Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories are aping DTrump when they claim the electoral system’s

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tories are aping DTrump when they claim the electoral system’s rigged against them

It is bollocks for minsters to suggest that electoral system favours LAB. Now CON main beneficiary .GE17CON win 48.9% of MPs with 42.4% voteLAB win 40.3% of MPs with 40% of voteLDs 1.8% of MPs with 7.4% of votehttps://t.co/AaCXsFOWOx

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402
    Whinging LibDems.....
  • Whinging LibDems.....

    LibDems - Whinging here!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,614
    I'm assuming the story of Lord Ashcroft's private jet crashing has been shared, right?
  • rcs1000 said:

    I'm assuming the story of Lord Ashcroft's private jet crashing has been shared, right?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5222363/private-jet-lord-ashcroft-crash-building-malta-airport-high-winds/
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    edited December 2017
    Pretty extraordinary Trump interview:

    - "There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime."
    - "There was collusion with the Russians and the Democrats. A lot of collusion."
    - "But another reason that I’m going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I’m not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes. Without me, The New York Times will indeed be not the failing New York Times, but the failed New York Times. So they basically have to let me win. And eventually, probably six months before the election, they’ll be loving me because they’re saying, “Please, please, don’t lose Donald Trump.” O.K."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts.html
  • Whinging LibDems.....

    Gerrymandering Tories shamefully abusing democracy
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,037


    - "There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime."

    Noteworthy use of the indicative rather than subjunctive.
  • Whinging LibDems.....

    LibDems - Whinging here!
    Late bid for Poster of the Year.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,693
    It has been obvious for months that the new proposals will not go through. I was told ages ago by a reliable source that the process of redrawing constituency boundaries will probably be started again to be ready in time for 2022.
  • A Parliament that accurately reflects the electoral choices made by the British people is not one that gives a majority to any party receiving less than 50% of the vote. If the UK electorate really is going to take back control, a system that ensures most MPs have a job for life is not sustainable. But, as has become abundently clear, Brexit is not about the British people taking back control. Sad.
  • TomsToms Posts: 1,453
    edited December 2017

    Whinging LibDems.....

    Gerrymandering Tories shamefully abusing democracy
    Often, I find that's even how they play the season's party games!
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,014
    So trying to implement the EC review becomes 'gerrymandering Tories'. It's a view.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,269
    edited December 2017
    felix said:

    So trying to implement the EC review becomes 'gerrymandering Tories'. It's a view.

    The current boundaries are not rigged against the Tories and that the ones that have been proposed would work even more in their favour. To pretend otherwise - as the Telegraph and at least one Tory minister are doing - is to reveal a level of comfort with creating an electoral advantage for the Tories which runs totally against the idea of the British people taking back control. That may not be gerrymandering (though the EC was working to a government brief), but it is nakedly party political.



  • felixfelix Posts: 7,014

    felix said:

    So trying to implement the EC review becomes 'gerrymandering Tories'. It's a view.

    The current boundaries are not rigged against the Tories and that the ones that have been proposed would work even more in their favour. To pretend otherwise - as the Telegraph and at least one Tory minister are doing - is to reveal a level of comfort with creating an electoral advantage for the Tories which runs totally against the idea of the British people taking back control. That may not be gerrymandering (though the EC was working to a government brief), but it is nakedly party political.



    The header fails to mention the effect of the review on the LD's. The EC is a non political body as you well know. The current boundaries are out of date. The level of bias is way less than it was during the Blair years. Corbyn's opposition to the update is party political. Parties are political - how is that a big deal?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    Is this a clumsy attempt to give us the long demanded AV thread ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    And on the subject of whinging, did anyone note that Australia when bowling were doing much the same as England in the great 'tampering' brouhaha ?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,491
    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,014
    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Apparently 'gerrymandering' only applies to one party.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    JohnLoony said:

    It has been obvious for months that the new proposals will not go through. I was told ages ago by a reliable source that the process of redrawing constituency boundaries will probably be started again to be ready in time for 2022.

