Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 18:05:33 GMT
Labour Party in rather weak gerrymander shock. Their proposals in much of England aren't much cop either. I'm not saying either of the other two parties haven't tried to save some of their own seats with, eh, "interesting" solutions either, but Labour seem to have gone about it rather more blatantly. I can't help but hope they've dropped a bollock by casting aside the statutory rules too much in order to get the result they want. yes you go for the very best for you and get met in the middle. Every Party does the same the LD's in said YArdley and Solihull stay basically the same and the tories desperate to keep the split Sutton Coldfield.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 15, 2012 18:14:30 GMT
There is a risk that if Labour proposals are too ridiculous that they will just be ignored, and they won't get any of what they want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 18:20:53 GMT
There is a risk that if Labour proposals are too ridiculous that they will just be ignored, and they won't get any of what they want. that is the call that is made, go for too modest and barely change go for the most outlandish and hope some stick.
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jun 15, 2012 20:01:16 GMT
There is a risk that if Labour proposals are too ridiculous that they will just be ignored, and they won't get any of what they want. See Cheshire in the NW.
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Jun 16, 2012 8:52:35 GMT
There is a risk that if Labour proposals are too ridiculous that they will just be ignored, and they won't get any of what they want. that is the call that is made, go for too modest and barely change go for the most outlandish and hope some stick. Nuh-uh. For an extremely rare change, you don't know what you're talking about. When Labour's proposals actually conform much more poorly with the statutory rules (on local ties, local authority boundaries, existing seats etc) than the Commission's, you know they've missed a trick. If what you were saying is true all the parties would simpl come up with ridiculous gerrymanders "and hope some stick". If you take what the Tories have done in Yorkshire, well, that's the way to do it.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Jun 16, 2012 9:26:04 GMT
There is a risk that if Labour proposals are too ridiculous that they will just be ignored, and they won't get any of what they want. See Cheshire in the NW. To be fair, the Tory map is awful there too. The Lib Dem one is better of course... And Stepney, how exactly does the Tories' proposed "Barnsley West and Ecclesfield" reflect local ties, local authority boundaries or existing seats? (A clue: it doesn't.) And as for the Leeds city centre/Ossett link...
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 16, 2012 9:28:04 GMT
With regard to reflecting local ties, perhaps you could comment on the Conservative suggestion that Westbourne ward really belongs in with Cities of London and Westminster, Harrow Road and Queen's Park wards with Knightsbridge and Kensington, and Maida Vale and Little Venice with Camden Town.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,559
|
Post by cibwr on Jun 16, 2012 9:40:10 GMT
Its interesting that the Conservatives Revised proposals for Wales have taken on board ideas from Plaid and the Liberal Democrats, yes there are some differences and I haven't yet had a chance to go into them in too much detail, but there seems to be a greater degree of consensus between the three opposition parties, and they do seem to be more coherent than some of Labour's. Merthyr and Aberdare are a natural fit, the Glan Hafren proposal makes some sense given the constraints that we are operating under. An impossible job to please everyone.. But Labour seem to have not quite got it in my view.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,371
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 16, 2012 10:56:02 GMT
If you make a process like this much more nakedly political than was previously the case, then the process will (shockingly enough) be much more nakedly political than was previously the case.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Jun 16, 2012 11:49:14 GMT
If you make a process like this much more nakedly political than was previously the case, then the process will (shockingly enough) be much more nakedly political than was previously the case. That's a very silly way for Labour to be thinking. Like it or not, these rules exist, and boundaries based on them will probably be used for the next election. If Labour propose silly gerrymanders (or don't even bother, as in Yorkshire) and the Tories and Lib Dems propose more subtle ones, then Labour are going to lose out. Fortunately in several areas local Labour parties (most noticeably in Kirklees) seem to be more on the ball than the national party.
