politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why Mrs May will be unlikely to hold an early elect

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is why Mrs May will be unlikely to hold an early election

The Guardian are reporting that leading psephologist and former Tory MP Lord Hayward has looked at the forthcoming boundary review/reduction in the number of MPs,

Read the full story here

MTimT

thurst

dugarbandier

i second that emotion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv9cWgkpIZ4

RobD

Argh, third!

RobD

Whether or not she calls an early election, I hope that when the Act is reviewed in 2020 (as it has to be by a committee of Parliament) it is repealed.

TCPoliticalBetting

I agree with TSE that boundary changes would be the catalyst for Labour MP action.

AlastairMeeks

I agree with Rob Hayward. In fact I made a similar point last year:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/guest-slot-the-boundaries-of-reason/

"The seat reorganisation would be relatively minor in the Eastern, South East and South West regions, given the minor adjustments in seat counts, and these are, as it happens, all overwhelmingly Conservative areas. They would, however, be very extensive in Wales, the North West and the North East: all Labour areas (Scotland also would be seriously affected). Of the Conservative-leaning areas, only the West Midlands would see heavy reorganisation.

It gets worse for Labour. Many of the constituencies with the lowest number of registered voters are in contiguous Labour-held areas. On a shrinking seat count determined by numbers of registered voters, that is the worst permutation for a party, because there is much less scope to recoup lost seats in the area by taking seats of a rival party. Leeds, Bradford, Hull and Liverpool are all stuffed full of constituencies with very low numbers of registered voters, all with large Labour majorities. If the seat count in those areas is reduced, that will probably come straight off the top of the Labour seat total."

Whether this is enough to deter Theresa May from an early election, I'm less certain.

Sandpit

Morning. Agree with the sentiment, but surely the most advantageous time for the Tories to engineer an election is a couple of months after the new boundaries take effect in 2018 or 2019?

The Tory whips could start planning for this now, lining up retirements, those to be kicked to the red benches or given a gong, accommodating redundant MEPs and rising stars, identifying the new marginal seats etc etc, all in a civilised manner.

Meanwhile Labour will be in the middle of a civil war of deselections and party rule making, completely unfit for the campaign.

Result, a 100 majority for Theresa.

Sandpit

RobD said:

Whether or not she calls an early election, I hope that when the Act is reviewed in 2020 (as it has to be by a committee of Parliament) it is repealed.

Didn't know about that review. Agree that it's served its purpose, which was to keep the 2010 coalition together for five years.

RobD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211267

Typical, no mention of the Dublin Agreement. All of the requests should be denied since they are coming from a safe country (France).

RobD

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Whether or not she calls an early election, I hope that when the Act is reviewed in 2020 (as it has to be by a committee of Parliament) it is repealed.

Didn't know about that review. Agree that it's served its purpose, which was to keep the 2010 coalition together for five years.

According to wiki:

"Under section 7(4)–(6), the prime minister is obliged to establish a committee to review the operation of the Act and to make recommendations for its amendment or repeal, if appropriate. The committee must be established between 1 June and 30 November 2020, and the majority of its members must be members of the House of Commons."

IanB2

AlastairMeeks said:

I agree with Rob Hayward. In fact I made a similar point last year:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/guest-slot-the-boundaries-of-reason/

"The seat reorganisation would be relatively minor in the Eastern, South East and South West regions, given the minor adjustments in seat counts, and these are, as it happens, all overwhelmingly Conservative areas. They would, however, be very extensive in Wales, the North West and the North East: all Labour areas (Scotland also would be seriously affected). Of the Conservative-leaning areas, only the West Midlands would see heavy reorganisation.

It gets worse for Labour. Many of the constituencies with the lowest number of registered voters are in contiguous Labour-held areas. On a shrinking seat count determined by numbers of registered voters, that is the worst permutation for a party, because there is much less scope to recoup lost seats in the area by taking seats of a rival party. Leeds, Bradford, Hull and Liverpool are all stuffed full of constituencies with very low numbers of registered voters, all with large Labour majorities. If the seat count in those areas is reduced, that will probably come straight off the top of the Labour seat total."

Whether this is enough to deter Theresa May from an early election, I'm less certain.

I am not sure of the logic that the impact will be minor in the Souh East. I think you'd more likely be right if the number of seats were remaining unchanged, But redrawing the entire map for 600 rather than 650 will probably force significant changes in almost every seat. True, the overall reduction in seats here will be more modest, but the boundaries will be different, and whilst that will have a more significant impact on some parties than others (and indeed could put the LibDems close to extinction) every MP is personally affected when the seat they represent disappears or is significantly changed.

SimonStClare

Morning all.

