|
Post by The Old TomCat on May 10, 2015 11:02:01 GMT
Well if it is still 650 seats and the 5% limit is relaxed, it won't "lock Labour out of power" any more than previous boundary revisions did. I agree, but boundary changes would be fairer to all the major parties. With the ebb and flow of political dominance, Labour would in the future regain some if not all of the seats in the areas that they once held. Obviously smaller parties like Ukip & The Greens would still be locked out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 15:42:19 GMT
Get the 6th done by 2020 , then allow for subsequent reviews to be completed every 10 years max thereafter, is my current idea
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 10, 2015 19:22:15 GMT
There were two discussions on the regional Sunday Politics programmes that referenced this. On the Northern Ireland edition, David Ford MLA said "Belfast South East will be the best chance of electing an Alliance MP ever!" and on the Welsh edition, Andrew RT Davies AM was asked if the boundaries were being designed "to make Wales a Conservative nation"
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 11, 2015 1:43:48 GMT
Well if it is still 650 seats and the 5% limit is relaxed, it won't "lock Labour out of power" any more than previous boundary revisions did. 650 seats and say a 7.5% tolerance should be enough to allow sensible seats to be drawn while also dealing with the excessive disparity in the size of seats which is something that should be dealt with. If such a proposal, or something similar, were put forward I would hope that Labour would react sensibly and help get legislation through in a timely fashion. If the Boundary Commission are to start work early next year a bill really needs to go through by the end of this year and that will require some support from opposition parties in the Lords. I expect the opposition parties will fight this tooth and nail - on the simple basis that turkeys dont vote for Christmas! (And under any boundary review the opposition parties would get the proverbial stuffing). Question for the experts here: Can any boundary changes be forced through on a simple majority vote or does there have to be at least some vague 'consensus' as to its fairness?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on May 11, 2015 6:20:55 GMT
likely the former. I think the default position is that the last lot (which are 'fair' - ie extensively consulted on) will happen and there would actually have to be votes to change things (ie the tolerance)
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,606
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 11, 2015 6:26:38 GMT
And if the opposition parties do manage to stop the zombie review from being revivified, won't we just revert back to the normal 15-yearly reviews, which would be a normal round of reviews in 2018-2022 for the 2025 election?
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 48,369
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 11, 2015 9:12:58 GMT
Red Line Time.
Why cut by 50? As an economy measure it is petty and inconsequential. It cannot be said to improve representation or closeness to the electorate. It significantly diminishes the Non-Payroll Vote of 'useful' back-benchers. It further breaks up old associations and reduces the localism. It will bring a marked element of competitive nastiness to the HOC as friends stalk one another in the 'Musical Chairs'! There is not a single positive in the scheme.
I would caution Cameron from starting out his administration on a bum note that make many MPs hate him from Day-1. Do an immediate review with a bit of flexibility and a lot of attention to prudent forecasting of numbers. Implement it for 2020 and then alter rules for a rolling programme of 5-yearly reviews of a coherent area that can be done on a stand-alone basis. We have to get away from the IOW and Western Isles distortions that are perceived to be both silly and unfair.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 11, 2015 10:53:47 GMT
From what I have read since, it turns out he now wants a 650 seat House but with less variation, however it has not been said yet what the benchmark will be. For instance, Wales's electorate was 2,282,297 from 40 seats (57,057 per seat). I will do Scotland and Northern Ireland today to get their averages and then start on England to see what their average is by region and then comes the question of "Which average is average?"
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,531
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 11, 2015 11:01:01 GMT
Hmmm - is not possible Welsh seats could be pared back now as Scotland's were pre-2005, given greater devolution?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on May 11, 2015 11:18:08 GMT
I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, are there not some things things that *will* happen as a result of the existing legislation. I would be interested if those in the know (DB? Dok?) could clarify what that is, before we start speculating about what *could* happen if the Cons want it to (and what they will have to do in terms of legislation or orders to make it happen)
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 11, 2015 12:11:02 GMT
It is simple, as things stand a new review will start in December under the same rules used in the zombie review (600 seats, 5% tolerance). That will only change if Parliament passes new legislation saying something different.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 11, 2015 12:16:47 GMT
So (with thanks to Boundary Assistant) that means all constituencies have to be between 72,810 and 80,473 (centre point 76,641), therefore Wales should have 29.77 seats (30) and Scotland should have 53.495 (53 or 54 seats).
