Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 21:21:57 GMT
No Ian, try again
We wanted a specific cut, with PR
The Tories wanted a specific cut, with FPTP
The Coalition compromise was 600, with a voting change referendum. If you are trying to suggest that a number was agreed upon after careful calculation and consideration, then you can only look at the proposals to see just how no party would have attempted to draw up that!
Labour are still smarting with bitterness and some jealousy at the fact that the Coalition actually went ahead to carry out constitutional reform. After years of being treated to temptations and vague promises and ankle flashes, it must have been assumed that the default position was always "Say but never act".
I would certainly take the PR part of your ideal world idea, though 600 MPs for me is still far too many. Let's slash by 100 at the next election, get them elected by STV or AV+ and get this matter over and done with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 21:27:50 GMT
I actually think democracy is better represented by looking after fewer people, lets not pretend it is a cost thing eh ?
funny enough you may have noticed most of those moaning are from the govt side about the new boundaries now ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 21:41:03 GMT
Some of the awkward brigade have always moaned about the review, so that does not surprise me at all.
Are you lot still calling it a "gerrymander"?
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on May 9, 2012 21:42:06 GMT
funny enough you may have noticed most of those moaning are from the govt side about the new boundaries now .. Insofar as that is true, it must be because most of your lot have thought getting the front bench to cry wolf gerrymander at the start was enough effort. Either that or a lot of them who have seen their undersized seats merged with other Labour seats calculate they will be the ones selected in the resulting amalgam. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 21:57:09 GMT
actually part of the issue is it has made a fair more tory seats come into play for a good year for us.
I am sure it will go through and some of the seats will be plain nightmares for any winning MP and that may cause more trouble in the long run.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 9, 2012 22:05:17 GMT
To be precise I see it that the LD manifesto sugeested a serious cut in the size of the HoC going along with transfer of derious responsibilities to other places. Which is why, while I accept the 600 size I cant claim to think it is a terribly great idea. But do not see it as a gerrymander. isn;t 600 supposed the be the most beneficial figure for the tories That was a stupid claim made by some Labour peers. There was never any evidence to back it up and logically I don't see why 600 would somehow be better for the Tories than 550 or 650 or whatever else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:16:17 GMT
It makes me laugh that Labour people call the review a gerrymander, when in actual fact the review is comparatively more favourable to the tories because it gets rid of most of the current gerrymander in favour of Labour!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:19:47 GMT
so just remind me when do we hear back after the consultation and will those be the ones the MP's vote upon ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:21:21 GMT
so just remind me when do we hear back after the consultation and will those be the ones the MP's vote upon ? We hear back later this year (autumn I think) with amended proposals, which will be followed by another short consultation, then the final recommendations will follow that. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 9, 2012 22:21:50 GMT
so just remind me when do we hear back after the consultation and will those be the ones the MP's vote upon ? Revised recommendations will be made this Autumn, followed by a further consultation period and final recommendations will be published next year and go for a vote in parliament in the Autumn. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 9, 2012 22:22:54 GMT
There is no "current gerrymander in favour of Labour". The operation of the present electoral system and the present boundaries do mean that Labour can win an overall majority on a lower share of the vote than the Conservatives need, but to be a gerrymander this would have to be a deliberate decision and it simply isn't that.
The review currently proceeding will not make the operation of the electoral system equitable in outcome, because it only addresses one of the sources of inequitable outcome (and not the largest one). There is no way of arranging the system externally to get rid of them all. The only way is to adopt an electoral system which has a direct link between outcomes and proportions of the vote, but that is something that is still anathema to almost all Conservatives.
But until they do that, they have really nothing to complain about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:23:47 GMT
It makes me laugh that Labour people call the review a gerrymander, when in actual fact the review is comparatively more favourable to the tories because it gets rid of most of the current gerrymander in favour of Labour! I completely agree What makes me laugh even more is the wilful blindness (to coin a phrase) to the existing gerrymanders in Labour's favour. Memo to everyone (as this forum well knows), Derbyshire would not ordinarily be divided like that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:26:29 GMT
cheers all for the info ...
when the proposals come out that is when it kicks off as few more changes will be made then
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 9, 2012 22:31:15 GMT
cheers all for the info ... when the proposals come out that is when it kicks off as few more changes will be made then It has certainly been the case in the past that revised recommendations are seldom altered. I think at the last review there was only one further modification and that was just a change to a constituency name. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:37:57 GMT
the question is will the BC stick largely to the proposals with minor amendments or make more radical changes.
Some are easy the Erdington/Sutton thing
surely Mersey Banks will be changed etc.
will be a day I may have to book off when they come out !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:43:26 GMT
Under the last review here, the revised recommendations for Lancashire changed just two wards, and no changes were made from the subsequent received correspondence. Indeed, I think only one whole region had a change from revised recommendations. They were reluctant to change before, they'll be very reluctant to do so now...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 9, 2012 22:53:15 GMT
Worth quoting the conclusion of chapter 7 of "The Boundary Commissions: Redrawing the UK's map of Parliamentary constituencies" by Rossiter, Johnston and Pattie:
"It is clear .. that the Commissions set the agenda. Not only do the majority of their initial recommendations become final, but the way in which they are promulgated and the parameters within which they are set exert a powerful influence over those seeking to change them." (p. 325)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 22:59:05 GMT
Indeed David.
One little curio to throw into the mix. The English Commission will not release any of their 'background material' or internal discussions until after 2013. It's almost as though they are concerned about giving certain people (*ahem* backbenchers *cough*) material they need to build their opposition....
[/takes off tin hat]
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on May 9, 2012 22:59:37 GMT
I suspect that the initial proposals are hard to change. But the parameters are different this time aren't they? For good or ill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 23:09:07 GMT
I suspect that the initial proposals are hard to change. But the parameters are different this time aren't they? For good or ill. Well yes. Far more of a "change Carlisle, mess up Crewe" situation that the case before. |
|