Implementation of boundary changes, 5 year fixed terms, 2 years min negotiating Brexit and claims by the PM herself, all indicate there will not be an early General election imho, no matter how tempting the prospect of adding to Labour’s troubles. – I thought 2016 couldn’t get any worse for the opposition party, however the pending intercine war over deselections in 2018 looks set to be a real humdinger.

SimonStClare

RobD said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211267

Typical, no mention of the Dublin Agreement. All of the requests should be denied since they are coming from a safe country (France).

Electioneering guff from the powerless Xavier Bertrand, the only reason it’s made Aunty’s top story is due to their meme over child migrants in Calais.

DavidL

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

Con most seats in the next election is 1.32 on Betfair. That's a better return than leaving cash in the bank, and even better if the election comes earlier than 2020.

IanB2

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

foxinsoxuk

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The need for periodic seat rebalancing in terms of electors is undeniable, but made much more contentious by the reduction in seat numbers. This means that it affects far more MPs, so much less likely to happen.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

Con most seats in the next election is 1.32 on Betfair. That's a better return than leaving cash in the bank, and even better if the election comes earlier than 2020.

I agree. It would take something extraordinary for that bet not to come in. Maybe if the Tories split in 2 over the implementation of Brexit. Even then who is to say that Labour would not follow suit?

DavidL

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

One thing that the Brexit referendum undoubtedly showed (and Sindy was the same) is that a lot more people vote when there is a point in doing so.

IanB2

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

One thing that the Brexit referendum undoubtedly showed (and Sindy was the same) is that a lot more people vote when there is a point in doing so.

Further, it stands to reason that the fewer seats there are, the more unfair the system would be. With only one seat there would be one MP and a majority of the population would be unrepresented. If we all had our own seat the system would be perfectly representative (if somewhat complex to manage). Moving towards fewer seats whilst leaving the basic unfairness intact will merely exacerbate the corrosive iniquity that the system creates.

DavidL

Ed Balls tells it as it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37211591

I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.

Fishing

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. I realise the scope of our national government is far greater than either of those countries, because we don't have a tradition of state level government. Japan, with a system of government almost as centralised as ours, has 475 in its Lower House. However, 50 MPs gone is better than nothing.

It also strikes me that we should have fixed terms between boundary reviews - this is a far better candidate for a Fixed Term Act than the length of Parliaments. The way Clegg played politics with this in the 2010-15 Parliament was a disgrace.

Finally, I think we should end the exemption for the few constituencies that have their own seats regardless of population. Why should somebody's vote be worth twice somebody else's just because they live on an island off Scotland rather than on the mainland?

Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...

ThreeQuidder

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

One thing that the Brexit referendum undoubtedly showed (and Sindy was the same) is that a lot more people vote when there is a point in doing so.

Further, it stands to reason that the fewer seats there are, the more unfair the system would be. With only one seat there would be one MP and a majority of the population would be unrepresented. If we all had our own seat the system would be perfectly representative (if somewhat complex to manage). Moving towards fewer seats whilst leaving the basic unfairness intact will merely exacerbate the corrosive iniquity that the system creates.

Everybody is represented in Parliament by one MP. There is no intrinsic right in a democracy to vote for a winner.

Besides, the point is moot. We had the chance to change the voting system and resoundingly rejected it.

ThreeQuidder

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Fishing

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

True, but even if you eliminate the Payroll Vote, the point still stands. And, in India, ministers must be members of Parliament - whether of the upper or lower house. They are stripped of their office if they are not.

SquareRoot

SimonStClare said:

Morning all.

Implementation of boundary changes, 5 year fixed terms, 2 years min negotiating Brexit and claims by the PM herself, all indicate there will not be an early General election imho, no matter how tempting the prospect of adding to Labour’s troubles. – I thought 2016 couldn’t get any worse for the opposition party, however the pending intercine war over deselections in 2018 looks set to be a real humdinger.

Every day Corbyn is leader, things get worse for Labour, if its Smith, the same applies..

ThreeQuidder

Fishing said:

Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...

Reducing or removing a bias is always worth doing. That there are other biases which are unaffected isn't a reason to leave this one in place. And removing a bias isn't the same as introducing one, whatever that prat Winterton says.

Blue_rog

I think we need to reassess the premise that a constituency MP is critical as a link between the electorate and parliament. I think the majority of the population wouldn't be able to pick their MP out of a line up. The function of an MP doesn't necessarily require a local person. For government ministers, it's their staff that perform constituency business, not them.

If we abandon the constituency link, we can critically assess other 'interesting' voting methods.

Moses_

"The president of the French region that includes Calais has suggested migrants seeking asylum in the UK be allowed to lodge their claim in France. Xavier Bertrand said 9,000 migrants, many trying to get to the UK, were in a Calais camp known as the Jungle.
Mr Bertrand said he wanted a new deal in which migrants hoping to claim asylum in the UK would be able to do so at a "hotspot" in France. Those who failed would be deported directly to their country of origin"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211267

Ok .....Let's do it that way.

