Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Carlotta is a parody? That explains why she thought Bertie Ahern was the Irish PM at the time of Brexit before correcting it to “Edna” Kenny.
Some would say that a Maybot loyalist who generously dispenses their Tory and Union and Brexit supporting wisdom while living abroad has to be a satirical construct, I couldn't possible comment.
Carlotta is an exemplar of how to be a May-supporting Brexitomane with some degree of elegance and wit.
The ones I detest are those who sit there in their Union Jack boxer shorts, Land of Hope and Glory playing in the background, while shouting at the TV because all the programmes on it are in foreign.
*guilty start*
*turns TV off*
As far as I'm aware you live in this country. I was talking about those living abroad. Which also, amazingly, rules out HYUFD also.
All of us are just people off of the internet and as such not of any interest in and of ourselves, no matter how mad our views.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
Carlotta is a parody? That explains why she thought Bertie Ahern was the Irish PM at the time of Brexit before correcting it to “Edna” Kenny.
Some would say that a Maybot loyalist who generously dispenses their Tory and Union and Brexit supporting wisdom while living abroad has to be a satirical construct, I couldn't possible comment.
Carlotta is an exemplar of how to be a May-supporting Brexitomane with some degree of elegance and wit.
The ones I detest are those who sit there in their Union Jack boxer shorts, Land of Hope and Glory playing in the background, while shouting at the TV because all the programmes on it are in foreign.
*guilty start*
*turns TV off*
As far as I'm aware you live in this country. I was talking about those living abroad. Which also, amazingly, rules out HYUFD also.
All of us are just people off of the internet and as such not of any interest in and of ourselves, no matter how mad our views.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
I've worked out the others, but who is the Aussie ?
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
I've worked out the others, but who is the Aussie ?
Carlotta is a parody? That explains why she thought Bertie Ahern was the Irish PM at the time of Brexit before correcting it to “Edna” Kenny.
Some would say that a Maybot loyalist who generously dispenses their Tory and Union and Brexit supporting wisdom while living abroad has to be a satirical construct, I couldn't possible comment.
Carlotta is an exemplar of how to be a May-supporting Brexitomane with some degree of elegance and wit.
The ones I detest are those who sit there in their Union Jack boxer shorts, Land of Hope and Glory playing in the background, while shouting at the TV because all the programmes on it are in foreign.
*guilty start*
*turns TV off*
As far as I'm aware you live in this country. I was talking about those living abroad. Which also, amazingly, rules out HYUFD also.
All of us are just people off of the internet and as such not of any interest in and of ourselves, no matter how mad our views.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
How many ? About two on here is it ?
At least 10 probably more.
Wow out of hundreds of leavers who come through this site.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
I could go on.
I would only add our dear friend Max who, having effed off to foreign climes to make his money (and good for him for doing so), is very very very very quick to name anyone anti-Brexit as a traitor.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
If Labour do manage to squeeze past, we will hear howls from our Tory friends about the proportion of seats which are held by the payroll vote!
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
If Labour do manage to squeeze past, we will hear howls from our Tory friends about the proportion of seats which are held by the payroll vote!
Corbyn will oppose, but he might not mind too much..
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
I could go on.
I live in Yorkshire. That's foreign enough for a Geordie lad like me.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
I could go on.
I think the horrible PB cliche is to put +1 under posts one likes.
For this I choose to +1,000,000
Other 'unspoofables' include:
A poster who endlessly opines (almost exclusively negatively) about London and 'the French' despite admitting that he has never visited said city or, indeed, France.
Mr Unspoofable himself who is only 30 years of age but lectures others in the tone and lexicon of a patronising great-grandfather.
A hardcore London-despising Brexiteer who promotes Mansfield as the visionary template for modern Britain.
A Tory Maybot neobrexiteer who chastises others for calling posters names before deriding pro-Europeans as Remainiacs in her very next post.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Litvinenko[sp] was assassinated in 2006. So, I'd say it makes sod all difference, and is a slightly daft thing to suggest.
As I said, Morris, I pondered whether it would make no difference but thought that would be to take the Russians for idiots, which I'm sure we can all agree would be a schoolboy error.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Yes, the independent electoral commission are just stooges of the Tory party.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Yes, the independent electoral commission are just stooges of the Tory party.
Given that the government would not vote for it were it not deeply convenient for them, I do think you are being rather credulous.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Yes, the independent electoral commission are just stooges of the Tory party.
Given that the government would not vote for it were it not deeply convenient for them, I do think you are being rather credulous.
