Boundaries Archive

[Deleted]

Every party went into the last election with a proposal to reduce the size of the Commons.
Every one of the five previous boundary reviews has had rules and regulations written by Parliament.

That this one has been dragged into a ditch is not the Coalition's fault.

[john07]

Nov 4, 2012 13:19:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Every party went into the last election with a proposal to reduce the size of the Commons.
Every one of the five previous boundary reviews has had rules and regulations written by Parliament.

That this one has been dragged into a ditch is not the Coalition's fault.

Well who is to blame then?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Nov 4, 2012 13:19:25 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Every party went into the last election with a proposal to reduce the size of the Commons.

Can you point out where the Labour Party manifesto proposed such a reduction?

Incidentally the first Reform Bill in 1831 failed mainly because it proposed to reduce the overall size of the House of Commons. The Act as finally passed kept the overall size the same.

[timrollpickering]

Nov 4, 2012 7:49:40 GMT YL said:

Isn't the problem there (as with Manchester Central) that the electorate has grown significantly since the enumeration date for the last review?

Yes - there's been a huge amount of development then and not just because of the Olympics. But (as you agree) one of the main problems is that the enumeration date is so far in the past compared to when the boundaries were a ) introduced and b ) will last until. The most recent review has demonstrated, if nothing else, that the task can be completed in a single parliament and so make the boundaries more contemporary. A second problem is the Boundary Commission had a bizarre attitude to London boroughs whereby it was acceptable to combine two to balance out the numbers but combining three, even when all considered in the same subreview, was considered beyond the pale with no justification.

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;

It was actually the ERS who brought it to our attention! I remember an interesting fringe back in 2003 and briefly had a moment of madness by dabbling with proportional representation.

[the_bullies]

There was no committment from Labour at all but I suspect there will be next time to reverse everything done by this coalition.

[East Anglian Lefty]

It strikes me that there are two different things being debated here. One is approximate equality of electorates and how up to date enumerations are. I don't think there's objection to the former in the Labour Party (with a partial exception for Wales), just a wish to allow slightly more flexibility to respect local ties. As for the latter, it was a Labour government that originally introduced legislation for reviews every five years. That was done away with due to concerns about constant tinkering with constituencies, but these days that'd probably be less contentious and I certainly don't think that we as a party would object to using more up to date enumeration numbers in each review, rather than starting with figures that are already five years out of date.

Certain Coalition supporters here wish to focus on these points, because they support their argument better, even though Labour does not have strong philosophical objections to these aims.

The other is the specific terms of the review and particularly the reduction in the number of seats. It hardly needs to be explained why the first is problematic and the arbitrariness of the second is shown by the fact that the Tories wanted 500 seats, the Lib Dems 585 and they were averaged out to 600, which sounds less like a compromise and more a paper-and-pen exercise to avoid forcing too many member-on-member selection contests.

Harry demonstrated that the number of MPs is not disproportionate compared to the situation in other nations of a similar size and reducing the number of seats without also reducing the size of the payroll vote is clearly inequitable. I see a good argument for preventing the size of the Commons increasing significantly, probably by changing the method of apportionment to review areas (St. Lague for 1974 counties, perhaps?) I can see no argument that removing 50 backbenchers (or 8% of Parliament) will produce a radical improvement in the function of that body.

[erlend]

I would be keen on saying that if the Commons is reduced in size that legislation should state that the number of ministers (and let's close the loophole about unpaid ones) should also be capped at a proportionately lower number. We might meed something dealing with PPSs as well.

[cibwr]

Nov 4, 2012 11:39:49 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

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

Of course not all those countries draw their ministers from the lower house - indeed some of them forbid that, and some of those countries have regional legislative authorities - so its not a true comparison.

[john07]

Nov 4, 2012 17:50:09 GMT erlend said:

I would be keen on saying that if the Commons is reduced in size that legislation should state that the number of ministers (and let's close the loophole about unpaid ones) should also be capped at a proportionately lower number. We might meed something dealing with PPSs as well.

Definately.

Making the House smaller would ensure that the payroll vote plus PPS would dominate the Government side.