First move.......Anyone in these channel camps now or in future is automatically refused entry. France then has to return them as they should be doing anyway right now.

Refusals on grounds

1) They have already shown they have no respect for our laws by circumventing immigration and by not applying to emigrate legally from their country of origin.
2) They have threatened violence against law abiding citizens of many nationalities (including British) crossing the borders land caused no end of intentional disruption to our freight and services.
3)They have crossed safe countries to get to the French coast and remain in a safe country while failing to claim asylum as the convention requires.

The EU and Merkel created this problem, France chose to allow these people to cross the country and establish themselves at the coat so so it is for them and them alone to resolve. We are not responsible.

Genuine asylum seekers from persecution etc remain protected as they are in and have crossed safe countries so have ample opportunity to secure safety.

Fishing

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...

Reducing or removing a bias is always worth doing. That there are other biases which are unaffected isn't a reason to leave this one in place. And removing a bias isn't the same as introducing one, whatever that prat Winterton says.

I agree, it is the very opposite of gerrymandering. Too bad there isn't a simple, catchy gerund for that. Perhaps we should coin one? De-biasing? Fairifying?

ThreeQuidder

Blue_rog said:

I think we need to reassess the premise that a constituency MP is critical as a link between the electorate and parliament. I think the majority of the population wouldn't be able to pick their MP out of a line up. The function of an MP doesn't necessarily require a local person. For government ministers, it's their staff that perform constituency business, not them.

If we abandon the constituency link, we can critically assess other 'interesting' voting methods.

I think there is a perceived benefit to having a local person in Parliament: "I will write to my MP about that".

Of course, if I'm wrong, that would mean that different options are available. The key, though, is to figure out what we want from the political system as a whole and then choose a voting system or systems to match. Otherwise you risk what happened with AV: the voters perceived that the LDs wanted it for the sole purpose of getting more LD MPs. This was never going to go down well.

Moses_

Bomb blast in Brussels
Breaking news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37211788

Moses_

"A bomb has gone off at the Brussels Institute of Criminology, without causing casualties, Belgian media say.
Shortly before 02:30 local time (00:30 GMT), a car rammed through three fences, RTL Belgium reports.
"One or more" suspects then reportedly detonated a bomb near the laboratories"

BBC news

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

My post-race ramble is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/belgium-post-race-analysis-2016.html

We're at Monza in four days, so not much of a turn around time. Because the F1 website, last time I checked, was still massively inferior in every way to the old one [which I rather miss] checking sector times will be a bit tricky but I'm reasonably sure Red Bull and McLaren were the relatively tasty chaps in the twisty section. So, my expectation is roughly as Spa, with those teams going backwards. Which is rather nice for Force India.

I'd guess Toro Rosso will continue to suffer. Kvyat's been off the boil since his demotion and the car's 2015 Ferrari engine is now looking a bit weak and weedy.

scotslass

There should be no "reform" of the Commons at least until such time that numbers in the upper House are reduced to a sensible level. Nor is there a case for spending up to £10 billion on the Palace of Westmnster until numbers are settled. Finally the issue of an arbitrary reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is and should be quite separate from a boundary revision.

ThreeQuidder

http://ktla.com/2016/08/28/lax-closed-to-incoming-traffic-due-to-police-activity-airport-police/

Looks very similar to the "active shooter" scare at JFK a couple of weeks ago.

PlatoSaid

I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis.

Does he ever engage his brain first?

ThreeQuidder

scotslass said:

There should be no "reform" of the Commons at least until such time that numbers in the upper House are reduced to a sensible level. Nor is there a case for spending up to £10 billion on the Palace of Westmnster until numbers are settled. Finally the issue of an arbitrary reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is and should be quite separate from a boundary revision.

Can you please explain how the number of MPs could be reduced from 650 to 600 without a boundary revision?

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, one trusts the Labour Party has offered you counselling?

Dare one enquire as to the nature of Smith's latest abuse of the English language?

Miss Lass, wasn't the reduction in the Conservative manifesto? (I think in 2010 all parties had reductions in their manifestos but it didn't pass because the Lib Dems didn't want it).

dugarbandier

PlatoSaid said:

I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis.

that's a very personal thing to share with the internet. your bravery is commended

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Ed Balls tells it as it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37211591

I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.

On election morning, Nick Robinson said that people would come to love Ed Balls following his defeat, as they realised he wasn't just an arrogant thug with a huge ego and a vast waistline (I paraphrase). I remember that set me off laughing again.

Since then, listening to various radio interviews on music, and reading his comments on politics, I have become uncomfortably aware that were he leading the Labour Party and I judged his policies rather than his personality, I would have to consider voting for him.

