politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the boundary changes had gone through the result of GE15
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the boundary changes had gone through the result of GE15 would be less of a cliff-hanger
On July 11th 2012 David Cameron was seen to be havin a furious row with his fellow old-Etonian, Jesse Norman, who had just led the successful backbench revolt against planned House of Lords reform.
Comments
-
Eh?0
-
Yep. Hilarious stuff.0
-
From the Lib Dems point of view it may have cost them the chance to continue the coalition as well.0
-
No.
Clegg stated in the Commons the two issues were unrelated. And then the Lib Dems went back on the Coalition Agreement after their demented proposals for one-off 15 year terms were not approved.0 -
Hold on I feel the need to fetch an old quote from somewhere.0
-
What relevance is Jesse Norman's school to this article?
Or are you just a bigot?0 -
Will the boundary commission produce a new set of boundaries for 2020?0
-
Sounds like what it is: a whinge.Morris_Dancer said:No.
Clegg stated in the Commons the two issues were unrelated. And then the Lib Dems went back on the Coalition Agreement after their demented proposals for one-off 15 year terms were not approved.0 -
Mike - you sh*t-stirrer!0
-
It fell down when Cameron failed to hold the Lib Dems to the Agreement. Massive mistake by Cameron. He should have told the LDs that the coalition was over and we then had a GE.Morris_Dancer said:No.
Clegg stated in the Commons the two issues were unrelated. And then the Lib Dems went back on the Coalition Agreement after their demented proposals for one-off 15 year terms were not approved.
0 -
Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.0 -
No.
If they had got Lords Reform in all its glorious stupidity, the LDs would have found some other reason to ditch Boundary Reform because they viewed it as an existential issue that would reduce their already plummeting seat total.
The whole thing was an textbook example of their double dealing, the agreement in the Coalition Agreement was holding a AV referendum and boundary reform. Cameron was stupid enough to give them the referendum without tying both together in one bill, and allowed them to renege on the agreement because they lost (they may have done so even if they won, nothing was stopping them) and go shopping for something else.0 -
No, the two proposals were unconnected.
Boundary changes were dropped because a chap from Westminster School, reneged on the Coalition Agreement.
0 -
Mr. M, it's a legitimate complaint.
Mildly amused that a few minutes after describing Cameron's approach to the interweb as 'intensely stupid' and 'dense' there's the implicit suggestion I've somehow morphed into a Conservative.0 -
The premise of the article may possibly be true. But Jesse Norman and others were not prepared to see the constitution mangled by further nonsensical LibDem 'reform' for the sake of party advantage.0
-
I can see an A&E crisis by Friday lunchtime.Neil said:Mike - you sh*t-stirrer!
0 -
In 2012? When Labour leads were at their greatest?TCPoliticalBetting said:
It fell down when Cameron failed to hold the Lib Dems to the Agreement. Massive mistake by Cameron. He should have told the LDs that the coalition was over and we then had a GE.Morris_Dancer said:No.
Clegg stated in the Commons the two issues were unrelated. And then the Lib Dems went back on the Coalition Agreement after their demented proposals for one-off 15 year terms were not approved.
I might not particularly rate Cameron, but he's not that stupid.0 -
They were consistent with the Coalition's programme for government that the Tories signed up to.DavidL said:The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous
" a wholly or mainly
elected upper chamber on the basis of
proportional representation. The committee
will come forward with a draft motion by
December 2010. It is likely that this will
advocate single long terms of office."0 -
Clegg stated the two issues were unrelated (Boundary reform/HoL reform)
Boundary reform was a seeming quid pro quo for the AV referendum
The Lib Dems immediately shed about half their vote after the GE.
It became blindlingly obvious that incumbency is & was incredibly important to the Lib Dems irrespective of national vote share.
Clegg looked at the electoral maths and realised
In order to save some semblance of Lib Demmery at Westminster
The new boundaries could not come into play
To do so... would yield a catastrophic defeat for the Lib Dems in terms of seats - worse than what they are facing at the moment, perhaps as few as 10 seats - something like that.
HoL reform provided a convenient excuse.
& He outplayed Dave on this one.0 -
OGH's obsession with Eton and OEs is fulminant.0
-
Devolution, Lords Reform, Boundary Reform, SIndy, EV4EL.
