YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 4, 2012 7:49:40 GMT
Your constituency is one of the largest in the country and it's also solidly Labour, so why it is evidence to support a measure designed to address over-representation of Labour-voting areas is a mystery to me and I suspect everyone else. The measure is designed to equalise seats and representation. There are areas where the current defects produce oversized seats that have Labour MPs. They deserve to be corrected as much as the rest rather than the whole thing descend into partisan point scoring. So I repeat my question - why should West Ham be ridiculously oversized and be kept that way and get worse for a decade plus? Why should a West Ham vote count for less? Isn't the problem there (as with Manchester Central) that the electorate has grown significantly since the enumeration date for the last review? I happen to agree that "gerrymandering" is the wrong word, though to be frank a lot of the seats in the Leeds and Sheffield areas (and north Cheshire etc.) look like gerrymandered seats, even though partisan advantage wasn't the motivation. However I feel it's the Tories who started the "partisan point scoring" here with the rhetoric about how biased to Labour the old system was; if they had actually tried to start an honest non-partisan discussion of what was right and what was wrong with the old system things might have gone a lot better. Personally I think I could live with the 5% rule if splitting large wards was done routinely to avoid unnecessary boundary crossing and ugly constituencies, but I don't live near the Tamar. And I do accept that ten years between the enumeration date and first use of the boundaries (as happened with the last review) is too long. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 8:40:15 GMT
There is a hint here of something which I didn't pick up last time - the slow whirring machinery of the parties wanting the same control over reviews as happens in the US. It's perhaps the most ironic point of the entire debate: to make the argument against biased gerrymandering, political parties want to dictate the rules of the next review.
I notice that the estimated results of a 600 seat Commons doesn't give the Conservatives a commanding majority. If there was some kind of projection which came up with 600, I can't see it working very well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 9:59:04 GMT
There is no connection between votes won nationally and seats won in our system anyway so anyone complaining about seat distribution and supporting FPTP at the same time is a whining hypocrite. so totally spot on with that Tricky I just think the puerille moaning of Tories on 'it is not fair' avoids them answering the basic question of why not supporting a form of PR. Because they know in the future the bias that is in FPTP will swing their way at some point. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Nov 4, 2012 10:25:51 GMT
Where did the idea of a 600 seat parliament come from? Why not stay with 650? Why not 400? Someone has obviously carried out a simulation and found that 600 produced the 'best' results. Actually I agree with this point, Why reduce the size of the Commons? I understood it was a desire to reduce the cost of government - a sort of knee jerk response to those that say we have too many elected representatives (or politicians) and the cut would save money. I don't hold with that idea. It seems to be tokenism of the worst sort. Equally though, why should the size of the Commons be allowed to increase unchecked? The Parliamentary Constituencies Act used to say the Commons should have around 613 members. An extra 37 and rising to me seems like substantially more MPs than there should be. A tweak to facilitate the number being much closer to 613 would have been welcome if nothing else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 11:23:13 GMT
We are too small an island, with too many layers of governance, to allow the Commons to rise at its current rate
The Lords has not been checked in this way either, through mostly partisan reasons, which is why there's a real chance of a 1,000 seat parliament there. We're a laughing stock of a so called democracy if we allow an unelected chamber to reach 1,000 members. Labour is a laughing stock of a worker's party if they can't see the need to reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by the_bullies on Nov 4, 2012 11:26:48 GMT
The whole point is that the strict rules that took account of Metropolitan & county boundaries & prevented large scale crossing of them And took account of historical community ties & previous good practice that prevented large scale ward splitting. Also the taking into account of major geographical features (such as the island of Anglesey) in which there are unique communties have been written out & replaced by the strict quota & a 5% limit. Of course Tory Isle of Wight & Two LIbDem seats in Scotland are exceptions (plus the Western Isles) but this to suit themselves. If you dont want the opposition to scrap your partisan rules on constitutional issues then you must get broad agreement as has been the case always in the past. The Tories have ridden roughshod over all opinions from other parties & their rules will fail to pass in parliament & we repealed at the earliest opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by the_bullies on Nov 4, 2012 11:29:40 GMT
We are too small an island, with too many layers of governance, to allow the Commons to rise at its current rate The Lords has not been checked in this way either, through mostly partisan reasons, which is why there's a real chance of a 1,000 seat parliament there. We're a laughing stock of a so called democracy if we allow an unelected chamber to reach 1,000 members. Labour is a laughing stock of a worker's party if they can't see the need to reform. Your argument falls down as your own party doesn't agree with you & will vote down these measures next year or in the house of Lords sooner or later. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 11:38:39 GMT
We are too small an island, with too many layers of governance, to allow the Commons to rise at its current rate The Lords has not been checked in this way either, through mostly partisan reasons, which is why there's a real chance of a 1,000 seat parliament there. We're a laughing stock of a so called democracy if we allow an unelected chamber to reach 1,000 members. Labour is a laughing stock of a worker's party if they can't see the need to reform. Your argument falls down as your own party doesn't agree with you & will vote down these measures next year or in the house of Lords sooner or later. My argument does not fall down on that basis at all. |
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Nov 4, 2012 11:38:51 GMT