    Yep, I am hearing the same. There are enough Tories unhappy with the outcome of the inflexible criteria to sink the proposals; the Telegraph article is simply an attempt to blame the opposition. Reducing to +/- 5% and removing the exception provisions was always a mistake, as most sensible Tories now realise. There is now time before the next GE to do the job properly, with criteria returning to or towards where they have been historically.
  • The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,491
    Play abandoned for the day in Melbourne. If anyone laid the draw it’s time to get out now, this is almost certain to be an unfinished match tomorrow.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    The 'skew' (which actually is a reduction in the unfair advantage built into the system for larger parties with concentrated support - Tory attempts to paint this as a disadvantage are sickening hypocrisy) arises from the combination of where the boundaries are and where the votes are. The relative tilt toward Labour arose from the greater tendency of voters in safer Tory seats to vote LibDem, and the greater tendency of voters in Labour safe seats not to vote at all. Both of these factors are now hugely reduced.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    Because the Tories are motivated by the outcome, not the process. The effect of the seat reduction and inflexible criteria is to increase the bias already built into the system for the Tories. Does anyone seriously think they would be pushing this otherwise?
  • IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    The 'skew' (which actually is a reduction in the unfair advantage built into the system for larger parties with concentrated support - Tory attempts to paint this as a disadvantage are sickening hypocrisy) arises from the combination of where the boundaries are and where the votes are. The relative tilt toward Labour arose from the greater tendency of voters in safer Tory seats to vote LibDem, and the greater tendency of voters in Labour safe seats not to vote at all. Both of these factors are now hugely reduced.
    All parties have an equal opportunity to appeal to different section of the electorate. In th Blair years Labour successfully appealed to different constiuencies, now it concentrates it's votes in traditional enclaves. The solution is for them to widen their appeal and not to maintain lower constituency sizes in their areas

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
  • IanB2 said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    Because the Tories are motivated by the outcome, not the process. The effect of the seat reduction and inflexible criteria is to increase the bias already built into the system for the Tories. Does anyone seriously think they would be pushing this otherwise?
    Or Labour voting against it? Your point is?

    Historically speaking, there has been a long delay since the last boundary changes
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    IanB2 said:

    JohnLoony said:

    It has been obvious for months that the new proposals will not go through. I was told ages ago by a reliable source that the process of redrawing constituency boundaries will probably be started again to be ready in time for 2022.

    Yep, I am hearing the same. There are enough Tories unhappy with the outcome of the inflexible criteria to sink the proposals; the Telegraph article is simply an attempt to blame the opposition. Reducing to +/- 5% and removing the exception provisions was always a mistake, as most sensible Tories now realise. There is now time before the next GE to do the job properly, with criteria returning to or towards where they have been historically.
    That seems an eminently sensible opinion.

    One the one side, 'gerrymandering' seems inaccurate and hyperbolic - and the Tory 'outrage' on the other utterly synthetic.
    If we are to retain a first past the post system, then boundary changes have to happen from time to time. Quit the posturing and get it done.

  • Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    Polítical parties are already coalitions in themselves

    Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?

    The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,614

    Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    Polítical parties are already coalitions in themselves

    Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?

    The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
    No, the people (including me) voted against Alternative Vote, which is a depressingly awful system designed solely to boost the liberal democrats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,614
    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?

    Apologies if I’m wrong.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546

    Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    Polítical parties are already coalitions in themselves

    Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?

    The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
    I want a system that each other parliament in the UK has.If it is ok for Scotland , Wales and NI it is fine for England.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    Polítical parties are already coalitions in themselves

    Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?

    The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
    No, the people (including me) voted against Alternative Vote, which is a depressingly awful system designed solely to boost the liberal democrats.
    Yer what ?

    AV would have given the Tories an even bigger majority in 2015.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,014
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

    Are you questioning the integrity of a polling company Director? That used to be a serious offence on this site.
  • The system is rigged against the Tories.

    In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.

    The result?

    2005 - Lab majority of 66

    2010 - Tories just short of a majority.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    Polítical parties are already coalitions in themselves

    Do you want a system like in Germany where there is still nothing more than a caretaker government months after the election and with a sizeable nationalist element?

    The public reaffirmed the system, it's up to parties to win support to maximise their representation within that. They can also choose toinfluence other party's policies.
    I want a system that each other parliament in the UK has.If it is ok for Scotland , Wales and NI it is fine for England.
    PR was introduced into those assemblies for varying reasons, to avoid sectarian conflict and to assuage nationalist fears they would be dominated by Labour

    Like most New Labour constitutional innovations they were I'll thought through and have had unintended consequences
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,058
    edited December 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

    He was never Chief of Staff.

    He was Correspondence Secretary and polling analyst for William Hague, IDS, and Michael Howard.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,614

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

    He was never Chief ot Staff.

    He was Correspondence Secretary and polling analyst for William Hague, IDS, and Michael Howard.
    Oops, I actually meant Michael Howard.


