you get belittled if you don't know that). And as in the majority of the country the only people who can afford paid representation are the Tories, hey presto, everyone else is outgunned and the boundaries are bought by the Tories to suit them.
In a local government boundary review I witnessed outright lies from the Tories, bought wholesale by the Commission, with no effort to investigate whether they were true or not, despite protests from other parties. In a parliamentary boundary review I witnessed not only distortion of what was appropriate locally but misogeny by the person chairing it to the extent that he reduced one woman to tears (not me) and complete intolerance of anyone who didn't have a legal background and didn't therefore have all the correct terminology etc - despite the claims made of enabling participation. And when I tried to make a complaint I was told that I couldn't because it would affect the person's career prospects! So excuse me for being very very very cynical about this. We are going to end up with gerrymandered boundaries and the Tories gaining a large electoral advantage. And it is starting now, as it is not in their interests to increase the electoral roll, as those not on it are less likely to vote Tory. So reduce the electorate in Labour seats, then say those seats are not big enough in terms of voters, then amalgamate them, reducing the number of seats. We all know this. Makes me furious.
If it was as bad as you make it seem, we'd never not have Tory governments. I cannot dispute the specifics because I do not have the experience with it you have, but I am skeptical it could be as bad as all that.
That doesn't follow.
How so? If the situation is a Tory free for all as described, the Tories should have changed the boundaries to such that they never lose. As I have not witnessed such a review I cannot, however, dispute MrsB's assertions as to how they are conducted, but because we have not had a situation where the Tories could never lose, as shown by how they have lost multiple times, then I am skeptical of the assertion's strength nevertheless.
LMAO - post of the decade. You're not a bit paranoid - you know they're out to get you.
I don't think the Lib Dems are in a position to lecture anyone about the politicisation of boundary changes after the experience of the last Parliament.
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems
They put the country first in 2010
Their tactics once in coalition sucked melon balls - they put the country first for a month then spent 4 1/2 years slagging off the government they were part of.
They brought it on themselves.
They should be able to make some political capital out of the tax credits debacle
In 2009 labour were in power, the tax threshold was 6k and you got tax credits
In 2010 the coalition enacted the lib dem policy of raising the threshold to 11k, and tax credits remained
In 2015 the tory majority cut tax credits
We are where we were in 2009 and it seems to me the Lib Dems can claim to have helped poor people more than the other two
(I don't agree with them, but they can claim it)
Unfortunately the Cons can play the what was the minimum wage card against that.
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
No, it'll be your distorted perception.
Something does not become true simply because you type it in capital letters. It just makes you look desperate.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
My plan is to unite Yorkshire and Lancashire and form the Plantagenet Party.
Good luck with that endeavour. The Pennines are culturally higher than the Himalayas.
I've realised that The Plantagenet party sounds awfully French, as a proud les Rosbif, that just wont do.
@MSmithsonPB: Today's ComRes phone poll for the Mail has the Tories in worst position than any survey from pollster since GE
To prepare, I think Labour supporters should remember that although there are plenty of overly triumphant Tories out there, there have also been plenty saying even though they think Corbyn will never win a GE, that Labour under him would have a lead at some point. If they had one now it would be a surprise to such people I suspect, and even if it is close they would be annoyed, but even if the Tories are in a precarious position, it is not entirely unexpected.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
@MSmithsonPB: Today's ComRes phone poll for the Mail has the Tories in worst position than any survey from pollster since GE
Quick, retreat to the PBToryBunker!
I don't think any retreat is needed. I would happily go ten points down at this point as long as we are making real conservative reforms. We'd have to be further right wing than Genghis Khan before we lost to Corbyn. We have plenty of time to recover in the polls within the next five years. Now is the time to get things done.
Mr. Antifrank, except the North isn't a country. And despite what some southerners think, it's actually as English as the rest of the land. Carving it up into various assemblies/parliaments would be monumentally foolish, short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
My plan is to unite Yorkshire and Lancashire and form the Plantagenet Party.
Good luck with that endeavour. The Pennines are culturally higher than the Himalayas.
I've realised that The Plantagenet party sounds awfully French, as a proud les Rosbif, that just wont do.
The Tudor Party would be the unification of Yorkshire and Lancashire, I would have thought...
oh what a surprise, all the pbTories think their party is as pure as the driven snow and any possibility that it might be engaging in fixing boundaries has to be shouted down.
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
I certainly don't think Tories are pure as the driven snow. I'm sure they try for as much advantage as they can get. What I dispute is your assertion it is as bad as you claim, since it self evidently is not because the Tories barely won a majority this time and hadn't won one since 1992 before that!