If he were standing against Corbyn, maybe there would be hope for Labour. But I rather think, like Portillo, his national humiliation has sated his appetite for taking part personally in politics.

Moses_

PlatoSaid said:

I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis.

Does he ever engage his brain first?

"I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis."

ydoethur

scotslass said:

There should be no "reform" of the Commons at least until such time that numbers in the upper House are reduced to a sensible level. Nor is there a case for spending up to £10 billion on the Palace of Westmnster until numbers are settled. Finally the issue of an arbitrary reduction of MPs from 650 to 600 is and should be quite separate from a boundary revision.

It's a listed building and one of the oldest representative chambers in the world (1837 in its current form). That in itself makes it an important historic monument and is an unanswerable case for saving the fabric.

I have long wished that the government would move away from London to somewhere sensible, cheaper and possessed of adequate supplies of water. In which case a new Parliament building would be required. But that is an entirely separate question.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Ed Balls tells it as it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37211591

I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.

On election morning, Nick Robinson said that people would come to love Ed Balls following his defeat, as they realised he wasn't just an arrogant thug with a huge ego and a vast waistline (I paraphrase). I remember that set me off laughing again.

Since then, listening to various radio interviews on music, and reading his comments on politics, I have become uncomfortably aware that were he leading the Labour Party and I judged his policies rather than his personality, I would have to consider voting for him.

If he were standing against Corbyn, maybe there would be hope for Labour. But I rather think, like Portillo, his national humiliation has dimmed his appetite for taking part personally in politics.

One way and another, both in word and deed, he’s made that clear.

ydoethur

PlatoSaid said:

I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis.

Does he ever engage his brain first?

How does he keep it inside a normal set of trousers? Does he coil it up or shove it down a leg or something?

Or should we ask him and Trump to compare hands to see if he's just making it up?

Edit - someone at the HP didn't think before writing this subheading on the subject;

'The Labour leadership race is hotting up'.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57c3426fe4b0ba22a4d48b7f

PlatoSaid

dugarbandier said:

PlatoSaid said:

I awoke to the horror of Owen's 29" penis.

that's a very personal thing to share with the internet. your bravery is commended

GeoffM

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

We've just had a referendum on PR and it was rejected.

PlatoSaid

Oh my. A gold plated car.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1677140/teen-billionaire-whose-goldplated-100k-maserati-was-towed-by-cops-says-ill-just-learn-to-drive-in-a-rolls-royce/

TOPPING

So we tell the EU and the French to fuck off with their treaties and mutual agreements by significant national consensus, and then when they say they want to renegotiate one of those treaties we call foul and point to...a treaty.

Priceless.

david_herdson

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Ed Balls tells it as it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37211591

I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.

On election morning, Nick Robinson said that people would come to love Ed Balls following his defeat, as they realised he wasn't just an arrogant thug with a huge ego and a vast waistline (I paraphrase). I remember that set me off laughing again.

Since then, listening to various radio interviews on music, and reading his comments on politics, I have become uncomfortably aware that were he leading the Labour Party and I judged his policies rather than his personality, I would have to consider voting for him.

If he were standing against Corbyn, maybe there would be hope for Labour. But I rather think, like Portillo, his national humiliation has sated his appetite for taking part personally in politics.

Balls, like Portillo, might have needed his defeat to soften his personality. But what Labour should give for someone like him now.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

not_on_fire

GeoffM said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

We've just had a referendum on PR and it was rejected.

Nonsense.. AV is not PR.

foxinsoxuk

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. I realise the scope of our national government is far greater than either of those countries, because we don't have a tradition of state level government. Japan, with a system of government almost as centralised as ours, has 475 in its Lower House. However, 50 MPs gone is better than nothing.

It also strikes me that we should have fixed terms between boundary reviews - this is a far better candidate for a Fixed Term Act than the length of Parliaments. The way Clegg played politics with this in the 2010-15 Parliament was a disgrace.

Finally, I think we should end the exemption for the few constituencies that have their own seats regardless of population. Why should somebody's vote be worth twice somebody else's just because they live on an island off Scotland rather than on the mainland?

Having said all that, this long overdue change is far better than nothing. It is gratifying to be able to support with good conscience a change to the electoral system that will disadvantage Labour and the Lib Dems so ...

In 2010 in the LD manifesto there was a point about reducing the number of MPs to 500. This was part of a wider proposal including STV for the Commons and an elected upper house.

Still a good proposal, even better than AV...

not_on_fire

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

Paul_Bedfordshire

I see Labour is bleating Gerrymandering in the Guardian article referred to by TSE as their rotten boroughs are for the chop.

