Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 22:09:11 GMT
So says the Times:
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 5, 2017 22:26:43 GMT
Structurally and tactically this is not good for the Blue Team.
But for all other purposes I am very pleased.
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 5, 2017 22:35:58 GMT
Structurally and tactically this is not good for the Blue Team. But for all other purposes I am very pleased. What do you mean by tactically? Tactically it seems to be a good move by the Conservatives as the Boundary Review would have inevitably resulted in disputes and controversies amongst Conservative MPs. Presumably there will need to be primary legislation to scrap it, or will Her Majesty's Government advise the Commons to pray against the draft Orders-in-Council?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 22:44:34 GMT
Structurally and tactically this is not good for the Blue Team. But for all other purposes I am very pleased. What do you mean by tactically? Tactically it seems to be a good move by the Conservatives as the Boundary Review would have inevitably resulted in disputes and controversies amongst Conservative MPs. Presumably there will need to be primary legislation to scrap it, or will Her Majesty's Government advise the Commons to pray against the draft Orders-in-Council? Sam Coates of the Times has said that there is likely to be a 650 seat review, on what schedule it isn't clear. That would obviously need primary legislation. If it is the plan, presumably a bill will be brought forward to simultaneously kill the current review and initiate the new one.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 5, 2017 23:12:15 GMT
I am glad about this, given what botches it would have created had it gone through.
How soon before they can get a new review (based on 650 seats) through, though?
|
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Sept 5, 2017 23:39:42 GMT
The reduction in seats was never the least bit justified (especially whilst busily stuffing the HOL) so I'm glad about that. We can now get around to a new set of boundary reviews which may have already been passed were they less contentious.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,839
|
Post by jamie on Sept 5, 2017 23:43:27 GMT
Good. Hopefully they will also reconsider the 5% limit. Doing both would mean the boundary commission could actually come up with decent proposals, have genuine minimum change and areas like Scotland, the West Midlands and S/W Yorkshire, would be doable without splitting wards (which the commission de facto opposes with awful consequences).
Regardless, at the very least the horrible (personally and on merit) proposals for places like the North East will be scrapped 😁😁
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 5, 2017 23:50:16 GMT
The reduction in seats was never the least bit justified (especially whilst busily stuffing the HOL) so I'm glad about that. We can now get around to a new set of boundary reviews which may have already been passed were they less contentious. It was totally justified. At present we have the biggest lower house in any democracy and even the reduction to 600 would still have given us the 4th biggest lower house in the democratic world. I agree that the stuffing of the House of Lords was not acceptable, but looked at on its own, the reduction in the number of MPs had many things to commend it. There is a good argument that we should not be reducing the size of the Commons during and post-Brexit but once we are well past Brexit, I see little justification in not drastically reducing the number of MPs.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 5, 2017 23:54:26 GMT
The reduction in seats was never the least bit justified (especially whilst busily stuffing the HOL) so I'm glad about that. We can now get around to a new set of boundary reviews which may have already been passed were they less contentious. It was totally justified. At present we have the biggest lower house in any democracy and even the reduction to 600 would still have given us the 4th biggest lower house in the democratic world. I agree that the stuffing of the House of Lords was not acceptable, but looked at on its own, the reduction in the number of MPs had many things to commend it. There is a good argument that we should not be reducing the size of the Commons during and post-Brexit but once we are well past Brexit, I see little justification in not drastically reducing the number of MPs. Every other major Western democracy has some sort of regional government between the national legislature and local governments. England, which is the majority of the UK by population, has no such institution (save a fairly weak one in London). So the national legislature deals with a far wider range of government than any of its sister Parliaments do. In addition, as a Parliamentary democracy, it must supply most of the members of the executive as well as those scrutinising the executive and perform a local representative function. All of that makes a higher membership not merely desirable but essential.
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 6, 2017 0:06:33 GMT
It was totally justified. At present we have the biggest lower house in any democracy and even the reduction to 600 would still have given us the 4th biggest lower house in the democratic world. I agree that the stuffing of the House of Lords was not acceptable, but looked at on its own, the reduction in the number of MPs had many things to commend it. There is a good argument that we should not be reducing the size of the Commons during and post-Brexit but once we are well past Brexit, I see little justification in not drastically reducing the number of MPs. Every other major Western democracy has some sort of regional government between the national legislature and local governments. England, which is the majority of the UK by population, has no such institution (save a fairly weak one in London). So the national legislature deals with a far wider range of government than any of its sister Parliaments do. In addition, as a Parliamentary democracy, it must supply most of the members of the executive as well as those scrutinising the executive and perform a local representative function. All of that makes a higher membership not merely desirable but essential. The obvious solution to that would be to create an English Parliament or,if the English people so desire (as English people in London clearly did), regional assemblies/governments. Evidently, it would have to be approved through referendum which may be difficult but the difficulty of getting something approved is not a reason not to do it. If we had an English Parliament then I suspect few people would stand in the way of drastically reducing the numbers of MPs in the UK Parliament.
|
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Sept 6, 2017 0:07:24 GMT
But then let's not put the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 6, 2017 1:21:46 GMT
Good. The important thing is to get rid of the bonkers and damaging 5% limit (or at least, to make drastic changes to the way the Boundary Commission has interpreted it).