However, while some parties may be worse than others in action, anyone who thinks the difference is massive in moral terms, whether they favour Tories, SNP, Labour, LD or UKIP, is a blinkered partisan. One can believe a party is on balance better than the others, or that another is worse, but in a liberal democracy like ours, where disaster does not occur when another side wins even if many think things get worse, the idea any particular party supported by millions upon millions of people is beyond the pale (and that those millions like that or are idiots who don't notice) is insulting.
I've voted LD in every GE I've been able to vote, if it helps you accept some criticism of the strength of your assertion without dismissing it as a partisan attack to know that.
Is SPECTRE any good ? Going at the weekend - is it Live and Let Die or Die another day ?
PB's Bond connoisseurs loved it. SeanT didn't like it.
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Sounds promising - Skyfall was a dour bore frankly. Moody bollocks or Roger Moore holding a fish out of the window whilst driving out of the sea - I know which I prefer.
Moonraker - 'Carry On Bond'. The best. It's all been downhill ever since.
Still on the boundaries, I found this in an Electoral Commission report on which areas will suffer the most from the removal of the 1.9 million
4.22 However, there are also a number of local authority areas with retained entries making up 10% or over of all register entries. These authorities are in urban areas with a high student concentration (Glasgow, Cambridge) or London boroughs (Brent, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Kensington and Chelsea, Redbridge). Hackney has the highest level, with 23% of their total register being retained. 4.23 The number of London boroughs with high proportions of retained entries further underlines the importance of considering the transition end date in relation to the polls scheduled for May 2016 – which includes elections to the Greater London Assembly and for London Mayor.
K&C could be reduced to one whole seat despite the borough having approx 156k population. It shows the impact of the large number of non-eligible foreigners buying up properties there.
Don't know what is happening with Hackney, although my guess is it would be paired with Newham which has seats that are too big.
Comments
That coincides with P2 of the Mexican Grand Prix weekend, although that's only on the radio/online (or Sky, obviously).
(This conversation is going down the mind bleach route)
A structural bias - that can be fixed and is likely to grow and evolve with time. Figures 2 and 3 show combined bias due to national effects and constituency sizes of around +17 to Labour. That can be brought closer to zero by appropriate and regular redrawing of boundaries. I think the saw tooth nature of one of the lines reflects this process.
That it is a minor part of the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it. We should, because we can.
There's the abstention bias - fewer Labour voters per MP. I think one of the side effects of equalising the constituencies will be to reduce this from its current bias in the mid-20s to Labour. And the voter registration will get rid of the ghost voters that also lead to this bias.
Again, minor but we can do things to mitigate it. And we should.
There's not much we can do about the Third Party bias - when the electoral map gets so fundamentally redrawn, you're going to get *odd* results. Don't forget a big part of this was Labour's inability to fight in both Scotland and Middle England in 2015.
The last graph - that's not a bias, chaps, that's tactics. That's political skill.
That's what wins majorities from positions that once looked unwinnable.
One of the main reasons the Tories lost Edinburgh South West to Labour (having held Pentlands for years) is the boundaries were redrawn to heavily favour labour wards over Tory wards
The Tories see this like EVEL - a way of giving themselves the best chance of keeping power more or less permanently. That's the only reason they want to do it.
Con 38 (-1) Lab 33 (+3) UKIP 10 (-2) Lib Dems 8 (-1) Greens 3 (-1) SNP 3 (-1)
Corbyn Surge!
If what you say seriously happens, why don't we already see boundaries which massively favour the Tories? This isn't the first boundary review.
I feel a malcolmg moment coming on - you must be a numpty if you genuinely believe that.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/30/sun-website-to-scrap-paywall?CMP=share_btn_tw
Will the Times follow?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSjqmv6WcAAMBVo.jpg
Oh, wait....
http://labourlist.org/2015/10/selection-timetable-for-oldham-west-by-election-revealed/
THat's how it works.
Really, what partisan drivel.
this ‘efficiency bias’ was by far the largest source of the major pro-Labour biases in the 1997, 2007 and 2005 elections [graph].
But it had already evaporated in 2010 (when the Conservatives mounted a far more effective target seat strategy than in previous elections). And this year, it worked substantially in the Conservatives’ favour -– worth a whopping 60 seats over Labour.
I'd rather spend an entirety stuck in a lift with Kippers and Kippers in Kilts than go to another 1D concert.