All the main parties have stirred up a hornet's nest for themselves which they will all pay for in May.0 -
And? What's your point caller?Neil said:
They were consistent with the Coalition's programme for government that the Tories signed up to.DavidL said:The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous
" a wholly or mainly
elected upper chamber on the basis of
proportional representation. The committee
will come forward with a draft motion by
December 2010. It is likely that this will
advocate single long terms of office."0 -
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.0 -
I'm sure you can work it out with a bit of effort!DavidL said:
And? What's your point caller?Neil said:
They were consistent with the Coalition's programme for government that the Tories signed up to.DavidL said:The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous
" a wholly or mainly
elected upper chamber on the basis of
proportional representation. The committee
will come forward with a draft motion by
December 2010. It is likely that this will
advocate single long terms of office."
0 -
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
0 -
Strange we haven't had a thread on the immigration numbers0
-
Regarding Labour's plans to raid pensions, does anyone know how it might actually work? Would it apply to employer's contributions? And what about final-salary schemes? Presumably the latter would be treated by the same (admittedly absurdly generous) 5% imputed value rule as currently applies, but that would have some rather strange and potentially quite large effects on individual tax bills.0
-
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.0 -
I hope no one mentions the AV referendum…
(oh, bugger)
0 -
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.0 -
What Cameron needed to do was to tell him that a 15 year term was ridiculous, and then say what length of term would be acceptable.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.0 -
Cameron and Clegg did legislate for both the referendum and the boundary changes (true they were separate Acts). The vote in October 2013 to actually change the boundaries would have been on a Statutory Instrument to implement the Boundary Commission's report. It's always been done like that, and it would have been impractical and breaking convention to put the boundaries themselves into an Act.
Clegg's justification to refuse to vote through the Order was that a House of Commons with fewer members (which was tied to the boundary changes) and an unreformed Lords would further enhance the power of the executive. Whatever you think of the politics back then, this is a perfectly reasonably point. (And no, I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm an historian, let's be accurate)
I'm new here, please be nice.Indigo said:No.
If they had got Lords Reform in all its glorious stupidity, the LDs would have found some other reason to ditch Boundary Reform because they viewed it as an existential issue that would reduce their already plummeting seat total.
The whole thing was an textbook example of their double dealing, the agreement in the Coalition Agreement was holding a AV referendum and boundary reform. Cameron was stupid enough to give them the referendum without tying both together in one bill, and allowed them to renege on the agreement because they lost (they may have done so even if they won, nothing was stopping them) and go shopping for something else.0 -
Ask Ed Balls. As you pointed out on the last thread, he's had since January 2013 to work it out, as the same grab is also earmarked to pay for guaranteed jobs for the long term unemployed.Richard_Nabavi said:Regarding Labour's plans to raid pensions, does anyone know how it might actually work? Would it apply to employer's contributions? And what about final-salary schemes? Presumably the latter would be treated by the same (admittedly absurdly generous) 5% imputed value rule as currently applies, but that would have some rather strange and potentially quite large effects on individual tax bills.
0 -
megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
Think about all this from Clegg's position.Sean_F said:
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.
Why would you even want to propose sensible House of Lords reform in this situation ?
Your A1 priority is to get an excuse to shoot down the boundary proposals. I've said this all along, Clegg isn't stupid and strategically the boundaries are huge for the Lib Dems and also carry almost no salience with the public.
Strategically Nick outplayed Dave on this one, and got an excuse which even made the Lib Dem faithful pretty happy.
0 -
Presumably the boundaries that did not make it on the back of this do not reflect the somewhat radical effects of individual voter registration? I am guessing that once that is recognised by the Electoral Commission there will have to be yet another change of the boundaries.
There were rumours that certain inner City seats might have lost 10,000 off the electoral roll. The electoral map in 2020 might indeed look very different.0 -
I know that this will be laughed at here, but by and large, I'd say the Lib Dems have kept their end of the bargain with the Conservatives. And, at immense cost to them.Pulpstar said:megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
Think about all this from Clegg's position.Sean_F said:
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.
Why would you even want to propose sensible House of Lords reform in this situation ?