As someone else said below, the current boundaries favour the Tories. More importantly, equalising the sizes of the constituencies is the right thing to do. Hard to imagine that the government might want to do something that is right, but there you go.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
The government should revert to a normal boundary review on the old rules with unchanged number of seats, which ought to nullify that impression and could command cross-party support.
The Tories are increasingly representing some quite poor seats these days which come with a lot of casework (you mentioned Mansfield yourself)...I doubt the new MPs in these kind of seats will relish the significant extra workload of taking on 10000 new voters.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
The government should revert to a normal boundary review on the old rules with unchanged number of seats, which ought to nullify that impression and could command cross-party support.
The Tories are increasingly representing some quite poor seats these days which come with a lot of casework (you mentioned Mansfield yourself)...I doubt the new MPs in these kind of seats will relish the significant extra workload of taking on 10000 new voters.
He should be able to cope, nearby Bassetlaw stays identical in size.
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Bollocks. Boundary reviews are a regular and necessary feature of the British political system. There is simply no way Labour & the Lib Dems wouldn't have blocked the Sixth Review if it wasn't advantageous to them.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
No it isn't. Others will know the rules better than me, but periodic reviews of the constituencies is just part of the rules. Labour tends to put it off because it tends not to favour them; the Conservatives tend to be keener because it tends to be in their favour. But it needs to be done - otherwise we would be awash with rotten boroughs.
Hard to be sure, but I really don't think it will favour the Conservatives as much as it has for most of the past 60 years - the population is growing most at the moment in Labour-leaning areas (i.e. cities).
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
The government should revert to a normal boundary review on the old rules with unchanged number of seats, which ought to nullify that impression and could command cross-party support.
The Tories are increasingly representing some quite poor seats these days which come with a lot of casework (you mentioned Mansfield yourself)...I doubt the new MPs in these kind of seats will relish the significant extra workload of taking on 10000 new voters.
I've just checked !
Mansfield is projected to lose some electorate in the review (3000 or so by the next election) so no need to worry about Ben Bradway's caseload.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
No it isn't. Others will know the rules better than me, but periodic reviews of the constituencies is just part of the rules. Labour tends to put it off because it tends not to favour them; the Conservatives tend to be keener because it tends to be in their favour. But it needs to be done - otherwise we would be awash with rotten boroughs.
Hard to be sure, but I really don't think it will favour the Conservatives as much as it has for most of the past 60 years - the population is growing most at the moment in Labour-leaning areas (i.e. cities).
For me the issue is the reduction in MPs. Plainly crazy and just feeds into the idea that MPs are just sitting around all day sponging off expenses, all the same etc etc. Reducing the number, reduces the gene pool for the executive. And frankly looking at the current Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, things are pretty bad already.
Boris Johnson has indicated he could pull out of a tennis match that was bought at a Tory fundraising auction for £160,000 by the wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.
...
Electoral Commission records show that Chernukhin, a banker, was declared an "impermissible donor" in April 2012 when she attempted to give £10,000 to the Conservative party. Since then, however, she has made a three donations worth a total of £5,500, which have all been accepted.
The Conservatives have received substantial donations while in government from individuals and companies linked to Russia. Several Russians attended last year's fundraiser, including Putin's judo partner Vasily Shestakov, who has the job of improving Russia's reputation in the UK. He was introduced to Cameron.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Bollocks. Boundary reviews are a regular and necessary feature of the British political system. There is simply no way Labour & the Lib Dems wouldn't have blocked the Sixth Review if it wasn't advantageous to them.
It is backdoor gerrymandering and to understand how it works, you need to consider the two parts together. First, purge Labour-leaning voters from the registers (and here Cameron shot himself in the foot because it also meant removing Remain supporters) and then reduce the number of seats to force every single constituency to be calibrated based on the now Conservative-leaning registers (so Labour constituencies seem smaller).
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
That's part of the terms of reference for the review, and in principle the number of seats in single-member constituencies doesn't matter too much (except in extremis).
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
Bollocks. Boundary reviews are a regular and necessary feature of the British political system. There is simply no way Labour & the Lib Dems wouldn't have blocked the Sixth Review if it wasn't advantageous to them.
It is backdoor gerrymandering and to understand how it works, you need to consider the two parts together. First, purge Labour-leaning voters from the registers (and here Cameron shot himself in the foot because it also meant removing Remain supporters) and then reduce the number of seats to force every single constituency to be calibrated based on the now Conservative-leaning registers (so Labour constituencies seem smaller).
Nevertheless there is an amusing expat angle to some of our most fervent Brexiters.
At times it is, as one poster here is fond of saying, completely unspoofable.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
I could go on.