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Jun 16, 2012 12:38:13 GMT
And Stepney, how exactly does the Tories' proposed "Barnsley West and Ecclesfield" reflect local ties, local authority boundaries or existing seats? (A clue: it doesn't.) And as for the Leeds city centre/Ossett link... Not that I know Yorkshire, but the quick answer has to be: "You do better then - without dividing wards". At least the Tory plan puts Wakefield back together, Dewsbury and Batley ditto, and leaves all the 8 North Yorkshire seats alone - the last point of which I think everyone agrees with. Which is what I meant when I said "That's the way to do it" - it's miles better, objectively and considering the rules the Commission work to, than the Commission's proposals regardless of the political effect. With regard to reflecting local ties, perhaps you could comment on the Conservative suggestion that Westbourne ward really belongs in with Cities of London and Westminster, Harrow Road and Queen's Park wards with Knightsbridge and Kensington, and Maida Vale and Little Venice with Camden Town. Oh, gladly: (a) It's better than the Commission proposal for a seat going from Aldgate to Earl's Court; (b) It means no seat in London constains part of three local authorities; (c) On the whole, it's better than an outlandish plan from one political party that proposes no unchanged seats in London and five seats more crossing borough boundaries than the Commission have (again what I meant by how to do it and how not to do it) If you make a process like this much more nakedly political than was previously the case, then the process will (shockingly enough) be much more nakedly political than was previously the case. I don't believe so - it always was a partisan process, in which Joe Public is completely uninterested and where parties deploy all sorts of rubbish arguments about local ties to get the political effect they want (There's a book called The Boundary Commissions by three academics that's good on this). It's just that the 5% quota - and the consequent fact you can't just consider one London borough or one county on its own - just makes it a fair bit harder to respect all local ties. Nothing has changed to make it more partisan, I just believe Labour have overreached and cocked up.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Jun 16, 2012 13:36:49 GMT
And Stepney, how exactly does the Tories' proposed "Barnsley West and Ecclesfield" reflect local ties, local authority boundaries or existing seats? (A clue: it doesn't.) And as for the Leeds city centre/Ossett link... Not that I know Yorkshire, but the quick answer has to be: "You do better then - without dividing wards". Well, my view on that is that you should drop the "without dividing wards" condition. Your party didn't have to support that. (And yes I know central Labour supported it too, and I'll criticise them for it as well.) Oh, that's largely true. (Though it's also largely true of the proposal from Shipley Labour Party.) It still has some pretty dreadful constituencies, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2012 13:40:33 GMT
No tory can seriously have a go at labour whilst they support the splitting up of Sutton Coldfield and be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 16, 2012 14:02:42 GMT
Oh, gladly: (a) It's better than the Commission proposal for a seat going from Aldgate to Earl's Court; (b) It means no seat in London constains part of three local authorities; (c) On the whole, it's better than an outlandish plan from one political party that proposes no unchanged seats in London and five seats more crossing borough boundaries than the Commission have (again what I meant by how to do it and how not to do it) None of those points are really about local ties, from which I take it that these Tory proposals are actually indefensible from that basis. Your point (a) is incorrect as the Boundary Commission's proposal does not include the City of London; (b) is irrelevant when one of the authorities is the City; and I know not to what you are referring in (c).
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 18, 2012 21:17:30 GMT
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,639
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jun 19, 2012 11:49:01 GMT
I think his analysis is spot on. The constant redrawing of boundaries will certainly imping on the ability of Lib Dem MPs to build up local support.
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jun 19, 2012 20:11:13 GMT
I think his analysis is spot on. The constant redrawing of boundaries will certainly imping on the ability of Lib Dem MPs to build up local support. That is not necessarily a bad thing for my party. Boundary changes are not necessarily terminal for a good MP, just see Sarah Teather. If changing boundaries encouraged us to develop the seats next door we may end up gaining more seats. If we retreat into our fortresses we will eventually slip up and select a Lembit, lose and then not come back so that way lies the final decline. I am more sanguine about this than others.
|
|
|
Post by aaa on Jun 21, 2012 9:50:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jun 21, 2012 11:02:33 GMT
The County of Kerry shall form a five seat constituency.The Cap of Powah and his gombeenmen will have to get busy doing the potholes of the whole of Co. Kerry. Although a five seater may well mean that he is safer.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 2, 2012 14:18:11 GMT
|
|