What isn't explored in that article is whether the revised seats will be more vulnerable to a UKIP attack, especially if, now the Tory Civil war is over UKIP reposition as a socially conservative version of Old Labour. A sort of Frank Field & Kate Hoey on Steroids party or GB version of the Democratic Unionists.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

rottenborough

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Ed Balls tells it as it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37211591

I remain of the view that he is a serious loss to the British political scene which is not exactly over endowed with people capable of creative thought. Flawed undoubtedly but someone capable of grappling with complex issues and developing a plan capable of implementation. Much rarer than it should be.

On election morning, Nick Robinson said that people would come to love Ed Balls following his defeat, as they realised he wasn't just an arrogant thug with a huge ego and a vast waistline (I paraphrase). I remember that set me off laughing again.

Since then, listening to various radio interviews on music, and reading his comments on politics, I have become uncomfortably aware that were he leading the Labour Party and I judged his policies rather than his personality, I would have to consider voting for him.

If he were standing against Corbyn, maybe there would be hope for Labour. But I rather think, like Portillo, his national humiliation has dimmed his appetite for taking part personally in politics.

One way and another, both in word and deed, he’s made that clear.

Good to see Balls telling it like it is, Corbyn cult is "leftist utopian fantasy", out of touch with real lives. I agree he is a loss, let's hope he comes back to politics.

But even if he doesn't I think he is on to a attack line that could grow: Corbynism is totally out of touch with real lives. Whilst it feeds idealists with joy about the idea of every industry been run by the state, real people are suffering disability benefit cuts, losing their jobs because of Brexit, NHS operations cancelled, social care lost etc etc.

rottenborough

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

I see Labour is bleating Gerrymandering in the Guardian article referred to by TSE as their rotten boroughs are for the chop.

What isn't explored in that article is whether the revised seats will be more vulnerable to a UKIP attack, especially if, now the Tory Civil war is over UKIP reposition as a socially conservative version of Old Labour. A sort of Frank Field & Kate Hoey on Steroids party or GB version of the Democratic Unionists.

nothing wrong with rotten boroughs!!

Paul_Bedfordshire

Meanwhile the EU is fretting that if the Remaitors doom predictions don't come to pass the EU is itself doomed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3762820/Good-deal-Britain-kill-EU-say-Germans-Vice-Chancellor-warns-union-drain.html

If us leaving destroyed the whole EU that really would be the icing on the cake.

Moses_

I guess Owen's penis enlargement pills are working.......

He's now twice the dick he was yesterday

Fishing

foxinsoxuk said:

In 2010 in the LD manifesto there was a point about reducing the number of MPs to 500. This was part of a wider proposal including STV for the Commons and an elected upper house.

Still a good proposal, even better than AV...

There are three proposals there, each independent of the others. Each has its merits and problems, but they should be considered separately. There is no reason to present them as a package.

SimonStClare

Moses_ said:

I guess Owen's penis enlargement pills are working.......

He's now twice the dick he was yesterday

ba dum tish...!

ydoethur

not_on_fire said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.

The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.

Paul_Bedfordshire

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

GeoffM

not_on_fire said:

GeoffM said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

We've just had a referendum on PR and it was rejected.

Nonsense.. AV is not PR.

It's exactly the same thing. You take a pile of legitimate votes and tinker with them so that occasionally the guy who comes second bizarrely gets given the job instead.

Paul_Bedfordshire

ydoethur said:

not_on_fire said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.

The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.

The problem is that if they are selected democratically, the parliament act becomes untenable.

ydoethur

Moses_ said:

I guess Owen's penis enlargement pills are working.......

He's now twice the dick he was yesterday

He's also made an enormous cock-up.

SquareRoot

ydoethur said:

Moses_ said:

I guess Owen's penis enlargement pills are working.......

He's now twice the dick he was yesterday

He's also made an enormous cock-up.

He's just a dick.

weejonnie

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

The boundary changes have been yet another example of the incompetence of our governing class and their inability to get things done. It was a disgrace that the election in 2015 was fought on boundaries so out of date but there remains a real risk we will have yet another election on the same basis.

The reduction in the number of MPs is a complication but I think it is a mistake to allow this to drift yet again through most of the Parliament before implementation. It works to May's disadvantage should the need for an election arise. I would suggest that accelerating that process with a view to having it completed by mid 2017 would have the desired effects that TSE mentions causing panic and consternation in the Labour ranks.

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

The real disgrace is the voting system itself, compared with which the boundary issue is distinctly secondary.

One thing that the Brexit referendum undoubtedly showed (and Sindy was the same) is that a lot more people vote when there is a point in doing so.

Further, it stands to reason that the fewer seats there are, the more unfair the system would be. With only one seat there would be one MP and a majority of the population would be unrepresented. If we all had our own seat the system would be perfectly representative (if somewhat complex to manage). Moving towards fewer seats whilst leaving the basic unfairness intact will merely exacerbate the corrosive iniquity that the system creates.