  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952

    The system is rigged against the Tories.

    In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.

    The result?

    2005 - Lab majority of 66

    2010 - Tories just short of a majority.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.

    Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,614
    edited December 2017
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

    Are you questioning the integrity of a polling company Director? That used to be a serious offence on this site.
    Is he a director or a Director?

    Edit to add: the current boundaries are ridiculously out of date, and need to be redrawn. I also agree there should be much tighter banding of constituency size, with all seats within 7.5% of average. However, I do not believe that the reduction in the number of seats to 600 is a good idea.
  • The problem is not gerrymandering. Given how inept this government has been in securing majorities in the House of Commons so far on this Parliament, we can safely assume that it will not have the wit to find a compromise that will pass that is favourable to its interests.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited December 2017
    @Richard_Tyndall

    You asked me yesterday why I was so critical of Thatcher's conduct after leaving office.

    I had in mind things like this:
    National Archives: Thatcher and Major clashed over economy
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42508809

    By her constant meddling and carping - and I could add the poll tax, Pinochet, the 1997 Tory leadership election, even the tail fins of BA aircraft - not only did she keep her shall we say controversial premiership firmly in the public mind but she made it almost impossible for her successor (successors, plural, as Tory leader) to move on, which was one factor leading to their severe ossification.

    I don't think that was good politics or good statesmanship. It definitely tarnished her legacy.

    On topic, unusually strong language by OGH. One point perhaps to consider is to what extent that is the traditional leading party bonus under FPTP. How many seats would Labour have won on a 42-40 (well, technically 39.99 but we'll go with 40) split of the vote?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited December 2017

    The system is rigged against the Tories.

    In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.

    The result?

    2005 - Lab majority of 66

    2010 - Tories just short of a majority.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.

    Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
    They really don't. They work especially badly in Wales due to exceptionally stupid candidate rules.

    The key problem is that except in unusual circumstances seats you lose are made up on the list system. So although Labour in Wales have at times dipped to around a third of the vote, they have always hovered between 27 and 30 seats.

    UK wide such a system would be utterly disastrous.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,058
    edited December 2017

    The system is rigged against the Tories.

    In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.

    The result?

    2005 - Lab majority of 66

    2010 - Tories just short of a majority.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.

    Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    I'm sorry Mike, but this is just complete and utter bollocks. You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

    The register used to set boundaries was in 2001. By the likely date of the next election that will be more than 20 years out of date.

    Parliament has set down in law the fact that it wants these updated and the method that should be used.

    Labour is attempting to block the changes because it believes it will be disadvantaged by them. *That* is attempting to rig the system. The Tories are simply trying to implement the law as it stands: if you don't like the 600 seat law or the 5% variance limitation go and change the law.

    Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated to reflect the changes in population size and location.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,058
    edited December 2017
    If only Mrs May hadn’t pissed away Dave’s majority.

    By blaming Corbyn she and her team are covering up their own ineptness.

    She really is damaging the long term interests of the party.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    IanB2 said:

    JohnLoony said:

    It has been obvious for months that the new proposals will not go through. I was told ages ago by a reliable source that the process of redrawing constituency boundaries will probably be started again to be ready in time for 2022.

    Yep, I am hearing the same. There are enough Tories unhappy with the outcome of the inflexible criteria to sink the proposals; the Telegraph article is simply an attempt to blame the opposition. Reducing to +/- 5% and removing the exception provisions was always a mistake, as most sensible Tories now realise. There is now time before the next GE to do the job properly, with criteria returning to or towards where they have been historically.
    So get a majority in Parliament for a change in the law.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952

    The system is rigged against the Tories.

    In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.

    The result?

    2005 - Lab majority of 66

    2010 - Tories just short of a majority.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.

    Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.
    I’ve supported, and campaigned for, Multi Member STV for more years than I care to remember. However, as an old man, it appears that we won’t see it in my lifetime, but that the Government appears to like top ups. So be it.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    Yorkcity said:

    The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum

    Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage

    Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice

    The voting system in an advanced democratic country should give each party fair representation.The percentage of votes should reflect the amount of MPs. The amount of votes the greens get for their one MP is a disgrace.Similar applies to the Lib Dems and UkIP..
    We asked the voters if they wanted to change to AV.

    They politely declined.

