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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
Or are you just a bigot?
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 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.
Boundary changes were dropped because a chap from Westminster School, reneged on the Coalition Agreement.
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.
I might not particularly rate Cameron, but he's not that stupid.
" 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."
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.
All the main parties have stirred up a hornet's nest for themselves which they will all pay for in May.
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.
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.
(oh, bugger)
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.
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.
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.
I think Clegg would have delivered his end of the bargain, had Cameron delivered his.
Welcome.
But if you wish people to be nice, you must keep a strictly neutral stance on the world defining debate on the relative merits of Caesar and Hannibal.
Yes and how ironic....
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.
i just feel sorry for the young of today whose future has already been spent by Brown's profligacy.
Who gives a toss?
And yes you will be laughed at here!
I'd have done the same in Clegg's position.
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.
"Does seem incredibly trivial to prefix 'Jesse Norman' with 'old Etonian'"
Not if you are being invited to take on a Directorship on one of the large companies?
Then it is a primary consideration.
'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
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.
We would, but we love to hear you whine Calemero.
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 .
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)
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.
Quite why the presence of foreigners should give Labour-voting areas more representation per registered voter is a mystery.
"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.
Giving voters up to date boundaries that reflect long term demographic changes, etc... Should not be a party political issue.
The Lords does need reforming after Blair buggered it up so much. But one-off 15 year terms are insane.
We could just do away with boundaries, and try democracy instead?
Think on the savings from abolishing another a useless department?
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.
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.
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.
Should be shouting it from the rafters: proof of Osborne's successful handling of the economy!
Wonder why that is?
It's a conundrum.
Business investment figures?
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.
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.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/taylorherringpr/sets/72157651057217811/
The very few remain tend to be closed to new entrants.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fxVeAVl2I8