Your A1 priority is to get an excuse to shoot down the boundary proposals. I've said this all along, Clegg isn't stupid and strategically the boundaries are huge for the Lib Dems and also carry almost no salience with the public.
Strategically Nick outplayed Dave on this one, and got an excuse which even made the Lib Dem faithful pretty happy.
I think Clegg would have delivered his end of the bargain, had Cameron delivered his.
0 -
Did old-Etonian Jesse Norman cost his party the election?
Yes and how ironic....0 -
No, Nick Clegg cost the Tories boundary changes by being childish and petulant.
Boundary reform was tied to the AV referendum, not Lord's reform.
The Lib's got their silly referendum and should have honored their part of the agreement Re. boundary reform.
0 -
Yes, that is certainly true in general. This is the only significant exception.Sean_F said:I know that this will be laughed at here, but by and large, I'd say the Lib Dems have kept their end of the bargain with the Conservatives. And, at immense cost to them.
0 -
Labour and Brown already screwed my pension.Richard_Nabavi said:Regarding Labour's plans to raid pensions, does anyone know how it might actually work? Would it apply to employer's contributions? And what about final-salary schemes? Presumably the latter would be treated by the same (admittedly absurdly generous) 5% imputed value rule as currently applies, but that would have some rather strange and potentially quite large effects on individual tax bills.
i just feel sorry for the young of today whose future has already been spent by Brown's profligacy.0 -
Does seem incredibly trivial to prefix 'Jesse Norman' with 'old Etonian'
Who gives a toss?0 -
I think that's fair.Sean_F said:
I know that this will be laughed at here, but by and large, I'd say the Lib Dems have kept their end of the bargain with the Conservatives. And, at immense cost to them.Pulpstar said:megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
Think about all this from Clegg's position.Sean_F said:
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.
Why would you even want to propose sensible House of Lords reform in this situation ?
Your A1 priority is to get an excuse to shoot down the boundary proposals. I've said this all along, Clegg isn't stupid and strategically the boundaries are huge for the Lib Dems and also carry almost no salience with the public.
Strategically Nick outplayed Dave on this one, and got an excuse which even made the Lib Dem faithful pretty happy.
I think Clegg would have delivered his end of the bargain, had Cameron delivered his.
And yes you will be laughed at here!
0 -
They were optimised to be as close as possible to the status quo and address the stated concerns of the most likely veto players, namely right-wing conservative back-benchers. Something further from the status quo would have made a better proposal, and been much more preferable to LibDems, but it would have been even less likely to pass than what he actually came up with.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.0 -
Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?0
-
What happened to the tax on hedge funds announced by Ed Milliband, is it likely. George Osborne seemed clear that really it would be another tax on pensions. I wish you Labour and Green supporters would "borrow" money for "investment" from your own parents, rather than me.0
-
Yes, they have by and large, and yes there has been a great deal of damage to them - but the boundary point was always one that he needed to welch on.Sean_F said:
I know that this will be laughed at here, but by and large, I'd say the Lib Dems have kept their end of the bargain with the Conservatives. And, at immense cost to them.Pulpstar said:megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
Think about all this from Clegg's position.Sean_F said:
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.
Why would you even want to propose sensible House of Lords reform in this situation ?
Your A1 priority is to get an excuse to shoot down the boundary proposals. I've said this all along, Clegg isn't stupid and strategically the boundaries are huge for the Lib Dems and also carry almost no salience with the public.
Strategically Nick outplayed Dave on this one, and got an excuse which even made the Lib Dem faithful pretty happy.
I think Clegg would have delivered his end of the bargain, had Cameron delivered his.
I'd have done the same in Clegg's position.0 -
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
HoL reform will happen at some point. The Conservatives had the chance with the LDs to reform them in their own image so to speak; if HOL reform happens in the next Parlt under Miliband it will be the usual Labour stitch-up. A missed opportunity.0 -
I've said since 2012, that Jesse Norman is likely to be the person who's individually done most damage to Tory prospects at GE2015. I've seen little since to change that view. Legend.0
-
As coincidence would have it they would also have locked in a large chunk of LD peers for 15 years while their party was at its electoral high watermark, although I am sure that never crossed his mind.edmundintokyo said:
They were optimised to be as close as possible to the status quo and address the stated concerns of the most likely veto players, namely right-wing conservative back-benchers. Something further from the status quo would have made a better proposal, and been much more preferable to LibDems, but it would have been even less likely to pass than what he actually came up with.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.0 -
Nobody will dare satirise the multiculturalism that allows Islamism to flourish
'British satire is apparently the best and bravest in the world yet it has never really touched on the multiculturalism that allows Islamism to flourish. I’m not talking about satirising Islam itself; while I wish this was done I can understand the security issues. Neither am I talking about satirising the jihadis – no one wants to follow Chris Morris as an act.
