Don't know, but as far as I'm aware, the Tories have always supported the work of the Boundary Commission.
Because the Boundary Commission always went about it work in a staid and considered manner allowing plenty of time for consultation and public inquiries into their proposals.
The Boundary Commission hadn't previously had to undertake a quick and dirty bit of work within strict deadlines set by the government, that was then deliberately given very tight deadlines for consultation and assessment.
If you make the work of the Boundary Commission political then don't be surprised if politicians bite back.
Don't know, but as far as I'm aware, the Tories have always supported the work of the Boundary Commission.
Oh please that's just like saying I approve of motherhood and apple pie.
There's a difference between supporting the work and supporting the recommendations...we all saw how far apart Tory principles on those two things were when it came to supporting Leveson and backing the recommendations.
And I don't know why people peddle the notion that the Tory Party were 100% behind the last set of boundary reforms...since it never really saw the light of day it was never really tested.
I can assure you that round here they were spitting feathers because of the potential disadvantage it would have put them in. With a real chance that 3 Tory MPs would vote agains or abstain to be sure of keeping themselves in a job.
Because the Boundary Commission always went about it work in a staid and considered manner allowing plenty of time for consultation and public inquiries into their proposals.
The Boundary Commission hadn't previously had to undertake a quick and dirty bit of work within strict deadlines set by the government, that was then deliberately given very tight deadlines for consultation and assessment.
If you make the work of the Boundary Commission political then don't be surprised if politicians bite back.
Bullshit.
Miliband and Labour opposed the boundary changes purely from party advantage.
It's a bit of a marshmallow statement really. Every one of us wants a fairer Britain. Ask any election contender and they will all say they want a fairer Britian, but ask them what that means and they will all have a different answer. It is perhaps well intentioned, but without some meat on the bones it's a meaningless soundbite.
but i doudt he wanted a fairer way of the labour party electing its leader,because with it his brother would have been labour leader
In that case , out of fairness, he should be offering to pay the mansion tax on his 2 million pound home which he wont have to pay because he is an M.P. But he would be happy to make others pay.
It's a bit of a marshmallow statement really. Every one of us wants a fairer Britain. Ask any election contender and they will all say they want a fairer Britian, but ask them what that means and they will all have a different answer. It is perhaps well intentioned, but without some meat on the bones it's a meaningless soundbite.
No we don't.
You only have to look on this forum every day and you'll see many who support the right of wealth to purchase privilege, and condemning any measures proposed that may narrow the wealth divide.
You only have to look on this forum every day and you'll see many who support the right of wealth to purchase privilege, and condemning any measures proposed that may narrow the wealth divide.
Your idea of 'fair' is everyone scrabbling around in the mud to eke a living as part of a commune.
It's a bit of a marshmallow statement really. Every one of us wants a fairer Britain. Ask any election contender and they will all say they want a fairer Britian, but ask them what that means and they will all have a different answer. It is perhaps well intentioned, but without some meat on the bones it's a meaningless soundbite.
Yes they do...but that want to be assured that mememememe is not affected adversely, that any benefits go to mememememe, that themthemethem don't deserve it anyway and that they get it nownownownownow.
And the longer that politicians can manage to keep the population fractured into a series of isolated groups of "them and us" the longer it will be before we find common cause and lynch them form the nearest lamp post.
;-)
In that case , out of fairness, he should be offering to pay the mansion tax on his 2 million pound home which he wont have to pay because he is an M.P. But he would be happy to make others pay.
Why would being an MP make a difference to mansion tax liability?
You idea of 'fair' is everyone scrabbling around in the mud to eke a living as part of a commune.
My idea of fair is the creation of a society where we have true equality of opportunity - not as present, where, because of money being able to purchase privilege, we have the triumph of mediocrity.
In that case , out of fairness, he should be offering to pay the mansion tax on his 2 million pound home which he wont have to pay because he is an M.P. But he would be happy to make others pay.
You clearly have had sight of both the draft details of any such legislation and of any consequential amendment to the MPs expenses regulations to be able to say such a thing.:o
Hellfire...you're one of Labour's inner circle after all
Either that or you are making an assumption largely unfounded but more likely just repeating one someone else made.
Comments
It was the LibDems that pulled the rug from under the Tories on the boundary changes.
I agree electoral boundaries need reforming as does the whole first past the post concept.
:eek: he must be a racist then!!!
edit: and what about strawberry blonde, or is that counted as a pale ginger? we all know where this sort of thing leads
I'd have thought retaining, rather than getting rid of, 50 elected MPs would give people fairer access to their elected representatives
A different issue HH. I'm pointing out that while he's talking about fairness, Miliband and Labour voted against electoral fairness.
I agree David, would though the Tories have done any different if the boundary changes disadvantaged them?
Don't know, but as far as I'm aware, the Tories have always supported the work of the Boundary Commission.
Because the Boundary Commission always went about it work in a staid and considered manner allowing plenty of time for consultation and public inquiries into their proposals.
The Boundary Commission hadn't previously had to undertake a quick and dirty bit of work within strict deadlines set by the government, that was then deliberately given very tight deadlines for consultation and assessment.
If you make the work of the Boundary Commission political then don't be surprised if politicians bite back.
Oh please that's just like saying I approve of motherhood and apple pie.
There's a difference between supporting the work and supporting the recommendations...we all saw how far apart Tory principles on those two things were when it came to supporting Leveson and backing the recommendations.
And I don't know why people peddle the notion that the Tory Party were 100% behind the last set of boundary reforms...since it never really saw the light of day it was never really tested.
I can assure you that round here they were spitting feathers because of the potential disadvantage it would have put them in. With a real chance that 3 Tory MPs would vote agains or abstain to be sure of keeping themselves in a job.
Bullshit.
Miliband and Labour opposed the boundary changes purely from party advantage.
which was the point of my post a fairer britain when its in their favour
In that case , out of fairness, he should be offering to pay the mansion tax on his 2 million pound home which he wont have to pay because he is an M.P. But he would be happy to make others pay.
No we don't.
You only have to look on this forum every day and you'll see many who support the right of wealth to purchase privilege, and condemning any measures proposed that may narrow the wealth divide.
Your idea of 'fair' is everyone scrabbling around in the mud to eke a living as part of a commune.
Yes they do...but that want to be assured that mememememe is not affected adversely, that any benefits go to mememememe, that themthemethem don't deserve it anyway and that they get it nownownownownow.
And the longer that politicians can manage to keep the population fractured into a series of isolated groups of "them and us" the longer it will be before we find common cause and lynch them form the nearest lamp post.
;-)
Absolutely.
Why would any party or their leader support any electoral reform which would reduce their representation in parliament ?
That's why FPTP is here to stay. Because the Conservatives and Labour benefit from it.
Why would being an MP make a difference to mansion tax liability?
My idea of fair is the creation of a society where we have true equality of opportunity - not as present, where, because of money being able to purchase privilege, we have the triumph of mediocrity.
You clearly have had sight of both the draft details of any such legislation and of any consequential amendment to the MPs expenses regulations to be able to say such a thing.:o
Hellfire...you're one of Labour's inner circle after all
Either that or you are making an assumption largely unfounded but more likely just repeating one someone else made.
Because they want "a fairer Britain"?