I think the horrible PB cliche is to put +1 under posts one likes.
For this I choose to +1,000,000
Other 'unspoofables' include:
A poster who endlessly opines (almost exclusively negatively) about London and 'the French' despite admitting that he has never visited said city or, indeed, France.
Mr Unspoofable himself who is only 30 years of age but lectures others in the tone and lexicon of a patronising great-grandfather.
A hardcore London-despising Brexiteer who promotes Mansfield as the visionary template for modern Britain.
A Tory Maybot neobrexiteer who chastises others for calling posters names before deriding pro-Europeans as Remainiacs in her very next post.
As you say, unspoofable.
My favourite is the near-aristocrat whose every post includes a name drop or reference to first class air travel, but who claims to support Brexit on behalf of “the people”. Noblesse oblige, I guess.
Bollocks. Boundary reviews are a regular and necessary feature of the British political system. There is simply no way Labour & the Lib Dems wouldn't have blocked the Sixth Review if it wasn't advantageous to them.
To their credit, Blair/Brown allowed the review of the boundaries for the 2010 election to come into force (eventually*) even though it benefitted the Tories and arguably prevented a "rainbow coalition" of Lab+LD+SNP from being viable in 2010.
It's coming to something when the Blair/Brown era seems like halcyon days of decency and bipartisanship.
*they did however block all but the Scottish bit from coming into force in time for the 2005 election
Mr. Walker, if you want to have a pissing contest about how terribly 'umble we are, I suspect I'd win by a country mile due to my current less than wondrous circumstances. But, as it doesn't matter a jot when it comes to how well-reasoned or not an argument is, banging on about wealth to attempt to prove or disprove the value of a debating position is a vain endeavour.
Incidentally, I also asked Miss Anazina if any of those little descriptions were meant to apply to me. Maybe there was a reply, but I missed it, if so.
But, but, surely the EU have been adamant in decrying any suggestion that Brexit should result in any diminution of security co-operation? Or is that another thing that only works in one direction?
Did the EU ever pitchin when we faced anything comparable in the past? I'm not saying we were treated with callous indifference - and appropriate friendly noises have always been made by our friends on the mainland - but this really seems to sit outwith any arguments relating to the EU.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Like changing the number of seats?
It will also significantly increase MPs' casework at a time when the population is growing quite fast. Though that will impact Labour MPs in poorer and inner city areas the hardest, it surely can't be that popular with Tories either.
It's backdoor gerrymandering, pure and simple. There is simply no way the government would pursue it if it wasn't advantageous to them.
No it isn't. Others will know the rules better than me, but periodic reviews of the constituencies is just part of the rules. Labour tends to put it off because it tends not to favour them; the Conservatives tend to be keener because it tends to be in their favour. But it needs to be done - otherwise we would be awash with rotten boroughs.
Hard to be sure, but I really don't think it will favour the Conservatives as much as it has for most of the past 60 years - the population is growing most at the moment in Labour-leaning areas (i.e. cities).
For me the issue is the reduction in MPs. Plainly crazy and just feeds into the idea that MPs are just sitting around all day sponging off expenses, all the same etc etc. Reducing the number, reduces the gene pool for the executive. And frankly looking at the current Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, things are pretty bad already.
Isn't the UK parliament pretty large in comparison to its counterparts elsewhere in the world though? Though obviously the UK population is pretty large too.
If only Britain were a member of a large close and deep international grouping that could effectively take collective action.
Well we are Alastair, and as usual its fuck all use.
I wonder why there's no feeling of solidarity towards Britain right now?
Where was the EU backing for tough action after the Litvinenko murder? If I remember correctly, Germany was pursuing a policy of warming relations towards Moscow at that time.
Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Global thermonuclear war: the local election implications.
Boris Johnson has indicated he could pull out of a tennis match that was bought at a Tory fundraising auction for £160,000 by the wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.
...
Electoral Commission records show that Chernukhin, a banker, was declared an "impermissible donor" in April 2012 when she attempted to give £10,000 to the Conservative party. Since then, however, she has made a three donations worth a total of £5,500, which have all been accepted.
The Conservatives have received substantial donations while in government from individuals and companies linked to Russia. Several Russians attended last year's fundraiser, including Putin's judo partner Vasily Shestakov, who has the job of improving Russia's reputation in the UK. He was introduced to Cameron.
A wonderful story that spells out to all those who think the Tory Party under David Cameron modernised. Every nuance into why it's the same shoddy old institution with the same shoddy old values is in that article
If only Britain were a member of a large close and deep international grouping that could effectively take collective action.