    Sometimes you have to work within the framework the boss sets, even it is "unfair" or "unreasonable"
  • Having a Directly Elected Dictator would avoid all these issues and problems with constituencies.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,096
    edited December 2017
    The system though hideously out of date is in fact serendipitously neutral wrt Corbyn and Mays chances of becoming PM
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    Think of it like the referendum vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Parliament agreed to a rebanding of council tax as long ago as 2004.

    Remind me how that's going...
  • ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Parliament agreed to a rebanding of council tax as long ago as 2004.

    Remind me how that's going...
    I seem to remember the community charge/poll tax (delete as appropriate) was introduced partially as a solution to the overdue rates revaluation which was going to irritate a huge number of voters.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,893
    edited December 2017

    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.

    PBers advocating STV should be deselected from the forum and placed in the transfer window for permanent removal to ConHome for a period no shorter than it takes Burnley FC to win the Champions League and OGH to resign as CEO of the Belgravia Hair Centre.

    Happy New Year.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,536

    Having a Directly Elected Dictator would avoid all these issues and problems with constituencies.

    Look we’ve had this argument - we are LEAVING Frau Merkel ‘s EU...
  • JackW said:

    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.

    PBers advocating STV should be deselected from the forum and placed in the transfer window for permanent removal to ConHome for a period no shorter than it takes Burnley FC to win the Champions League and OGH to resign as CEO of the Belgravia Hair Centre.

    Happy New Year.
    Great to hear from you on the slite again Jack. Hope your health is holding up.
  • Charles said:

    I'm sorry Mike, but this is just complete and utter bollocks. You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

    The register used to set boundaries was in 2001. By the likely date of the next election that will be more than 20 years out of date.

    Parliament has set down in law the fact that it wants these updated and the method that should be used.

    Labour is attempting to block the changes because it believes it will be disadvantaged by them. *That* is attempting to rig the system. The Tories are simply trying to implement the law as it stands: if you don't like the 600 seat law or the 5% variance limitation go and change the law.

    Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated to reflect the changes in population size and location.

    "Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated" - Mike doesn't have to the DUP will do that.
    Labour will be happy to keep the present boundaries as new ones will be even more favourable to the Tories than the present ones. That's why Cameron wanted to reduce the number of MPs in the first place.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,491
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
  • Mr. Meeks, no.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
  • JackWJackW Posts: 12,893

    JackW said:

    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.

    PBers advocating STV should be deselected from the forum and placed in the transfer window for permanent removal to ConHome for a period no shorter than it takes Burnley FC to win the Champions League and OGH to resign as CEO of the Belgravia Hair Centre.

    Happy New Year.
    Great to hear from you on the slite again Jack. Hope your health is holding up.
    Thank you Mike.

    I regard coffin dodging as a most pleasurable pastime and seem to have enjoyed a modest amount of success recently.

    Sadly I noted that Lord Elibank died recently. A Scottish peerage dating back to 1643. He also held the Jacobite peerage of the Earl of Westminster. Perhaps appropriately he passed away on St Andrew's Day.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402
    JackW said:

    Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.

    They give parties far too much power.

    Multi member STV is the answer.

    PBers advocating STV should be deselected from the forum and placed in the transfer window for permanent removal to ConHome for a period no shorter than it takes Burnley FC to win the Champions League and OGH to resign as CEO of the Belgravia Hair Centre.

    Happy New Year.
    Happy New Year to you too, JackW.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402
    Bloody Australian weather....

    It rains when it suits them, stays dry when it suits them. Lucky gits.
  • rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Would this be former Chief of Staff to IDS, Anthony Wells? Or a different one?

    Are you questioning the integrity of a polling company Director? That used to be a serious offence on this site.
    Is he a director or a Director?

    Edit to add: the current boundaries are ridiculously out of date, and need to be redrawn. I also agree there should be much tighter banding of constituency size, with all seats within 7.5% of average. However, I do not believe that the reduction in the number of seats to 600 is a good idea.
    Bear in mind that the proposal for the reduction to 600 seats was when there was no prospect of us leaving the EU and MPs were becoming pointless with so much policy being decided in Brussels.

    Now we have the prospect of leaving I would agree the reduction should be abandoned.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    Charles said:

    I'm sorry Mike, but this is just complete and utter bollocks. You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

    The register used to set boundaries was in 2001. By the likely date of the next election that will be more than 20 years out of date.

    Parliament has set down in law the fact that it wants these updated and the method that should be used.

    Labour is attempting to block the changes because it believes it will be disadvantaged by them. *That* is attempting to rig the system. The Tories are simply trying to implement the law as it stands: if you don't like the 600 seat law or the 5% variance limitation go and change the law.

    Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated to reflect the changes in population size and location.

    Except that, as TSE points out, it was entirely within their power to put through these changes before May's decision to hold a snap election. Why didn't they do so back then if it is a matter of such high principle ?

    The plain fact is that any change to the boundaries will be subject to this kind of posturing on both sides, as the existing electoral system is manifestly unfair to someone whatever the current political weather, and whatever the current boundary proposals.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
  • Leaving the EU is only one side of the Wesminster-ledger: Devolution of the English metropolises removes the central role that is currently held by Parliament. Six-hundred is more than enough.
  • Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate

    To clarify - a majority of MPs elected by the British people in June oppose giving the Tories a greater electoral advantage than they have currently.

  • Why are the boundaries being redrawn on the electoral roll and not census data? If I go to my MP with a problem he doesn't ask whether I am on the electoral roll. He wants to know where I live in case he can pass me on to someone else....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    edited December 2017
    Mr. Timple, presumably because the electorate determines who becomes an MP.

    Edited extra bit: also, welcome to PB.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.

    It’s a puzzler, isn’t it?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,486
    The solution is obvious - action the changes for Great Britain, but leave NI unchanged. As Stormont is not operating it seems reasonable to let Ulster have an extra 2 or 3 MPs.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.
    And the change being frustrated is the will of the current Parliament. Which, if you're in favour of Parliamentary sovereignty, is clearly a good thing. It would be wrong if the current Parliament were not able to stay in control, wouldn't it?
  • RoyalBlue said:

    The solution is obvious - action the changes for Great Britain, but leave NI unchanged. As Stormont is not operating it seems reasonable to let Ulster have an extra 2 or 3 MPs.

    That would be an intelligent, if highly venal, way forward. As such, it is entirely beyond the current government to think of it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,491

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.
    And the change being frustrated is the will of the current Parliament. Which, if you're in favour of Parliamentary sovereignty, is clearly a good thing. It would be wrong if the current Parliament were not able to stay in control, wouldn't it?
    Parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it does.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.
    And the change being frustrated is the will of the current Parliament. Which, if you're in favour of Parliamentary sovereignty, is clearly a good thing. It would be wrong if the current Parliament were not able to stay in control, wouldn't it?
    Parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t mean what you think it does.
    It seems in practice that Conservative Leavers think it means that the Conservatives should be allowed to do whatever they want to do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    timple said:

    Why are the boundaries being redrawn on the electoral roll and not census data? If I go to my MP with a problem he doesn't ask whether I am on the electoral roll. He wants to know where I live in case he can pass me on to someone else....

    Two reasons:

    1) The electoral roll is kept up to date - the census is a decennial snapshot;

    2) The census includes everyone, and large numbers of them (foreign nationals, children, prisoners) are not voters.

    This does of course mean the electoral roll is heavily biased against those areas with large numbers of foreign nationals, asylum seekers etc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    I'm disappointed Joff, you missed out 'Vox Populi, Vox Dei' :smile:
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    timple said:

    Why are the boundaries being redrawn on the electoral roll and not census data? If I go to my MP with a problem he doesn't ask whether I am on the electoral roll. He wants to know where I live in case he can pass me on to someone else....

    Because that arch-fixer (he thought, until he came badly unstuck) Cameron thought it would be good for his friends.
  • ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    I'm disappointed Joff, you missed out 'Vox Populi, Vox Dei' :smile:
    The voice of the people is the voice of the dog?
  • A few basic facts to cut through the guff from both sides:

    1 National vote tallies and percentages are an irrelevance under FPTP. Complaining that party X gets seats Z despite votes Z misunderstands how our (utterly stupid) system works. This also means that complaints about vote counts vs votes for the government / opposition are also flawed

    2 The boundaries are in desperate need of reform. The issue being the means being used for the reform. Both the failed attempt in the last parliament and the soon to fail attempt in the current parliament decided that people favour equivalence over communities. Seat boundaries have to respect geography, and in both cases there are swathes of seats where the proposed changes are fundamentally stupid to anyone who knows the area. Being less hell-bent on equal size has to be the way forward

    3 The current review is already dead - it will not command a majority in the Commons. The government barely has a working majority (favouring abstaining over losing), the proposals ask its DUP partner to give seats up to Sinn Fein, the proposals ask Tory MPs to give up even more seats on top of the ones Mrs May lost them in June. It won't pass.