There would be less arkward back benchers to keep quite.

[erlend]

Oh indeed I doubt my few is controversial here.

[timrollpickering]

Nov 4, 2012 15:38:00 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

It hardly needs to be explained why the first is problematic and the arbitrariness of the second is shown by the fact that the Tories wanted 500 seats, the Lib Dems 585 and they were averaged out to 600,

The Lib Dems' figure was for a house elected by Scottish TeleVision (or something) and they didn't want to cut too far for single member constituencies.

Harry demonstrated that the number of MPs is not disproportionate compared to the situation in other nations of a similar size and reducing the number of seats without also reducing the size of the payroll vote is clearly inequitable.

Were the previous forum still up I would link to past posts where I am on the record as advocating the slimming down of ministries - approximately one in thirteen would go. But doubtlessly there would be howls of Labour protest at the ones to go.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Nov 4, 2012 21:05:57 GMT timrollpickering said:

Were the previous forum still up I would link to past posts where I am on the record as advocating the slimming down of ministries - approximately one in thirteen would go. But doubtlessly there would be howls of Labour protest at the ones to go.

Probably. Major change is inevitably contentious. It would make reducing the size of the House much more justifiable, however.

[john07]

Nov 4, 2012 15:38:00 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

It hardly needs to be explained why the first is problematic and the arbitrariness of the second is shown by the fact that the Tories wanted 500 seats, the Lib Dems 585 and they were averaged out to 600, which sounds less like a compromise and more a paper-and-pen exercise to avoid forcing too many member-on-member selection contests.

That reminds me of the 1909 Naval Estimates where the Admiralty asked for six battleships to be built, the Treasury offered four and they eventually compromised on eight!

[doktorb in absentia]

The Conservatives are in talks with the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) to win their backing for moves to cut the number of MPs at Westminster, Tory sources have told the Guardian.

The party is also looking to win the support of one of the nationalist parties in a bid to keep alive constituency boundary reforms that would improve Tory chances of securing an overall majority at the 2015 election. Prime minister David Cameron fears Labour and Liberal Democrats will combine to defer the boundary reforms until after the election.

Tory MPs aware of the discussions in the party point to a deal on cheap air passenger duty for long-haul flights from Belfast, announced last week, as the kind of offer that may persuade DUP MPs to back the boundary reforms. The DUP said, however, that the duty deal was a longstanding agreement, had no relationship with any other issue and denied any wider deal was under discussion.

Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards has already said his party would be open to discussing a deal with the UK government over boundary reform. The draft plans see the number of Welsh MPs cut from 40 to 30.

But Edwards said any deal would have to involve a significant transfer of powers to the Welsh assembly and a new Government of Wales Act in order to offset the reduction in numbers of MPs.

He insisted he was speaking in an individual capacity, saying that no direct contact had been made between his party and No 10.

The crisis over the boundary reforms has led to some of the most bitter exchanges between the offices of Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg since the coalition was formed, with both sides accusing the other of bad faith. Cameron has been pressed at meeting of the Tories' 1922 backbench committee to force the boundary changes through before the election.

The crisis started in the summer when Clegg reacted to the defeat of his House of Lords reform plans by announcing his party would no longer support boundary changes designed to make the size of constituencies more equal. Both houses were due to vote on the Boundary Commission proposals next year once the redrawn boundaries had been finalised.

Cameron responded to Clegg's move by saying he would defer the issue until next year, giving himself time to look for a way of pushing through the changes, seen by some as vital to Cameron being able secure an overall majority at the next election.

But Cameron's timetable has now been pre-empted by the surprise decision of the Lib Dems to use the electoral registration and administration bill, introducing individual voter registration, to change the date for the report from the Boundary Commission on parliamentary constituencies from "before 1 October 2013" to "not before 1 October 2018".

The amendment has the support Lord Hart of Chilton, a senior lawyer and former adviser to two lord chancellors, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former Foreign Office permanent secretary, Lord Rennard, a former Lib Demchief executive, and Lord Wigley, a former leader of Plaid Cymru.