Well we are Alastair, and as usual its fuck all use.
I wonder why there's no feeling of solidarity towards Britain right now?
Where was the EU backing for tough action after the Litvinenko murder? If I remember correctly, Germany was pursuing a policy of warming relations towards Moscow at that time.
There is a pro-Russia on both the left (nostalgic ex-Commies) and right (see themselves as geopolitical realists) in German politics. They are a fringe, but in 2006 I think Germany was led by Schroeder who has ended up stooging for Russian business interests and discredited himself - he’s now regarded similarly to the way we sometimes think about Blair.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Global thermonuclear war: the local election implications.
Good thought. Waay more Labour seats are going to cease to exist.
Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Most Russian money goes via London. We could really hurt Russian interests by freezing assets and cutting off access to the City.
Of course, in the 21st Century, the power of the media narrative is a major part of influence. If the UK PM and FM regularly drew attention to terrible events in Russia, it could hurt Putin a lot. Bring up the wife-beating law, the lynchings of gay people, the ongoing Siberian gulags for political dissidents, embezzlement by Putin's allies etc.
Is there any legal fallback if no-one stood for election to any of the seats of a principal local authority? Would the incumbent councillors have their terms extended, or would Whitehall appoint commissioners?
Global thermonuclear war: the local election implications.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
Wasn't there an article suggesting most 'new' registrations are nothing of the kind, and that most who 'register to vote' near an election are already registered to vote....?
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
Odd that an English woman would use the American format of mm/dd, but I may be overthinking it.
As ever, reading the comments on that order-order article is a salutary experience.
Even the wording on the article itself displays a jaw-dropping disregard of facts.
"... the electoral bias to Labour".
Which, of course, manifests itself in a 13 seat advantage to the Tories on equal vote shares of 42-42.
What?
That is an artefact of vote distribution and changes over time. The bias is because Labour's constituencies are, on average, smaller.
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
Electoral reform? Or gerrymandering on the basis of an old and incomplete register?
The commission is using the most up to date register as of when it started its activities.
Bearing in mind that there are 4 years to the next GE, and new registrations were in 7 figures for the 2016 and 2017 votes, do you not think that these registrations should be included in any redrawing of boundaries? Or are some voters more equal than others?
How is it done where you live in California?
I believe it is correct that the commission use the latest register. Which I believe they did at the commencement of the review.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
An American bot?
Well, if she was a techie she'd have used the one true date fiomat: 19960725
Or is she was really geeky: 2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Boris Johnson has indicated he could pull out of a tennis match that was bought at a Tory fundraising auction for £160,000 by the wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.
...
Electoral Commission records show that Chernukhin, a banker, was declared an "impermissible donor" in April 2012 when she attempted to give £10,000 to the Conservative party. Since then, however, she has made a three donations worth a total of £5,500, which have all been accepted.
The Conservatives have received substantial donations while in government from individuals and companies linked to Russia. Several Russians attended last year's fundraiser, including Putin's judo partner Vasily Shestakov, who has the job of improving Russia's reputation in the UK. He was introduced to Cameron.
A wonderful story that spells out to all those who think the Tory Party under David Cameron modernised. Every nuance into why it's the same shoddy old institution with the same shoddy old values is in that article
Unlike the Labour party I suppose, which has taken money from a man accused of lying on oath and wanting to send immigrants home and whose leader saw no problem with private Facebook groups where Klu Klux Klan supporters could spout their filth.
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Without meaning to attempt any doxxing, I'd reckon that her birthdate is 25th July 1996, and that 40 is a special number for her (house number, or perhaps her IQ).
An American bot?
Well, if she was a techie she'd have used the one true date fiomat: 19960725
Or is she was really geeky: 2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Seconds since epoch, please.
Edit: Julian date although I prefer the modified version, far less unwieldy
Boris Johnson has indicated he could pull out of a tennis match that was bought at a Tory fundraising auction for £160,000 by the wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.
...
Electoral Commission records show that Chernukhin, a banker, was declared an "impermissible donor" in April 2012 when she attempted to give £10,000 to the Conservative party. Since then, however, she has made a three donations worth a total of £5,500, which have all been accepted.
The Conservatives have received substantial donations while in government from individuals and companies linked to Russia. Several Russians attended last year's fundraiser, including Putin's judo partner Vasily Shestakov, who has the job of improving Russia's reputation in the UK. He was introduced to Cameron.
A wonderful story that spells out to all those who think the Tory Party under David Cameron modernised. Every nuance into why it's the same shoddy old institution with the same shoddy old values is in that article
Unlike the Labour party I suppose, which has taken money from a man accused of lying on oath and wanting to send immigrants home and whose leader saw no problem with private Facebook groups where Klu Klux Klan supporters could spout their filth.