    4 The Commission is non partisan. The criteria it is set for the review is partisan. The rules for boundaries (see point 2) were drawn up by Tories looking to favour their chances. That is the very definition of gerrymandering. The only solution has to be to remove party politics from the equation. Parliament empowers the Commission to draw up its own criteria independently, then make recommendations on a fixed period (every 10 years perhaps). Take meddling ministers of both parties out of the loop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    I'm disappointed Joff, you missed out 'Vox Populi, Vox Dei' :smile:
    The voice of the people is the voice of the dog?
    That's a barking post :lol:
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509
    The idea that the Tories suffer under current boundaries is absurd.
  • The ‘British people’ voted not to let the Tories implement their manifesto, which some people seem to be forgetting.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948

    A few basic facts to cut through the guff from both sides:

    1 National vote tallies and percentages are an irrelevance under FPTP. Complaining that party X gets seats Z despite votes Z misunderstands how our (utterly stupid) system works. This also means that complaints about vote counts vs votes for the government / opposition are also flawed

    2 The boundaries are in desperate need of reform. The issue being the means being used for the reform. Both the failed attempt in the last parliament and the soon to fail attempt in the current parliament decided that people favour equivalence over communities. Seat boundaries have to respect geography, and in both cases there are swathes of seats where the proposed changes are fundamentally stupid to anyone who knows the area. Being less hell-bent on equal size has to be the way forward

    3 The current review is already dead - it will not command a majority in the Commons. The government barely has a working majority (favouring abstaining over losing), the proposals ask its DUP partner to give seats up to Sinn Fein, the proposals ask Tory MPs to give up even more seats on top of the ones Mrs May lost them in June. It won't pass.

    4 The Commission is non partisan. The criteria it is set for the review is partisan. The rules for boundaries (see point 2) were drawn up by Tories looking to favour their chances. That is the very definition of gerrymandering. The only solution has to be to remove party politics from the equation. Parliament empowers the Commission to draw up its own criteria independently, then make recommendations on a fixed period (every 10 years perhaps). Take meddling ministers of both parties out of the loop.

    Agreed.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.

    “Trying to implement”. The Tories did not get a majority of votes or seats. That was the will of the people.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,910
    The biggest problem with the current system is not the advantage given to one of the major parties or the other but the number of safe seats where voting is practically pointless. Within its mandate (specifically the 5% limit on variance so that our votes have equal value) the EC should be seeking to create more marginal seats. If this involves some slightly odd looking constituencies which have a suburban or rural hinterland to an urban core so be it.

    The consequence of more marginal seats would be to increase the winner's bonus and give the party winning the most votes across the country the best chance of forming a majority government. The Blair 2005 and SNP 2010 examples were extreme but the system should reward those that are able or try to win a plurality of votes across the country.

    Personally, I always thought that the 600 seat idea was a ridiculously silly response to the HoC having a fair share of crooks and people dipping into the till. Resistance to that idea should not be allowed to derail (again) a realignment of the boundaries which is chronically overdue.
  • Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Are the current boundaries sacrosanct forever?

    They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
    Parliament has agreed on a replacement.

    Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
    Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
    +1
    Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
    100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.

    Not a great thread for the Whingers.

    The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.

    Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
    There is a Conservative PM in Downing Street, but they sure as hell arent implementing the Comservative manifesto. Or much else, thankfully.
  • timple said:

    Why are the boundaries being redrawn on the electoral roll and not census data? If I go to my MP with a problem he doesn't ask whether I am on the electoral roll. He wants to know where I live in case he can pass me on to someone else....

    I would suggest that is because the census is only held every 10 years whereas the electoral roll is supposed to be updated continuously.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933

    There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?

    Apologies if I’m wrong.

    No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933
    The charts on here showing average constituency sizes show why boundary changes need to be done regularly:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/28/revealed-conservatives-denied-last-election-voting-system-slanted/

    Sam Hartley, the secretary for the Boundary Commission for England, said the changes would “make a more equal distribution of voters across the country”.

    He added: “At the moment the smallest mainland constituency in England is 55,000 and the largest is 90,000.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,827
    Sandpit said:

    From the Telegraph article:
    Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.

    Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?

    Personally I think the starting point should be constituencies reflecting the number of people shown by the census to be entitled to vote (not the number who have registered, because frequent moves in urban areas depress registration). But really PR is the only way to resolve the issue.
  • She'd have been a worthy successor to Monica Bellucci, the Bond girl in the most recent and best Bond film SPECTRE.

This discussion has been closed.