|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 11, 2015 0:08:25 GMT
The introduction ignores the important fact that 85% of the UK does not have any form of subnational government between the national government and local government. Most of the other countries mentioned do have.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 11, 2015 9:41:18 GMT
750
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2015 9:50:12 GMT
Would I be correct in thinking this is entirely driven by a desire for 'more' results and for many more 'interesting' results than by any perceived democratic deficit?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Aug 11, 2015 9:50:51 GMT
About 2,000.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,737
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 11, 2015 9:54:57 GMT
1983 electorate: 42,197,832 / 650 seats = 64,920 electors per seat 1987 electorate: 43,181,321 / 650 seats = 66,433 electors per seat 1992 electorate: 43,249,721 / 651 seats = 66,436 electors per seat 1997 electorate: 43,784,559 / 659 seats = 66,441 electors per seat 2001 electorate: 44,377,742 / 659 seats = 67,341 electors per seat 2005 electorate: 44,345,099 / 646 seats = 68,646 electors per seat 2010 electorate: 45,597,461 / 650 seats = 70,150 electors per seat (Change on 1987: 5.6% increase) 2015 electorate: 46,441,348 / 650 seats = 71,448 electors per seat (Change on 2010: 1.9% increase)
In order to return to a 1983 average electorate per seat we need to have 715 seats (65 more than at the moment) but how do you square that with the demands of the general population to reduce the number of "politicians"
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2015 10:01:06 GMT
I like the system pretty much as it is with FPTP as the method.
600 would be a the absolute minimum and 700 a few too many.
Even size should be the norm and I would not make islands an exception.
Increasing population would make all seats have more members revision by revision.
I don't think 100k is too many in a constituency with all the many form of communication.
Most people never 'need' to see their MP at all.
Few 'need' to contact an MP more than once or twice in a lifetime.
Many people have a love of the thought of local associations with an area and having a 'local MP.
Names are important but should be kept brief, simple and obvious. No Langbaugh, Gravesham or Eddisbury.
And like with like as far as possible. No joining of towns that hate each other or have no focus and contact.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Aug 11, 2015 10:08:57 GMT
1983 electorate: 42,197,832 / 650 seats = 64,920 electors per seat 1987 electorate: 43,181,321 / 650 seats = 66,433 electors per seat 1992 electorate: 43,249,721 / 651 seats = 66,436 electors per seat 1997 electorate: 43,784,559 / 659 seats = 66,441 electors per seat 2001 electorate: 44,377,742 / 659 seats = 67,341 electors per seat 2005 electorate: 44,345,099 / 646 seats = 68,646 electors per seat 2010 electorate: 45,597,461 / 650 seats = 70,150 electors per seat (Change on 1987: 5.6% increase) 2015 electorate: 46,441,348 / 650 seats = 71,448 electors per seat (Change on 2010: 1.9% increase) In order to return to a 1983 average electorate per seat we need to have 715 seats (65 more than at the moment) but how do you square that with the demands of the general population to reduce the number of "politicians" Easiest way would be radical reform of the Lords - replacement of 800+ unelected Lords with a 200 seat senate, for instance, could allow for more MPs in the Commons. Overall cost would probably be less.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 11, 2015 10:22:06 GMT
Would I be correct in thinking this is entirely driven by a desire for 'more' results and for many more 'interesting' results than by any perceived democratic deficit? It happens to draw the nicest seats in most area on FPTP although as I favour PR this isn't so relevant. Having played with all the various possible boundaries for a 750 seat commons I will now try for 2000 seats
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2015 10:25:00 GMT
Would I be correct in thinking this is entirely driven by a desire for 'more' results and for many more 'interesting' results than by any perceived democratic deficit? It happens to draw the nicest seats in most area on FPTP although as I favour PR this isn't so relevant. Having played with all the various possible boundaries for a 750 seat commons I will now try for 2000 seats A Figgis cup will runneth over.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 11, 2015 10:26:28 GMT