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 6, 2017 6:56:22 GMT
Right, that's it! That's the second boundary review dropped in as many Parliaments and that is the last straw! It's time that Parliament lost control over boundaries. I am very tempted to write to my MP (or even better meet him at his surgery) and tell him that I believe the Boundary Commission should be made wholly independent (meaning that they decide how many seats Parliament has, how many per region and most importantly of all, Parliament LOSES the right to veto those changes).
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Sept 6, 2017 7:54:38 GMT
The reduction to 600 was arbitrary in two ways. There was the obvious one of the number chosen. However rather more concerning was the unwillingness to place any change in the context of both the wider governance of the UK and a proper definition of what an MP was for in that governance. The role has changed radically through my 60 odd years. Those changes have seldom been based on any debate or public engagement - the exception perhaps was the establishment of select committees. The workload of a reasonably assiduous MP now is utterly unrecognisable when compared to a similar person elected, say, in the 1950s. The vast growth in constituency work, the increasing party responsibilities, the technology-enabled lobbying of constituents to press MPs on particular topics have dramatically altered the balance of a typical MP's time. There was no "golden age" of parliament. Laziness and occasionally venal behaviour have been present throughout, and probably far more than now. I have no desire to return to some past parliamentary model. However while having keen caseworking MPs with high local public profiles fits the job specification that most people now expect and prefer with their votes that shift has had constitutional (in terms of weaker executive challenge and ineffective scrutiny of swathes of legislation) and other consequences which are not properly discussed. It has also produced the arguably unwelcome inclusion of MPs in the model of state provision. For example MP helplines with far better resources than those provided for the ordinary citizen encourage knowledgeable citizens to contact their MPs with their concerns (and indeed public servants even directly urge that step on those who don't know). Thus diligent MPs end up performing a quality control function almost discouraging better quality original service design. And of course diligence (or resource choice by MPs) isn't evenly distributed.
I'd therefore hope, almost certainly in vain, for a wider debate than just whether 600 or 650 MPs is right.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
Post by mondialito on Sept 6, 2017 7:56:47 GMT
Hopefully this will will lead to the requirement for a review every 5 years being scrapped and replaced with a requirement to review every 10 years which is more sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 6, 2017 8:06:05 GMT
Can't resist saying I told you so. I think the only change desirable apart from restoring the 650 is relaxing the five percent slightly. Five percent actually works quite well on the whole. Constituency boundaries, after all, matter very little - I get involved because I'm a sad nerd. The whole FPTP system is corrupt and should go the way of rotten boroughs.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 6, 2017 8:39:56 GMT
B****y hell, AGAIN?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 6, 2017 8:47:53 GMT
Yeah, get rid of the five-year reviews and the 5% straitjacket. The old 15-year review cycle only needed improving by using more up-to-date figures and something like "within 5%-10% of quota".
I'd add: "expectation to adhere to primary local authority boundary groupings" (badly worded, but only one cup of tea so far).
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 6, 2017 8:55:39 GMT
If they're going to try for a new review this parliament on the basis of 650 seats, there may still be trouble ahead. I recently crunched the numbers on electorates as of the general election and it's notable that Northern Ireland didn't see the surge in registration seen elsewhere (because they didn't have the recent botched introduction of IER to deal with, and because there aren't any parties there which even tried to enthuse the unregistered). If it was 600 seats using the general election as a freeze date, Northern Ireland would have an entitlement marginally under 16 constituencies, and even with 650 seats it still only receives 17 constituencies.
That's an issue for the DUP, which is potentially very vulnerable to boundary changes affecting East Londonderry, Belfast North or Belfast South.
Then again, it might be slightly easier to get some support from other opposition parties for a House of 650 seats.
For those interested, the regional entitlements as of the general election are as follows (current seat allocations in brackets, new allocations leaving out the four island seats):
East: 61.31 (58) London: 75.57 (73) South-East: 88.66 (84) South-West: 57.88 (55) West Midlands: 57.10 (59) East Midlands: 47.26 (46) Yorkshire: 54.38 (54) North-West: 73.43 (75) North-East: 26.94 (29) Wales: 31.79 (40) Scotland: 54.49 (59) Northern Ireland: 17.20 (18)
I can provide figures broken down by county (or by groups of boroughs in London and the mets) if that's of interest to anybody.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by iain on Sept 6, 2017 8:59:12 GMT
I can provide figures broken down by county (or by groups of boroughs in London and the mets) if that's of interest to anybody. You have to ask? I believe all the ward registration figures are on electoral calculus' 'notionals' section of the website btw, for those who are interested in starting looking at ramifications straight away.
|
|