I’m talking about the cant that allows it all to flourish. The charities and pressure groups that blame everything on the west and present Muslims as blameless victims, while sourcing income from the taxpayer and public bodies; the gormless newspaper columnists who, trapped in a white person’s view of race and oppression, cannot see Islamists for the imperialists they are; the Islamic rentagobs who appear on TV and radio talking in doublespeak, saying one thing to a Muslim audience and another to the unbelievers; the naive white charity groups that inadvertently help Islamism; the Labour politicians who blame everything on racism while building up ethnic-based political machines; the white converts who embrace polygamy.'
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/nobody-will-dare-satirise-the-multiculturalism-that-allows-islamism-to-flourish/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
0 -
Welcome, Orielite!Orielite said:Clegg's justification to refuse to vote through the Order was that a House of Commons with fewer members (which was tied to the boundary changes) and an unreformed Lords would further enhance the power of the executive. Whatever you think of the politics back then, this is a perfectly reasonably point. (And no, I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm an historian, let's be accurate)
It would be a reasonable point, but it's not the point that the LibDems actually made, was it? And in any case they had already said the two were not linked.
I suspect that the truth is that they were absolutely convinced the AV referendum would pass, and, when it didn't, realised they were staring into an abyss if the boundary changes happened.0 -
He's just filling the void left by tim..MonikerDiCanio said:OGH's obsession with Eton and OEs is fulminant.
0 -
Indeed. Personally I think that electoral boundaries should be based on the census (excluding the best estimate of those not entitled to vote because of foreign nationality) and not on those who actually jump through every hoop to register. The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.DavidL said:Presumably the boundaries that did not make it on the back of this do not reflect the somewhat radical effects of individual voter registration? I am guessing that once that is recognised by the Electoral Commission there will have to be yet another change of the boundaries.
There were rumours that certain inner City seats might have lost 10,000 off the electoral roll. The electoral map in 2020 might indeed look very different.
0 -
Boundary Commission reports are to the government, which has to move an SI to implement them. Labour did so to its own cost in 1949, costing it the 1951 election (when notoriously Labour won more votes in national aggregate than the Conservatives but fewer seats). Callaghan delayed the 1969 Order in the hope of changing the 1970 result, but failed.Patrick said:
Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?
0 -
The proposals for HofL reform were not Cleggs or Lib Dem proposals but had been approved by the cabinet as a whole . Specific points not meeting the approval of some sections of the Conservatives could have been amended as the bill passed through Parliament .
One of the more interesting points of the proposed new boundaries is that though the inital proposals were rather poor for the Lib Dems the later final proposed new boundaries were much better for them .0 -
They have to keep making proposals under the current (new) law, until such time as it's repealed. So the possibilities are:Patrick said:Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?
1) Parliament accepts the next lot of proposals under the current law (Likely if Con maj)
2) Parliament repeals or amends the law, and the Boundary Commission makes proposals under that (Likely if Lab maj)
3) Parliament votes down the changes again and we have another election under the current boundaries (Possible if NOM)0 -
I agree Sean and they still are. Look at Vince going around attacking Labour FE policy as financially illiterate this morning. A Lib Dem fighting for Coalition policy on University fees. It goes beyond bravery.Sean_F said:
I know that this will be laughed at here, but by and large, I'd say the Lib Dems have kept their end of the bargain with the Conservatives. And, at immense cost to them.Pulpstar said:megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
Think about all this from Clegg's position.Sean_F said:
They aren't very good at politics.OblitusSumMe said:
The vote wasn't even on the Lords reform proposals. It was on a timetabling motion.DavidL said:Funny, we don't hear so much from him these days.
It was a tricky one. The Lib Dem proposals were just ridiculous but the political price paid by the tories (and I for one believe the country) could be considerable.