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on May 11, 2015 12:23:42 GMT
It is simple, as things stand a new review will start in December under the same rules used in the zombie review (600 seats, 5% tolerance). That will only change if Parliament passes new legislation saying something different. thank you, that is more or less what I thought. next question - would it be possible to pass fairly simple legilation (eg 'in the bill replace 600 seats with 650 seats and 5% with 7.5%') or would a whole new bill and full scrutiny etc etc be needed? And if a new review did go ahead in December would the format necessarily be exactly as before?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 11, 2015 14:12:32 GMT
You should be able to pass a short bill fairly quickly. The Select Committee report already raised this as an option. I guess it wouldn't be in Labour's interests to try and block it otherwise Cameron will just stick with the previous rules.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 11, 2015 21:24:05 GMT
There are lots of reasons IMO why the 600 seat boundary changes might not go ahead now. Firstly, the swings in the marginals were so good for the Tories that I’m not sure the new boundaries would give them the big bonus they were hoping for. (I’ve seen AW’s 44 seat projection under the new boundaries on UKPR). Secondly the Tories doing so well in Wales means that their new MPs won’t be particularly happy with reducing the number of Welsh seats to 30. Thirdly, the Tories will be more happy with maintaining the status quo now that they have an overall majority compared to the 2010-2015 Parliament where they didn’t and needed the changes more than they do now. Maybe there'll just be another 650 review.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 12, 2015 6:36:37 GMT
There are lots of reasons IMO why the 600 seat boundary changes might not go ahead now. Firstly, the swings in the marginals were so good for the Tories that I’m not sure the new boundaries would give them the big bonus they were hoping for. (I’ve seen AW’s 44 seat projection under the new boundaries on UKPR). Secondly the Tories doing so well in Wales means that their new MPs won’t be particularly happy with reducing the number of Welsh seats to 30. Thirdly, the Tories will be more happy with maintaining the status quo now that they have an overall majority compared to the 2010-2015 Parliament where they didn’t and needed the changes more than they do now. Maybe there'll just be another 650 review. That is precisely the mood music that Adam Gray believes will happen. A 650 seat House of Commons on the 600 seat rule (i.e no seat will have an electorate of more than 73,404 and no less than 66,414 with a mid point of 69,909) and just to prove that I was right that I needed the PA data in order to really go to work, he has done the basics already. London would GAIN a seat, the South East would GAIN five seats, the South West GAIN two seats, the East of England GAIN three seats, the East Midlands GAIN a seat (Total Gains: 12) Scotland and Northern Ireland would be unchanged West Midlands would LOSE a seat, the North East would LOSE two seats, the North West would LOSE two seats, Yorkshire and the Humber would LOSE a seat and Wales would LOSE six seats (Total Losses: 12) The fact that Wales would lose six seats chimes in very nicely with the general suggestion that if the Assembly were to expand to 80 members, then Wales would have to lose Westminster seats to compensate.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on May 12, 2015 8:42:45 GMT
I would have thought it would be even harder to come up with sensible seats for a 650 house if they don't relax the 5% rule as well (unless ward splitting is allowed)
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 12, 2015 8:53:47 GMT
Can we do a quick re-warding of the whole country into single member wards? Then we have more sensible wards to create roughly 1,000 constituencies round.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,983
|
Post by maxque on May 12, 2015 10:02:56 GMT
I would have thought it would be even harder to come up with sensible seats for a 650 house if they don't relax the 5% rule as well (unless ward splitting is allowed) Ward splitting was allowed, it's just than the Boundary Commission was too stubborn to consider it.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 12, 2015 10:12:30 GMT
You should be able to pass a short bill fairly quickly. The Select Committee report already raised this as an option. I guess it wouldn't be in Labour's interests to try and block it otherwise Cameron will just stick with the previous rules. Some of the proposed constituencies were stupid, but I don't think there was much implicit bias. 650 seats would be better long-term, but I could see a case for strenuously opposing if it takes up parliamentary time that would otherwise be used for more controversial bills, and if it could worsen relations between Cameron and his backbenchers. But yes, there'd be no reason to oppose such a change on its own merits.
|
|