I read that as parameters that they must apply to their review, not that the review must then be applied by Parliament. "It" being the commission in that sentence, not the government/parliament.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I read that as parameters that they must apply to their review, not that the review must then be applied by Parliament. "It" being the commission in that sentence, not the government/parliament.
"What does the Act require for boundaries?
We must follow the statutory rules set out in the Act. These rules have been significantly changed since the last implemented review and will mean substantial changes to Parliamentary constituencies across the UK. These include:
reducing the total number of constituencies from 650 to 600; and
making sure that each constituency contains a more equal number of registered electors."
which Parliament then get to decide upon as dza explains.
I get the point you make regarding cost etc. but Politics trumps everything - turkeys and Christmas comes to mind. This is another reason why May shouldn't have called the snap election but also why she did - she thought she would win more seats making it easier to overcome backbench opposition when this came up.
We must follow the statutory rules set out in the Act. These rules have been significantly changed since the last implemented review and will mean substantial changes to Parliamentary constituencies across the UK. These include:
reducing the total number of constituencies from 650 to 600; and
making sure that each constituency contains a more equal number of registered electors."
which Parliament then get to decide upon as dza explains.
I get the point you make regarding cost etc. but Politics trumps everything - turkeys and Christmas comes to mind. This is another reason why May shouldn't have called the snap election but also why she did - she thought she would win more seats making it easier to overcome backbench opposition when this came up.
an older article
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ch-plans-to-cut-number-of-mps-from-650-to-600
The reform was intended to save £50m over five years and equalise the number of voters in each constituency.
But concern about getting a Commons majority for the move, which would mean a wide-ranging redrawing of constituency boundaries, has reportedly led to the change of direction.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ch-plans-to-cut-number-of-mps-from-650-to-600
The reform was intended to save £50m over five years and equalise the number of voters in each constituency.
But concern about getting a Commons majority for the move, which would mean a wide-ranging redrawing of constituency boundaries, has reportedly led to the change of direction.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Check out the reply to you a couple of pages back with a link. The UK chose not to stop migrants from the new EU countries. Germany, Holand etc chose to control them. But our elected government chose not to. Just like it chooses not to register EU migrants who come into the UK now, or send any back who aren't working or affluent (within 3 weeks of arriving I think it is). Is it all the EU?
Seem quite reasonable laws to me. The fact our government didn't take up the exclusion of new EU country migrants looks like a massive bobo now, though UK industry will have benefited.
Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im yet to read it fully. That said, it still makes absolutely no sense to go to the EU asking to throttle immigration if we really do have the ability already.
Its embarrasing. And absolutley nobody pointed it out. Which makes me wonder if there is a misunderstanding somewhere within the link.
As I said, yet to read into it - but as it stands Im dubious about it.
Its embarrasing. And absolutley nobody pointed it out. Which makes me wonder if there is a misunderstanding somewhere within the link.
As I said, yet to read into it - but as it stands Im dubious about it.
Politics - it suits politicians to blame others for things that they want but don't think will be popular - decades of this and it did seem like most of our problems are EU related.
Think about EU NHS use - if we could get our ass into gear we could have charged back the cost from the other countries (as they do with us), we were either unable or unwilling to do this.
In reality if our Govt (both flavours) were not such nosey opportunistic buggers the ID cards would have been a good thing but alas they cant be trusted.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I'm taking deposits. I'll send you the account number.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
We did not, Blair did.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The Blair/Brown and Cameron/Osborne governments went for growth at all costs. They played a ponzi scheme - rapid population growth, essentially to fund pensions. Even though the consequences do not sit well with either of their heartlands - the working classes who were undercut on wages and shire England who couldn't get their kids on the property ladder, as well as the pressures on infrastructure that everyone has experienced.
So I would see it as deliberate short-termism and pandering to big business by all governments 2004-2016.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I disagree. There was quite a consensus that we'd push the EU broad and shallow, to stop it becoming narrow and deep. No one imagined the EU would be mad enough to try and go for broad and deep.
Blair was an arch integrationist, but I don't think the UK's push for EU expansion came about for that reason
Sure about that?
How the Tory right turned against EU enlargement
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lgaria?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
Maybe he didn't have the tools: i.e, the infrastructure at the borders or the technology in place to manage it.
So rather than use the rules that were already there (because he couldn't effectively activate them), he asked for another way; pushing it back to the EU rather than dealing with it in house?
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
First bank of Rorschach?
ricky2tricky4city
Tom Huddlestone
If you read my reply I'm not denying the genetic makeup of our country (that is obviously a fact). I'm disputing the use of it to support the idea that Europeans are more worthy of residing in our country than any other country or race. It's actually a fairly divisive thing to say and pretty pointless given countless historical events which have shown we have not always got along.
When the Germans drove us all the way back to the beaches at Dunkirk, i do not think anyone offered 'steady up guv, can you back off a little.....we're genetic cousins after all?'
Anyway i think we are well underway with a second generation genetic melting pot, if you look around the average city.
The second part of your post is another conversation
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Ironic of course that the EU was envisaged, and had succeeded, in bringing peace and prosperity to Europe's biggest powers post war. Someone was saying how Putin would love the break up of the EU. And how such fissures start to build into a more divided Europe. London is no doubt richer for the Carribean peoples, the Turks around North London, the Vietnamese even around Hoxton etc etc. We are a diverse and culturally rich nation. But people have said to me they don't like going to areas where they don't see a white face. Is it racist? Yes. Do I agree with them? No. But there is a point that people from France, Spain etc who come to the EU and work tend to be well educated and integrate well. They tend to speak English and blend in. Its a thorny subject, and great care is needed discussing it, but its a serious reality for a lot of people, especially those who voted UKIP and many of them also voted Leave. So why shy away from saying western Europeans are more easily digestible to most Brits? For what its worth I'm only half Brit myself - in my genetic make up.
So, the Tories lose a vote on their flagship policy today (vote was to pause Universal Credit, though the vote isn't binding).
Meanwhile, the latest poll from Survation (most accurate pollster the last two general elections):
Got to wonder how much longer May can last, such an inept and impotent leader. The trouble is, she leads a party of total dross.
Meanwhile, the latest poll from Survation (most accurate pollster the last two general elections):
Got to wonder how much longer May can last, such an inept and impotent leader. The trouble is, she leads a party of total dross.
I don't think they'll replace her all the time Corbyn is standing opposite. May won't be able to pick who runs her campaign next time and even she would walk past Corbyn.
If Labour get serious and stand behind someone electable then they'll have to do something.
The longer May is there, the better Corbyn looks to the electorate. The Tories are an utter disaster, led by someone who has managed to take a 20 point poll lead and turn that into a lost majority, and subsequently an average 3 point poll deficit. That they stick with her shows the weakness of the Tory party, nobody wants the job!
Yet Corbyn, during peak Corbyn, was only able to scrape a better result than Gordon Brown did - universally regarded as one of the least competent PMs we've ever had.
As bad as May is (and she is fudging useless) a May campaign run by Lynton Crosby would look very different to one run by a couple of her mates.