If backbench Tory MPs had nodded it through at that stage they might have got the boundary changes and they would still have been able to kill Lord's reform later on.
Why would you even want to propose sensible House of Lords reform in this situation ?
Your A1 priority is to get an excuse to shoot down the boundary proposals. I've said this all along, Clegg isn't stupid and strategically the boundaries are huge for the Lib Dems and also carry almost no salience with the public.
Strategically Nick outplayed Dave on this one, and got an excuse which even made the Lib Dem faithful pretty happy.
I think Clegg would have delivered his end of the bargain, had Cameron delivered his.
The Lib Dems have suffered because of the projections that voters put upon them. They were the NOTA party, the radical party who thought outside the box. In reality they were slightly dull, well meaning, moderately sensible men (in the very large part) who wanted the best for this country and were willing to take personal flack to achieve it. They really deserve better than they are going to get.
People talk about the wisdom of crowds but at the moment the electorate is showing all the patience and understanding of a 4 year old denied a fix of chocolate.0 -
Not a whiff of partisan self-interest in that personal belief, I'm sure!NickPalmer said:Indeed. Personally I think that electoral boundaries should be based on the census (excluding the best estimate of those not entitled to vote because of foreign nationality) and not on those who actually jump through every hoop to register. The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.
Quite why the presence of foreigners should give Labour-voting areas more representation per registered voter is a mystery.
0 -
Yes, that *is* the point Clegg made, amongst others. All easy to see from simply googling it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Welcome, Orielite!Orielite said:Clegg's justification to refuse to vote through the Order was that a House of Commons with fewer members (which was tied to the boundary changes) and an unreformed Lords would further enhance the power of the executive. Whatever you think of the politics back then, this is a perfectly reasonably point. (And no, I'm not a Lib Dem, I'm an historian, let's be accurate)
It would be a reasonable point, but it's not the point that the LibDems actually made, was it? And in any case they had already said the two were not linked.
I suspect that the truth is that they were absolutely convinced the AV referendum would pass, and, when it didn't, realised they were staring into an abyss if the boundary changes happened.0 -
Surely after more than 100 years of trying to reform it and consistently making it worse a politician will finally come along who will just abolish the damn thing once and for all.Alanbrooke said:
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
HoL reform will happen at some point. The Conservatives had the chance with the LDs to reform them in their own image so to speak; if HOL reform happens in the next Parlt under Miliband it will be the usual Labour stitch-up. A missed opportunity.0 -
That's a great framing. Do you think the Labour leadership will go with it too?NickPalmer said:
The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.DavidL said:Presumably the boundaries that did not make it on the back of this do not reflect the somewhat radical effects of individual voter registration? I am guessing that once that is recognised by the Electoral Commission there will have to be yet another change of the boundaries.
There were rumours that certain inner City seats might have lost 10,000 off the electoral roll. The electoral map in 2020 might indeed look very different.0 -
edmundintokyo said:
They have to keep making proposals under the current (new) law, until such time as it's repealed. So the possibilities are:Patrick said:Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?
1) Parliament accepts the next lot of proposals under the current law (Likely if Con maj)
2) Parliament repeals or amends the law, and the Boundary Commission makes proposals under that (Likely if Lab maj)
3) Parliament votes down the changes again and we have another election under the current boundaries (Possible if NOM)
"2) Parliament repeals or amends the law, and the Boundary Commission makes proposals under that (Likely if Lab maj)"
But Labour would first have to bring in a law that was less democratic than the current (reasonable) one.
Would Labour really change the law for partisan advantage?
Oh, wait.
0 -
orielite EiT ta v much0
-
I think the law needs to be changed on this and the Boundary commission should be given the responsibility of implementing boundary changes without needing approval of the government of the day.Orielite said:Boundary Commission reports are to the government, which has to move an SI to implement them. Labour did so to its own cost in 1949, costing it the 1951 election (when notoriously Labour won more votes in national aggregate than the Conservatives but fewer seats). Callaghan delayed the 1969 Order in the hope of changing the 1970 result, but failed.
Patrick said:Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?
Giving voters up to date boundaries that reflect long term demographic changes, etc... Should not be a party political issue.
0 -
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Orielite.