AFAI all it means is that English MPs only consider at committee stage. All UK MPs get to vote at 2nd reading. After report stage, English MPs can only consent or veto specific clauses - they cannot introduce any new ones. It then goes to third reading where all UK MPs vote once again:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441848/English_votes_for_English_laws_explanatory_guide.pdf
In effect it just stops Scottish MPs amending government bills as they progress through the House so, yes, in that sense strengthens the Tory majority - but the only real power is a power of veto.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/north-england-snp-southern-neglect-powerhouse-vacuum
On a point of detail, the National Theatre put on A Taste Of Honey last year, which is impeccably northern.
Is there a bar chart?
BUT THEY ARE DOING IT. Attack me as much as you like, claim all the other parties are just as bad, claim it is all nonsense if you want, it will still be true.
- What were the outright lies?
- What was the effect of these outright lies?
- How did the misogyny of the Commission chair affect the gerrymandering?
- What complaints by the non-lawyers were not sufficiently considered?
I do not feel the complaint about changing the Labour electorate holds much weight, as there was such rampant fraud in the system among certain communities before that it's not surprising the electorate reduces as false voters get stripped off the roll.
My biggest complaint is that we still allow Commonwealth citizens to vote, often in countries where British people have no reciprocal right, and in countries where village elders control voting patterns in the UK. Mirpur is a good example of this.
On the other hand Download festival has some excellent headliners next year: Rammstein, Black Sabbath (with Ozzy) in their final UK appearance then Iron Maiden on Sunday. Heavy Metal Heaven! I cannot resist...
Arrgghhh
Not that I blame them for the highly political decision they took (I'd blame the Tories more for messing up the whole timeline of the bargain). Without it they would have literally been reduced to Yellow Taxi status. Not even a Big one.
That is all.
I think it makes a passable result (On awful turnout no doubt) far more likely for Labour than the squeaky bum they may have had if the whole rumpus had not kicked off.
This in turn should help cement Corbo, ex quo sequitur is good news for the blues.
They put the country first in 2010 and in 2015 the country said piss off.
Glad Yorkshire First did so badly in the election, but it's a shame the party exists at all.
They brought it on themselves.
Those deserved all they got. Vince being the Top Tory win for me.
If we got a Northern Parliament it'd take about six minutes before it descended into a War of the Roses.
Spectre breaks UK box office records for Tuesday and Wednesday takings
http://bit.ly/1P9qkS7
In 2009 labour were in power, the tax threshold was 6k and you got tax credits
In 2010 the coalition enacted the lib dem policy of raising the threshold to 11k, and tax credits remained
In 2015 the tory majority cut tax credits
We are where we were in 2009 and it seems to me the Lib Dems can claim to have helped poor people more than the other two
(I don't agree with them, but they can claim it)
It is fair it splits opinions, those who are intelligent, witty Bond fans love it, numpties hate it.
Spectre is Tomb Raider to the Fallout 4 that is Star Wars.
Edited extra bit: except that Tomb Raider and Fallout 4 come out on the same day. Which is not necessarily in Lara Croft's best interest.
Something does not become true simply because you type it in capital letters. It just makes you look desperate.
There have only been 3 1/2 Bonds : Roger, Sean, Daniel and Goldeneye Brosnan.
However, while some parties may be worse than others in action, anyone who thinks the difference is massive in moral terms, whether they favour Tories, SNP, Labour, LD or UKIP, is a blinkered partisan. One can believe a party is on balance better than the others, or that another is worse, but in a liberal democracy like ours, where disaster does not occur when another side wins even if many think things get worse, the idea any particular party supported by millions upon millions of people is beyond the pale (and that those millions like that or are idiots who don't notice) is insulting.
I've voted LD in every GE I've been able to vote, if it helps you accept some criticism of the strength of your assertion without dismissing it as a partisan attack to know that.
4.22 However, there are also a number of local authority areas with retained
entries making up 10% or over of all register entries. These authorities are in
urban areas with a high student concentration (Glasgow, Cambridge) or
London boroughs (Brent, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Kensington and
Chelsea, Redbridge). Hackney has the highest level, with 23% of their total
register being retained.
4.23 The number of London boroughs with high proportions of retained
entries further underlines the importance of considering the transition end date
in relation to the polls scheduled for May 2016 – which includes elections to
the Greater London Assembly and for London Mayor.
K&C could be reduced to one whole seat despite the borough having approx 156k population. It shows the impact of the large number of non-eligible foreigners buying up properties there.
Don't know what is happening with Hackney, although my guess is it would be paired with Newham which has seats that are too big.