Plaid lose half their seats, SNP would have less than half the current seats in Scotland too under the plans and the Greens would be left with no MPs. LDs would be left with even fewer MPs than 2015 so not just the DUP complaining of the minor parties
Though of course if the Tories had won a small majority as projected on these boundary changes they would not have needed the DUP.
Mrs May really did shit the bed for the Tories in June.
If she had any sense of shame or decency, she would have gone.
She still won the highest Tory voteshare for 25 years and the second highest number of seats, even if below expectations if was hardly a 'shit the bed' result
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
A previous Parliament made the decision, - and "no Parliament can bind the hands of its successor" or whatever the adage is.
All that "adage" means is that Parliament can change the law if it wants.
When Parliament ignores the law because it doesn't like the outcome then we are in trouble.
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Parliamentary Electors: source ONS. 2015 GE register 46 354 197 Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200 2017 GE register 46 843 896.
That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives. Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes. Unless you think the population fell then rose again.
Quite. It's also worth noting that the culling of the December 2015 register was a deliberate political act at the end of the transition to the flawed system of Individual Electoral Registration. The Electoral Commission argued explicitly that the register should not have been culled at that point of names still retained from the old registration system. The Government however knew the political significance of the Dec 2015 register for the boundary review and used their (then) majority to overturn the Electoral Commission's recommendation. What happened subsequently was that a significant segment of the population started to take an interest in voting and woke up to the fact that many of them had been left off the new register in time to get their names back on for the 2016 referendum and 2017 GE.
It's ironic that the Boundary Commission was allowed only a 5% margin on the quota size of new constituencies, given that we've already seen an average increase in registration between Dec 2015 and June 2017 of almost 5%.
It's all academic anyway. The Government will indeed need to scrap the whole thing and start again - they haven't the votes to get this particular set of proposals through and they may not have the votes to get anything through. This consequence of the loss of the Conservative majority could be one of the most significant outcomes in political terms of May's decision to go early in 2017 instead of waiting until at least 2018.
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
The approval of the commission proposals should be a formality / address any egregious issues not to refight old battles.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
The approval of the commission proposals should be a formality / address any egregious issues not to refight old battles.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
But surely this Parliament has every right to repeal the Act passed by the Coalition Government in the 2010 Parliament!
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
The approval of the commission proposals should be a formality / address any egregious issues not to refight old battles.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
But surely this Parliament has every right to repeal the Act passed by the Coalition Government in the 2010 Parliament!
Absolutely it does.
But that's not what they are doing (and the last Parliament was equally guilty) - they are refusing to permit the Commission to fulfil its legal mandate. I suspect there is no majority in the house for *any* boundary update based on 600 seats.
It's a broader issue I have with the way political discourse has developed. Things like judicial review exist for a purpose but are abused by opponents of the primary measure. Similarly those who want to implement PR through the manifestos - technically they are right that they can, but it ignores the AV referendum which was clear. I'm not going to mention the demands by some for s second EU referendum...
If you lose then try to turn the popular view around. Don't look for cunning ways around the decision
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
The approval of the commission proposals should be a formality / address any egregious issues not to refight old battles.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
It's a view, but as was pointed out, Parliament's approval is required, and that it should be a formality is not written anywhere - reasonable norm though it might be. What makes it not a formality is the seat reduction aspect - requiring MPs to vote for their own extinction assumes a degree of altruism not conspicuous in all our representatives.
Decades out of date boundaries are clearly unacceptable democratically, but it would be highly surprising if this were to be resolved without further legislation - most likely abandoning the seat reduction, which is and will remain a political argument.
Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.
So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?
The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latestnd a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.
Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least
But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.
They are deadlocking - that's why I used the term "frustrate".
Well if a refusal to approve the recommendations amounts to 'frustration' , it also would reflect the will of this Parliament - which happens not to coincide with that of the 2010 - 2015 Parliament. The Government now has the opportunity to break the deadlock via new Legislation.
The approval of the commission proposals should be a formality / address any egregious issues not to refight old battles.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
It's a view, but as was pointed out, Parliament's approval is required, and that it should be a formality is not written anywhere - reasonable norm though it might be. What makes it not a formality is the seat reduction aspect - requiring MPs to vote for their own extinction assumes a degree of altruism not conspicuous in all our representatives.
Decades out of date boundaries are clearly unacceptable democratically, but it would be highly surprising if this were to be resolved without further legislation - most likely abandoning the seat reduction, which is and will remain a political argument.
My point is broader. Debate the seat reduction and overturn it if there is a majority to do so. Don't turn down every proposal and thereby prevent compliance with the law.
Comments
Though of course if the Tories had won a small majority as projected on these boundary changes they would not have needed the DUP.
When Parliament ignores the law because it doesn't like the outcome then we are in trouble.
It's ironic that the Boundary Commission was allowed only a 5% margin on the quota size of new constituencies, given that we've already seen an average increase in registration between Dec 2015 and June 2017 of almost 5%.
It's all academic anyway. The Government will indeed need to scrap the whole thing and start again - they haven't the votes to get this particular set of proposals through and they may not have the votes to get anything through. This consequence of the loss of the Conservative majority could be one of the most significant outcomes in political terms of May's decision to go early in 2017 instead of waiting until at least 2018.
Personally I don't think Parliament should have a say at all
But that's not what they are doing (and the last Parliament was equally guilty) - they are refusing to permit the Commission to fulfil its legal mandate. I suspect there is no majority in the house for *any* boundary update based on 600 seats.
It's a broader issue I have with the way political discourse has developed. Things like judicial review exist for a purpose but are abused by opponents of the primary measure. Similarly those who want to implement PR through the manifestos - technically they are right that they can, but it ignores the AV referendum which was clear. I'm not going to mention the demands by some for s second EU referendum...
If you lose then try to turn the popular view around. Don't look for cunning ways around the decision
What makes it not a formality is the seat reduction aspect - requiring MPs to vote for their own extinction assumes a degree of altruism not conspicuous in all our representatives.
Decades out of date boundaries are clearly unacceptable democratically, but it would be highly surprising if this were to be resolved without further legislation - most likely abandoning the seat reduction, which is and will remain a political argument.