The Lords does need reforming after Blair buggered it up so much. But one-off 15 year terms are insane.0 -
As things look right now we are also facing a pretty massive set of boundary changes that is not talked of enough - no westminster seats at all north of the border with an independent Scotland! The union will not survive SNP domination of the Scottish vote for too long.0
-
I don't agree with that but I do think the quid pro quo of keeping the electoral map tied to the numbers entitled to vote is that there should be a greater onus on public authorities to encourage those eligible to get on the register.NickPalmer said:
Indeed. Personally I think that electoral boundaries should be based on the census (excluding the best estimate of those not entitled to vote because of foreign nationality) and not on those who actually jump through every hoop to register. The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.DavidL said:Presumably the boundaries that did not make it on the back of this do not reflect the somewhat radical effects of individual voter registration? I am guessing that once that is recognised by the Electoral Commission there will have to be yet another change of the boundaries.
There were rumours that certain inner City seats might have lost 10,000 off the electoral roll. The electoral map in 2020 might indeed look very different.
In fairness I was somewhat surprised about 1 month ago when we got someone around the door to remind my 17 year old (18 before the election) that she had not yet completed the form. That is a good thing.0 -
-
Stephen Fisher's updated GE projection today has Labour up one seat on 283, with the Tories down two seats on 279 ..... the first time they have been below the 280 level since I started monitoring these weekly forecasts 11 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on things, the Blues look sunk, with next to no parliamentart allies with whom to form a government - all the more so should the LibDems are reduced to just 23 seats as forecast by Prof. Fisher.
Something pretty dramatic has to happen over the next 69 days to give the Totirs any sort of a chance - I just don't see it myself. Proof if proof were needed that despite their awful record under Gordon Brown and with the unattractive prospect of Miliband becoming Prime Minister very soon, Labour are now, as the late Robert McKenzie would say, the UK's natural party of Government.0 -
Because they are constituents. MPs are elected to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for the winning party or who voted at all or even who are registered to vote.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not a whiff of partisan self-interest in that personal belief, I'm sure!NickPalmer said:Indeed. Personally I think that electoral boundaries should be based on the census (excluding the best estimate of those not entitled to vote because of foreign nationality) and not on those who actually jump through every hoop to register. The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.
Quite why the presence of foreigners should give Labour-voting areas more representation per registered voter is a mystery.0 -
One would hope so, but the real issue is what is the HoL for ?DavidL said:
Surely after more than 100 years of trying to reform it and consistently making it worse a politician will finally come along who will just abolish the damn thing once and for all.Alanbrooke said:
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
HoL reform will happen at some point. The Conservatives had the chance with the LDs to reform them in their own image so to speak; if HOL reform happens in the next Parlt under Miliband it will be the usual Labour stitch-up. A missed opportunity.
We sort of need a second house, but is it's role
1. a reforming and drafting chamber for legislation to stop stupid laws getting in the books - think poll tax
2. A check on the Executive to stop disasters - think Iraq War
3. a bit of both
Currently what we have - a meeting place for 1000+ rich party donors and assorted bigwigs - just doesn't cut the mustard.0 -
I do not disagree with what you are saying . The problem with the last boundary review was the Conservative instructions to the boundary commission to reduce the number of seats by 50 together with a too tight variation in seat size which led to some truly ridiculous initial proposals .GIN1138 said:
I think the law needs to be changed on this and the Boundary commission should given the responsibility of implementing boundary changes without needing approval of the government of the day.Orielite said:Boundary Commission reports are to the government, which has to move an SI to implement them. Labour did so to its own cost in 1949, costing it the 1951 election (when notoriously Labour won more votes in national aggregate than the Conservatives but fewer seats). Callaghan delayed the 1969 Order in the hope of changing the 1970 result, but failed.
Patrick said:Constitutional question: Does the boundary commission not have to update the boundaries from time to time anyway? Will we see Dave's plan being put through anyhow at some point?
Giving voters up to date boundaries that reflect long term demographic changes, etc... Should not be a party political issue.0 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1923peter_from_putney said:Stephen Fisher's updated GE projection today has Labour up one seat on 283, with the Tories down two seats on 279 ..... the first time they have been below the 280 level since I started monitoring these weekly forecasts 11 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on things, the Blues look sunk, with next to no parliamentart allies with whom to form a government - all the more so should the LibDems are reduced to just 23 seats as forecast by Prof. Fisher.
