Dizzy Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Completely agree with you Baz. But they are expecting slightly more people to vote in the referendum where local elections are taking place on the same day... and far fewer people to vote in the referendum where no local elections are taking place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Agree Baz, some MPs tried to get a threshold put on this, when it was going through parliament; but it seems the pro-AV lobby only support 50% when it suits. Any constitutional change should require the support of over 50% of those ENTITLED to vote, not just those who actually vote, to have any representative value. btw if AV does win, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Bill, as it includes constituency boundary changes - which Labour are opposed to - so if the Tories abstained, the whole thing could come to nothing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Labour were going to go with the No campaign because the Tories snuck in boundary changes. You have to wonder who the boundary changes will favour Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 The Tories of course - like AV will favour the Lib-Lab luvvies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 I understood that Labour didn't want boundary changes because their constituencies tend to be towns which are more densely populated with Labour supporters, thus giving them more votes. It was proposed that the boundaries should be more evenly balanced in population numbers, so making it a more even spread and perhaps more difficult for Labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 Yep, harder for Labour, better for the Tories Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 20, 2011 Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 I believe that Labour did the last lot of boundary changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2011 It's part of Dave's pr-Election commitment to reduce the number of MPs - by a measly 50. He could have halved the number by merging the constituencies. Meanwhile, he's enobled more folk to the Lords than any previous PM (over 100), bringing the numbers in this unelected old peoples home to over 750. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.