We are too small an island, with too many layers of governance, to allow the Commons to rise at its current rate The Lords has not been checked in this way either, through mostly partisan reasons, which is why there's a real chance of a 1,000 seat parliament there. We're a laughing stock of a so called democracy if we allow an unelected chamber to reach 1,000 members. Labour is a laughing stock of a worker's party if they can't see the need to reform. Your argument falls down as your own party doesn't agree with you & will vote down these measures next year or in the house of Lords sooner or later. I believe that the campaign to preserve the Isle of Wight as one seat was backed by the Labour Party. It was certainly backed by local Labour figures and by Jack Straw. Your argument falls down because it is stupid. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 4, 2012 11:39:49 GMT
Here's some comparsions (that will probably add fuel to the fire)
United Kingdom Population: 62,641,000 (2011 census)
Countries with populations 10% either side of the UK and the number of seats in lower chamber of Parliament
Congo 58 million = 500 seats
Italy 58 million = 630 seats
United Kingdom 63 million = 650 seats
Thailand 64 million = 500 seats
France 65 million = 577 seats
Iran 70 million = 290 seats
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2012 11:47:35 GMT
I believe that the campaign to preserve the Isle of Wight as one seat was backed by the Labour Party. It was certainly backed by local Labour figures and by Jack Straw. Your argument falls down because it is stupid. The campaign was for the Isle of Wight to continue to be one seat; the rules as originally laid down would require part of it to be cut off and mixed with part of the mainland. The Government's solution is to make it two undersized seats. The Isle of Wight does not easily divide into two as can be seen by the fact that the Boundary Commission completely revised their proposals from a north-south split to an east-west split. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 12:06:43 GMT
Here's some comparsions (that will probably add fuel to the fire) France 65 million = 577 seats they have an elected senate of course with 348 elected members and that has increased which means they have far more elected to run the country. So yes reduce the number of MP's only when we get an elected senate. again the Tories want one thing but not the other. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 4, 2012 12:11:45 GMT
Here's some comparsions (that will probably add fuel to the fire) France 65 million = 577 seats they have an elected senate of course with 348 elected members and that has increased which means they have far more elected to run the country. So yes reduce the number of MP's only when we get an elected senate. again the Tories want one thing but not the other. No, the French senate is indirectly elected by an electoral college of local councillors. |
|
|
|
Post by the_bullies on Nov 4, 2012 12:13:14 GMT
Once again the coalition only see's their own point of view. Our point is there are other areas of the Uk with Geographical features which merit 'special cases' but they only pick their own areas. Dwyfor Meironydd (Snowdonia) & Anglesey put a very strong case. I for one will be glad when these measures are shot down the sooner the better. It will be a huge blow against the Tories & I for one cant wait!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 12:15:31 GMT
Well you only have to see the fight that Andrew Mitchell put up to see that when it came to local issues they wanted to keep their special interests.
|
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Nov 4, 2012 12:28:21 GMT
I believe that the campaign to preserve the Isle of Wight as one seat was backed by the Labour Party. It was certainly backed by local Labour figures and by Jack Straw. Your argument falls down because it is stupid. The campaign was for the Isle of Wight to continue to be one seat; the rules as originally laid down would require part of it to be cut off and mixed with part of the mainland. The Government's solution is to make it two undersized seats. The Isle of Wight does not easily divide into two as can be seen by the fact that the Boundary Commission completely revised their proposals from a north-south split to an east-west split. Well then, Labour opposed mixing the Isle of Wight with the mainland and got their wish. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 12:35:15 GMT
Once again the coalition only see's their own point of view. Our point is there are other areas of the Uk with Geographical features which merit 'special cases' but they only pick their own areas. Dwyfor Meironydd (Snowdonia) & Anglesey put a very strong case. I for one will be glad when these measures are shot down the sooner the better. It will be a huge blow against the Tories & I for one cant wait! So the last part of your point is exactly what you decry in the first part? |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Nov 4, 2012 13:04:35 GMT
Well you only have to see the fight that Andrew Mitchell put up to see that when it came to local issues they wanted to keep their special interests. What the hell are you talking about? Arguing for Sutton Coldfield to remain within one seat was the very opposite of fighting for the Tory Party's "special interests". Christ, this is why I loathe the Labour Party. The argument above makes no sense whatsoever but you're prepared to argue it and, perhaps, even believe it, because you have a pathological belief that Tories are evil and wickedness lurks at the heart of everything we do. The Sutton Coldfield Conservatives (and others) arguing for Sutton to be kept together was not a fiendish Tory plot, the better to further the cause of putting children up chimnies and starving the poor (of course), nor was it "keeping our special interests". If it were, the national Labour Party would not have made exactly the same argument. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Nov 4, 2012 13:06:32 GMT
The whole point is that the strict rules that took account of Metropolitan & county boundaries & prevented large scale crossing of them And took account of historical community ties & previous good practice that prevented large scale ward splitting. Also the taking into account of major geographical features (such as the island of Anglesey) in which there are unique communties have been written out & replaced by the strict quota & a 5% limit. All those things you mention facilitate what we call 'malapportionment'. Re-writing the rules to factor out malapportionment is not gerrymandering; it's the very opposite of it. Do you understand? Or am I just a nasty evil Tory trying to justify wickedness? Why have we got two Robos on here now, anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by the_bullies on Nov 4, 2012 13:17:20 GMT
You cannot re-write longstanding rules just to suit your own purpose which is what the Coalition has done. Thank goodness these will be set aside & repealed after 2015 the sooner the better.
|
|