Something pretty dramatic has to happen over the next 69 days to give the Totirs any sort of a chance - I just don't see it myself. Proof if proof were needed that despite their awful record under Gordon Brown and with the unattractive prospect of Miliband becoming Prime Minister very soon, Labour are now, as the late Robert McKenzie would say, the UK's natural party of Government.0 -
Do you mean because they'd have been elected in an election at the high watermark? If so you've lost me, because they were and are neck-high in mud with a long time until the tide comes in. Or are you talking about bringing in the elected part gradually? (If that was the plan?) The Turkey-Christmas problem that would solve when trying to get the current Lords to pass this wouldn't be particularly confined to LibDems...Indigo said:
As coincidence would have it they would also have locked in a large chunk of LD peers for 15 years while their party was at its electoral high watermark, although I am sure that never crossed his mind.edmundintokyo said:
They were optimised to be as close as possible to the status quo and address the stated concerns of the most likely veto players, namely right-wing conservative back-benchers. Something further from the status quo would have made a better proposal, and been much more preferable to LibDems, but it would have been even less likely to pass than what he actually came up with.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.0 -
Indeed so, but by definition if they are not registered voters then they have no say in the choice of MP or (ultimately) the choice of government. Therefore in deciding how big constituencies should be in order to remove any systematic bias in the constituency distribution, you of course should consider only registered voters. This is pretty basic stuff.DecrepitJohnL said:Because they are constituents. MPs are elected to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for the winning party or who voted at all or even who are registered to vote.
0 -
No comment today in The Telegraph on Cameron's extraordinarily good immigration figures. Just Dan Hodges piece from yesterday trolling the kippers.
Should be shouting it from the rafters: proof of Osborne's successful handling of the economy!
Wonder why that is?0 -
If the 15 year term was ridiculous, and it was, how much more ridiculous was retaining the present life time tenure ?!?Sean_F said:
What Cameron needed to do was to tell him that a 15 year term was ridiculous, and then say what length of term would be acceptable.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
It's a conundrum.
0 -
Is the OP right, btw? Most of the perceived pro-Labour bias is due to differential turnout rather than constituency size. Abolishing 50 seats would have meant redrawing almost every boundary which would have diminished incumbency bonuses, so would mainly have hurt Conservatives.0
-
Completely. But its the old fear that once you change something people will consider the issue closed for a generation and you will have the devil's own job making any further changes. (See kippers, and EU Referendum)JackW said:
If the 15 year term was ridiculous, and it was, how much more ridiculous was retaining the present life time tenure ?!?Sean_F said:
What Cameron needed to do was to tell him that a 15 year term was ridiculous, and then say what length of term would be acceptable.megalomaniacs4u said:
But Clegg's proposals were so mind numbingly stupid, they had to be rejected outright. If he had proposed something sane, he might have got somewhere.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
It's a conundrum.0 -
0
-
peter_from_putney said:
Stephen Fisher's updated GE projection today has Labour up one seat on 283, with the Tories down two seats on 279 ..... the first time they have been below the 280 level since I started monitoring these weekly forecasts 11 months ago. Not to put too fine a point on things, the Blues look sunk, with next to no parliamentart allies with whom to form a government - all the more so should the LibDems are reduced to just 23 seats as forecast by Prof. Fisher.
Something pretty dramatic has to happen over the next 69 days to give the Totirs any sort of a chance - I just don't see it myself. Proof if proof were needed that despite their awful record under Gordon Brown and with the unattractive prospect of Miliband becoming Prime Minister very soon, Labour are now, as the late Robert McKenzie would say, the UK's natural party of Government.
Labour promise the moon-on-a-stick, paid for by some nasty rich toff. The reality is different and they end up hurting their own voters, but that doesn't matter as Labour will still blame someone else.
It is quite common for people to prefer the lies rather than face reality, even for example how whoever ignored the complaints about Savile - as they wanted to believe in the celebrity and the charity money.
It's human nature.