If there was only 1 MP then his constituency would be the whole of the UK and thus by definition he/ she would represent the majority.

TOPPING

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Bedfordshire, we'll be blamed, either way. Even if the EU crumbles in 30 years, they'll look back and bleat about us leaving.

As an aside, if us leaving means the end of the EU, they might have considered proposing a better deal. Arguably, that was more Cameron's fault than theirs, of course.

Mr. Borough, I prefer robber buttons, myself.

Mr. Topping, if France were in control, they'd be accepting or rejecting/deporting the illegal immigrants themselves.

Mr. Bedfordshire (2), interesting point on UKIP, although they seem intent upon embuggering themselves.

ydoethur

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

not_on_fire said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.

The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.

The problem is that if they are selected democratically, the parliament act becomes untenable.

But if they are not, Parliament is rather a joke.

And in those two problems lies the paradox. I think the nearest anyone came to resolving it was Cook, with his 80% elected, but that was effectively stymied following quiet work by Blair and Brown who wanted 100% appointed.

foxinsoxuk

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Hardly as simple as that (and I recall we already have fines for truckers found with illegals on board)

SandyRentool

ydoethur said:

not_on_fire said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

What would be a good size for the Lords?......

Zero.

A Unicameral parliament with independent experts coopted onto select committees to scrutinise legislation.

Turn the Lords into a bingo hall.

ydoethur

SquareRoot said:

ydoethur said:

Moses_ said:

I guess Owen's penis enlargement pills are working.......

He's now twice the dick he was yesterday

He's also made an enormous cock-up.

He's just a dick.

At least he's putting up a stiff fight.

I'd better get back to my schemes of work!

Moses_

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

ThreeQuidder

Fishing said:

foxinsoxuk said:

In 2010 in the LD manifesto there was a point about reducing the number of MPs to 500. This was part of a wider proposal including STV for the Commons and an elected upper house.

Still a good proposal, even better than AV...

There are three proposals there, each independent of the others. Each has its merits and problems, but they should be considered separately. There is no reason to present them as a package.

No, constitutional reform absolutely has to be a package. If not, it will be defeated in detail - no part makes sense alone.

TOPPING

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

Moses_

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

Paul_Bedfordshire

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Hardly as simple as that (and I recall we already have fines for truckers found with illegals on board)

The difference is that thorough searches would be done on incoming trucks at Dover and Cheriton by UK border guard. Eurotunnel and the Ferries, as well as or rather than the lorry owners, would be very heavily fined for any stowaways, just as airlines are at Heathrow.

This would incentivise the ferries and Eurotunnel to undertake even more thorough searches at Calais before any of the trucks, cars and foot passengers are allowed on.

It would of course cause a lot of delays for road traffic which would benefit the airlines, rail freight operators and eurostar and encourage RoW trade to use British ports rather than be trucked to Rotterdam and Hamburg. It would also make French/Belgian lorries doing domestic work in the UK untenable.

In short it would boost the UK and screw the northern French economy. Of course it would also mean long delays for Remaitors visiting their second home in France for the weekend. Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, get me a miniature violin.

not_on_fire

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.

SquareRoot

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

You can only repatriate people to countries if those countries agree to it.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Once the changes are implemented Labour will need a net gain of 100 seats give or take to make largest party making the outcome of the next election (in terms of who forms the government) pretty much a forgone conclusion. Get on with it.

Con most seats in the next election is 1.32 on Betfair. That's a better return than leaving cash in the bank, and even better if the election comes earlier than 2020.

I agree. It would take something extraordinary for that bet not to come in. Maybe if the Tories split in 2 over the implementation of Brexit. Even then who is to say that Labour would not follow suit?

The only thing stopping me is that more than a few of us have the memory of betting large on NOM at 1/8 on the morning of the last election, then having to rapidly unwind after the Nuneaton result came in!

TOPPING

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

Paul_Bedfordshire

not_on_fire said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.

Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...

TOPPING

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Hardly as simple as that (and I recall we already have fines for truckers found with illegals on board)

The difference is that thorough searches would be done on incoming trucks at Dover and Cheriton by UK border guard. Eurotunnel and the Ferries, as well as or rather than the lorry owners, would be very heavily fined for any stowaways, just as airlines are at Heathrow.

This would incentivise the ferries and Eurotunnel to undertake even more thorough searches at Calais before any of the trucks, cars and foot passengers are allowed on.

It would of course cause a lot of delays for road traffic which would benefit the airlines, rail freight operators and eurostar and encourage RoW trade to use British ports rather than be trucked to Rotterdam and Hamburg. It would also make French/Belgian lorries doing domestic work in the UK untenable.

In short it would boost the UK and screw the northern French economy. Of course it would also mean long delays for Remaitors visiting their second home in France for the weekend. Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, get me a miniature violin.