If put to a vote in the Lords, the amendment would be carried. Conservative whips would then have to try to overturn the amendment in the Commons without Lib Dem support, the first time the coalition whip would have split in the Commons on a government bill.

The coalition has an overall majority of 86 in the Commons, but the Conservatives are three short of an overall majority if Lib Dem MPs vote with Labour. The Conservatives are trawling for support among the eight DUP MPs, three Welsh nationalists and six Scottish nationalists.

Nigel Dodds, deputy leader of the DUP, said he had not been approached by the Tories on the issue of voting on boundary reforms and denied that the partial devolution of powers on air passenger duty had been part of any deal. Air passenger duty on direct long-haul flights departing from Northern Ireland airports falls to to zero with effect from January 2013. But Dodds said: "That was agreed by George Osborne last year."

[the_bullies]

I suspect that this is still 'pie in the sky' or just a case of wishfull thinking on the part of the Tory party again. There's no way the SNP will back the Tories in the run up to the next Scottish Elections & independence referendum as it would make them unpopular with Scottish voters. As for Plaid I suspect that they will not get the 'major transfer of powers' that Jonathon Edwards wants & he has already admitted that he was speaking in a personal capacity & not for the party. But even if they did as they did in the European debate last week when there were 53 rebels (less than the 57 Libdem mp's) it would be enough as shown last week when they lost the vote. Nadine Dorris & also the Tory mp for Devon West & Torridge are on record as saying they would vote against the bill. With the Sdlp, Ind mp for Down North Sylvia Hermon, the Alliance mp for Belfast East, the Green mp & Galloway backing Labour they should get at least 324 (minus two for the speakers office on each side) that gives 322. The Tories are minus 2 (speakers) & two rebels so have 301. Even with Plaid up to 304 & the DUP up to 312 their still short. If the Snp back Labour basically their buggered! but even if they didnt there's only 6 of them, not enough. There also huge doubts as to whether the current Tory party could deliver on any deals that needed to be voted on by parliament.

[doktorb in absentia]

New legal advice given to House of Lords says Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance can prevent legislation passing before 2015


Conservative hopes of preventing a Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance from deferring plans to revise parliamentary boundaries until after the next election have been dealt a blow. New legal advice given to Labour says the delay is lawful, thus freeing Labour and Lib Dem peers to vote to scupper the reforms.

Senior Tories are locked in a high stakes battle with their coalition partners to keep alive their hope of cutting MP numbers and rejigging boundaries before 2015.

The changes could be worth 20 seats to the Tory party, making it easier for it to win an overall election majority. The Tories have become so desperate they have been putting out feelers to nationalist parties to see if they can construct a Commons majority for revising the boundaries, even though Labour and the Lib Dems are opposed.

But David Cameron has been ambushed by a decision by Lib Dem peers to join Labour and crossbenchers to press an amendment to the electoral administration bill that would defer a review by the Boundary Commission until after 2015.

Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader of the Lords, claims, on the basis of advice from parliamentary clerks, the amendment is out of order since it is not properly connected to the issues the bill is addressing.

But legal opinion from a QC, given to Labour and placed in the library of the Lords, disputes this.

The advice states the timing of Boundary Commission recommendations for changes to constituency boundaries "cannot be divorced from electoral registration" and the "conduct and administration of the next general election", and vice versa.

It also claims the review, which proposes changes to the number of parliamentary constituencies, and the Electoral Registration Act are "intertwined".

Significant changes to electoral registration, such as the "major change" to individual registration proposed "directly and inescapably impact on the current boundary review process" and the timetable for it.

It also claims changes proposed will mean that a number of voters will fall off the register, so that the boundary reviews will be "carried out on the basis of what are, effectively, inaccurate numbers".

Tory party whips know that if Strathclyde allows the amendment deferring the boundary review to be voted upon, it would be passed in the Lords by at least 50 votes.

[Andrew_S]

Just noticed this message which is on every UKPR constituency page. It might have been there for a while but I didn't notice:

"NB - The constituency guide is now archived and is no longer being updated. It will be replaced by a new guide in 2013, once the fate of the boundary review is finally settled."