1983 electorate: 42,197,832 / 650 seats = 64,920 electors per seat 1987 electorate: 43,181,321 / 650 seats = 66,433 electors per seat 1992 electorate: 43,249,721 / 651 seats = 66,436 electors per seat 1997 electorate: 43,784,559 / 659 seats = 66,441 electors per seat 2001 electorate: 44,377,742 / 659 seats = 67,341 electors per seat 2005 electorate: 44,345,099 / 646 seats = 68,646 electors per seat 2010 electorate: 45,597,461 / 650 seats = 70,150 electors per seat (Change on 1987: 5.6% increase) 2015 electorate: 46,441,348 / 650 seats = 71,448 electors per seat (Change on 2010: 1.9% increase) In order to return to a 1983 average electorate per seat we need to have 715 seats (65 more than at the moment) but how do you square that with the demands of the general population to reduce the number of "politicians" Tell them they are spouting ignorant populist rubbish??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 10:44:21 GMT
1983 electorate: 42,197,832 / 650 seats = 64,920 electors per seat 1987 electorate: 43,181,321 / 650 seats = 66,433 electors per seat 1992 electorate: 43,249,721 / 651 seats = 66,436 electors per seat 1997 electorate: 43,784,559 / 659 seats = 66,441 electors per seat 2001 electorate: 44,377,742 / 659 seats = 67,341 electors per seat 2005 electorate: 44,345,099 / 646 seats = 68,646 electors per seat 2010 electorate: 45,597,461 / 650 seats = 70,150 electors per seat (Change on 1987: 5.6% increase) 2015 electorate: 46,441,348 / 650 seats = 71,448 electors per seat (Change on 2010: 1.9% increase) In order to return to a 1983 average electorate per seat we need to have 715 seats (65 more than at the moment) but how do you square that with the demands of the general population to reduce the number of "politicians" Tell them they are spouting ignorant populist rubbish?? That's the Labour way of talking to people after all. We should have around 500, with PR. We'll have 600 with FPTP; a modest step in the right direction
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 10:46:06 GMT
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,011
|
Post by peterl on Aug 11, 2015 11:16:21 GMT
As much as I like having plenty of results to pour over, a large amount of MPs contribute nothing, so there is no harm in reducing the number. I would favour somewhere between 550 and 600.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2015 11:17:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2015 11:46:45 GMT
I like the system pretty much as it is with FPTP as the method. 600 would be a the absolute minimum and 700 a few too many. Even size should be the norm and I would not make islands an exception. Increasing population would make all seats have more members revision by revision. I don't think 100k is too many in a constituency with all the many form of communication. Most people never 'need' to see their MP at all. Few 'need' to contact an MP more than once or twice in a lifetime. Many people have a love of the thought of local associations with an area and having a 'local MP. Names are important but should be kept brief, simple and obvious. No Langbaugh, Gravesham or Eddisbury. And like with like as far as possible. No joining of towns that hate each other or have no focus and contact. I thought I'd play spot the internal contradictions, but I gave up at six.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2015 11:54:05 GMT
I like the system pretty much as it is with FPTP as the method. 600 would be a the absolute minimum and 700 a few too many. Even size should be the norm and I would not make islands an exception. Increasing population would make all seats have more members revision by revision. I don't think 100k is too many in a constituency with all the many form of communication. Most people never 'need' to see their MP at all. Few 'need' to contact an MP more than once or twice in a lifetime. Many people have a love of the thought of local associations with an area and having a 'local MP. Names are important but should be kept brief, simple and obvious. No Langbaugh, Gravesham or Eddisbury. And like with like as far as possible. No joining of towns that hate each other or have no focus and contact. I thought I'd play spot the internal contradictions, but I gave up at six. Save yourself some time EAL by not commenting on my posts. We will all take it for granted that you would wish to have a shrill and thin waspish cut and slur at everything I do. Agreed I accept them even if not there. Not so much the whiff of sulphur from your grey eminence but more of the stink of stale malt vinegar.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2015 12:00:12 GMT
I live in the fond delusion that you'll eventually decide to read what you write before everybody else does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2015 12:19:39 GMT
Ladies, ladies, handbags
|
|
sdoerr
Conservative
Posts: 148
|
Post by sdoerr on Aug 11, 2015 12:23:29 GMT
There should be 427 MPs.
|
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Pimpernal on Aug 11, 2015 13:36:34 GMT
If we have to keep FPTP 1000 MPs with a commensurate reduction in allowances. The more MPs the better they can represent local interests.
I'd accept 600 directly elected with 150 top-ups from AMS.
|
|