Try not to be so scared of the outside world. We are perfectly able to engage with other countries.

Paul_Bedfordshire

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

You tell me why airport levels of security cannot be implemented at Ports?

Paul_Bedfordshire

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Hardly as simple as that (and I recall we already have fines for truckers found with illegals on board)

The difference is that thorough searches would be done on incoming trucks at Dover and Cheriton by UK border guard. Eurotunnel and the Ferries, as well as or rather than the lorry owners, would be very heavily fined for any stowaways, just as airlines are at Heathrow.

This would incentivise the ferries and Eurotunnel to undertake even more thorough searches at Calais before any of the trucks, cars and foot passengers are allowed on.

It would of course cause a lot of delays for road traffic which would benefit the airlines, rail freight operators and eurostar and encourage RoW trade to use British ports rather than be trucked to Rotterdam and Hamburg. It would also make French/Belgian lorries doing domestic work in the UK untenable.

In short it would boost the UK and screw the northern French economy. Of course it would also mean long delays for Remaitors visiting their second home in France for the weekend. Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, get me a miniature violin.

Try not to be so scared of the outside world. We are perfectly able to engage with other countries.

Looks like I won that argument.

At the moment we are not able to engage with other countries in the outside world in many fields due to EU membership, which is why I voted Brexit.

The whole point of setting out plans to institute a border regime as outlined above if France pull the plug on UK border checks at Calais is to deter France from pulling the plug on UK border checks at Calais.

Moses_

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.

It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.

TOPPING

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Hardly as simple as that (and I recall we already have fines for truckers found with illegals on board)

The difference is that thorough searches would be done on incoming trucks at Dover and Cheriton by UK border guard. Eurotunnel and the Ferries, as well as or rather than the lorry owners, would be very heavily fined for any stowaways, just as airlines are at Heathrow.

This would incentivise the ferries and Eurotunnel to undertake even more thorough searches at Calais before any of the trucks, cars and foot passengers are allowed on.

It would of course cause a lot of delays for road traffic which would benefit the airlines, rail freight operators and eurostar and encourage RoW trade to use British ports rather than be trucked to Rotterdam and Hamburg. It would also make French/Belgian lorries doing domestic work in the UK untenable.

In short it would boost the UK and screw the northern French economy. Of course it would also mean long delays for Remaitors visiting their second home in France for the weekend. Oh Dear, what a shame, how sad, get me a miniature violin.

Try not to be so scared of the outside world. We are perfectly able to engage with other countries.

Looks like I won that argument.

At the moment we are not able to engage with other countries in many fields due to EU membership, which is why I voted Brexit.

Saying you have won an argument does not actually mean you have won the argument. Or we would have a Labour Government.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.

It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.

Face recognition in CCTV software might sort this before long. Basically you would do a match with worldwide airport CCTV records to see where they started their journey and crossreference with paperwork presented when they did start the journey.

not_on_fire

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

not_on_fire said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Ridiculous idea; it will bankrupt Eurostar and the ferry companies.

Just like imposing the same regime at Heathrow bankrupted British Airways...oh hang on...

Don't be obtuse. Rail and ferry compete with flying on the basis that they are quicker because you don't have to do all the waiting around and checks that come with flying.

TOPPING

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.

It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.

France is not stuffed if they just let all the immigrants to come through to the UK.

Could we implement airport-style security at all ports? Of course. Would we or would we want to? Not so sure.

Moses_

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.

As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.

not_on_fire

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.

As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.

But the checks will ultimately make the ferry/rail service uneconomic due to the additional delays, which will screw us too.

NickPalmer

Reselection considerations: generally, a new constituency will have an old constituency plus a chunk, so most members will find that say 70% of the seat is their usual territory. I'd think that most in those circumstances will seek to stay on as Labour candidates rather than seek the probable suicide of standing as independents or a new party. If not reselected, some might think again, but it would then be quite difficult - "I was a strong supporter of Labour and wanted to champion the party until they picked someone else, now I think they're crap".

Owen and his alleged penis joke, following his ISIS thoughts and other incidents, illustrates the perils of an ABC strategy. If you pick someone random whose big selling point is that he's not someone else, problems may emerge. The cnetre-left really needs someone (at this point probably for 2020) who (a) is heavyweight enough to carry conviction and (b) actually has the guts to stand. If they haven't got anyone like that, they should find a different profession.

But it's not just a British issue. There is a real shortage of centre-left politicians worldwide who have a persuasive agenda in the face of globalisation and other factors.

ThreeQuidder

ydoethur said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

ydoethur said:

not_on_fire said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Fishing said:

I can't see why we as a country need even 600 MPs - 500 is ample, given that the United States survives with 435 in its Lower House for five times our population, and India has 790 in its Parliament for twenty times our population. However, 600 is better than nothing.