0 -
I am really not sure we need a second chamber at all. Many countries operate a unicameral system. Most of those that don't were modelled on our system.Alanbrooke said:
One would hope so, but the real issue is what is the HoL for ?DavidL said:
Surely after more than 100 years of trying to reform it and consistently making it worse a politician will finally come along who will just abolish the damn thing once and for all.Alanbrooke said:
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
HoL reform will happen at some point. The Conservatives had the chance with the LDs to reform them in their own image so to speak; if HOL reform happens in the next Parlt under Miliband it will be the usual Labour stitch-up. A missed opportunity.
We sort of need a second house, but is it's role
1. a reforming and drafting chamber for legislation to stop stupid laws getting in the books - think poll tax
2. A check on the Executive to stop disasters - think Iraq War
3. a bit of both
Currently what we have - a meeting place for 1000+ rich party donors and assorted bigwigs - just doesn't cut the mustard.
What we would need if we abolished the HoL would be a more thorough and inclusive Committee system to review, test and investigate proposed legislation. The Scottish Parliament has had some interesting innovations on this although it has done nothing to prevent the execrable quality of legislation (from a technical viewpoint) produced.
I would like to see committees considering legislation taking evidence from interest groups and interested parties and making recommendations. Taking some of the partisanship out of the legislative process should in theory produce better and longer lasting legislation.0 -
This is good stuff from Margate where the UKIP conference is taking place
https://www.flickr.com/photos/taylorherringpr/sets/72157651057217811/
0 -
I can also see how a unicameral system could work, but that requires some real teeth for the supervising bodies. I suppose I look at it more from the POV that the UK has no written constitution so what power is there to restrain the executive ? I can't help but think some of the constitutional mess of the Blair years could have been avoided if we had a second chamber with a say.DavidL said:
I am really not sure we need a second chamber at all. Many countries operate a unicameral system. Most of those that don't were modelled on our system.Alanbrooke said:
One would hope so, but the real issue is what is the HoL for ?DavidL said:
Surely after more than 100 years of trying to reform it and consistently making it worse a politician will finally come along who will just abolish the damn thing once and for all.Alanbrooke said:
Quite so Sean.Sean_F said:
The Conservatives' actions were completely self-harming. They could have engaged properly with Nick Clegg over his House of Lords proposals. Clegg at least had to show his party he'd got *something* in order to back the boundary reforms.
HoL reform will happen at some point. The Conservatives had the chance with the LDs to reform them in their own image so to speak; if HOL reform happens in the next Parlt under Miliband it will be the usual Labour stitch-up. A missed opportunity.
We sort of need a second house, but is it's role
1. a reforming and drafting chamber for legislation to stop stupid laws getting in the books - think poll tax
2. A check on the Executive to stop disasters - think Iraq War
3. a bit of both
Currently what we have - a meeting place for 1000+ rich party donors and assorted bigwigs - just doesn't cut the mustard.
What we would need if we abolished the HoL would be a more thorough and inclusive Committee system to review, test and investigate proposed legislation. The Scottish Parliament has had some interesting innovations on this although it has done nothing to prevent the execrable quality of legislation (from a technical viewpoint) produced.
I would like to see committees considering legislation taking evidence from interest groups and interested parties and making recommendations. Taking some of the partisanship out of the legislative process should in theory produce better and longer lasting legislation.
0 -
0
-
Springtime for Nigel, winter for Dave & the Conservatives right now.MikeSmithson said:This is good stuff from Margate where the UKIP conference is taking place
https://www.flickr.com/photos/taylorherringpr/sets/72157651057217811/0 -
This conservative (small c) view of FPTP is as ridiculous and fundamentally fantastical as the magic money tree.DecrepitJohnL said:
Because they are constituents. MPs are elected to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for the winning party or who voted at all or even who are registered to vote.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not a whiff of partisan self-interest in that personal belief, I'm sure!NickPalmer said:Indeed. Personally I think that electoral boundaries should be based on the census (excluding the best estimate of those not entitled to vote because of foreign nationality) and not on those who actually jump through every hoop to register. The current procedure, with its implicit bias against mobile inner-city voters, is too close to the old Southern states' procedures designed to keep unwelcome voters off the rolls.
Quite why the presence of foreigners should give Labour-voting areas more representation per registered voter is a mystery.0 -
Mr. Brooke, I agree. Serious thought needs putting into Lords reform, and one-off 15 year terms are as serious as this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fxVeAVl2I80
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