Would be quite funny if Corbyn became the first leader to be suspended by his own party since 1931.
Comments
What a boundary review is supposed to do is approximately equalise constituency size. Everything else is electoral reform.
My concern about reducing the number of seats would be more to do with it increasing the relative proportion of parliamentarians who are also members of the Government.
We have someone here fond of droning on about the islamification of Britain and the awfulness of muslim mayor Khan whilst choosing to live in Dubai.
One of our hardest of hard Brexit enthusiasts thinks he is entitled to go mad every time May gives a hint of compromise over Brexit, whilst sitting at home in Australia.
The site owner's son told us to vote Leave 'cos everything would be just great then promptly buggered off to live in California.
I could go on.
I wonder why Sky have left the voting open on this after originally putting the deadline for Wednesday?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/971778919702638592
Not sure what we can do about it though.
a) more likely to fuck with us; or
b) less likely to fuck with us?
For this I choose to +1,000,000
Other 'unspoofables' include:
A poster who endlessly opines (almost exclusively negatively) about London and 'the French' despite admitting that he has never visited said city or, indeed, France.
Mr Unspoofable himself who is only 30 years of age but lectures others in the tone and lexicon of a patronising great-grandfather.
A hardcore London-despising Brexiteer who promotes Mansfield as the visionary template for modern Britain.
A Tory Maybot neobrexiteer who chastises others for calling posters names before deriding pro-Europeans as Remainiacs in her very next post.
As you say, unspoofable.
New parliamentary boundaries were revised in January 2018 by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.
the Democratic Unionist Party has improved its position from the initial proposals.
Another 10 votes for the boundaries lol
Not to mention the fact that multi-lateral co-operation doesn't require the EU.
The Tories are increasingly representing some quite poor seats these days which come with a lot of casework (you mentioned Mansfield yourself)...I doubt the new MPs in these kind of seats will relish the significant extra workload of taking on 10000 new voters.
Hard to be sure, but I really don't think it will favour the Conservatives as much as it has for most of the past 60 years - the population is growing most at the moment in Labour-leaning areas (i.e. cities).
https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/971794434470830080
Crash courses in Russian to set up our own troll farm... (or just use google translate)
Make this happen, and confiscate properties which don't comply...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/17/theresa-may-set-timetable-reveal-foreign-owners-uk-property
Or just make fun of the psychotic little thug ?
Mansfield is projected to lose some electorate in the review (3000 or so by the next election) so no need to worry about Ben Bradway's caseload.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/23/boris-johnson-tennis-match-russian-chernukhin
Boris Johnson has indicated he could pull out of a tennis match that was bought at a Tory fundraising auction for £160,000 by the wife of a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.
...
Electoral Commission records show that Chernukhin, a banker, was declared an "impermissible donor" in April 2012 when she attempted to give £10,000 to the Conservative party. Since then, however, she has made a three donations worth a total of £5,500, which have all been accepted.
The Conservatives have received substantial donations while in government from individuals and companies linked to Russia. Several Russians attended last year's fundraiser, including Putin's judo partner Vasily Shestakov, who has the job of improving Russia's reputation in the UK. He was introduced to Cameron.
https://twitter.com/catherinemep/status/971783530236796929
It's coming to something when the Blair/Brown era seems like halcyon days of decency and bipartisanship.
*they did however block all but the Scottish bit from coming into force in time for the 2005 election
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/970956744103952385
Of course with that profile and all those numbers after her name, Ms joannem07254906 may be a bot herself.
Incidentally, I also asked Miss Anazina if any of those little descriptions were meant to apply to me. Maybe there was a reply, but I missed it, if so.
However, we have Boris Johnson as FM.
But I think it started as a chain on how odd it was that so many Brexiters seem to post from abroad.
Of course, in the 21st Century, the power of the media narrative is a major part of influence. If the UK PM and FM regularly drew attention to terrible events in Russia, it could hurt Putin a lot. Bring up the wife-beating law, the lynchings of gay people, the ongoing Siberian gulags for political dissidents, embezzlement by Putin's allies etc.
This Brexiteer has been posting from Deepest Dorset since, well, since I've been posting....
How is it done where you live in California?
Although I’m currently relaxing in a remote pocket of the Weald. Idyllic.
Although I think most people go, 'Boris is FS-FFS!'
19960725
Or is she was really geeky:
2450289.5 (extra points for anyone who knows what that is)
Edit: Julian date