I don't know about India, but in the US, the executive doesn't sit in the legislature.

Indeed, if anything we need more MPs. A much better question is why the House of Lords is so big.

What would be a good size for the Lords? Around 100? 150? Somewhere in that ballpark. I don't think it would be hard to find agreement over that.

The more awkward question is how its members are selected - and that's what all efforts at reform have foundered on since 1911.

The problem is that if they are selected democratically, the parliament act becomes untenable.

But if they are not, Parliament is rather a joke.

And in those two problems lies the paradox. I think the nearest anyone came to resolving it was Cook, with his 80% elected, but that was effectively stymied following quiet work by Blair and Brown who wanted 100% appointed.

You can square the circle by electing on totally different principles: for example, leave the lower house as FPTP and elect the upper house proportionally (perhaps even using the same votes).

Moses_

not_on_fire said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.

As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.

But the checks will ultimately make the ferry/rail service uneconomic due to the additional delays, which will screw us too.

Yes it will as loading a ship with vehicles takes longer than passengers in aircraft. Cargo flown by air is delivered in advance to secure areas. Containers are also done this way for ports and awaiting ship arrivals. Ferries of course are to a point turn up and go for commercial not so much for general public

We either take the delays and cost or ask France to simply honour the rules and remove the small number of people causing the problem. France have no excuse really.

TOPPING

Moses_ said:

not_on_fire said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Non story.

If they pull the plug on the border guards in the UK we just institute a regime that any ferry or Eurotunnel service bringing in someone without the correct papers is fined £ several thousands. Exactly what we do with airlines which is why there isn't a Calais equivalent at near Heathrow.

Only noticeable effect will be checks upon arrival as well as departure on Eurotunnel.

Another remaitor bullshit nailed.

Yes absolutely bound to work. Another Brexit-coward pulling up the covers over his head exposed as a fantasist.

The USA have this policy. Many other countries have the same.

I have on more than one occasion had to get the "OK to board" approval before flying simply because if I and others arrive illegally the carrier is wholly responsible for repatriation. In the USA this can also include costs of an armed guard escort to the departure plane door and they remain until the door closes.

You tell me but there is a difference between flying and all the checks that entails, and clinging to or stowing away in a container lorry.

Agreed there most certainly is up to the point that Lorry then boards a train or a ferry for a transit. At that point responsibility is passed to the carrier.

As Paul from Bed says checks at this point will cause considerable delays simply because the French do not address the problem they themselves have created.

But the checks will ultimately make the ferry/rail service uneconomic due to the additional delays, which will screw us too.

Yes it will as loading a ship with vehicles takes longer than passengers in aircraft. Cargo flown by air is delivered in advance to secure areas. Containers are also done this way for ports and awaiting ship arrivals. Ferries of course are to a point turn up and go for commercial not so much for general public

We either take the delays and cost or ask France to simply honour the rules and remove the small number of people causing the problem. France have no excuse really.

And this was my original point. We have stuck two fingers up at the EU, it's directives and it's treaties. Surely a sign that all such treaties are "in play".

Yet we expect France to adhere to one of them to the letter.

foxinsoxuk

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

TOPPING said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, you're saying that because we had a vote to leave the EU we should let France determine our migration policy?

From what I can see they are taking back control and are determining their migration policy.

Errr.. No.....

These people are in their country because they allowed them to enter and then failed to remove them? Not hard to do they are all in one place. For sure they can take back control and remove anyone they like but that removal has to be back to country of origin not to some convenient fall guy neighbour.

You have also conveniently forgotten asylum is an International convention in first safe country. The horrors of France and all other EU countries on the way must have been to much for them I guess?

We shall see. They either repatriate them to country of origin or, once the immigrants are there, choose to not be so rigorous and oh look they've reached the UK.

Precisely. The problem is removal to country of origin. These people commonly destroy any documents to prevent accurate ID. You have to clearly show where they came from and that is very very difficult. Then you have to persuade that country to take them back. More difficult than you think.

It's why France is stuffed. The music stopped they have them. They either go though the above process, arrest and jail them or process them into France. Better still ask Merkel to take them as she issued the invites. They don't just pass on the problem to a convenient neighbour that has no responsibility in the process.

The solution is the Australian one. The Danish are looking at it:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/23/danish-politicians-seek-to-visit-nauru-site-at-heart-of-offshore-detention-outcry

The problem is the prolonged process that occurs when the asylum applicant gets a toe on British soil and the ease of evading removal.

The system is perverse in many ways, not least that it is impossible to legitimately claim asylum without having entered the country, combined with refusal of entry if that is what the object of entry is. Catch 22.

A lot of illegals get in on tourist visas then overstay, but that is a different issue.