Tory/SNP DevoMax/boundaries deal??

[The Bishop]

What I have never really understood, Steppers and others who think similarly, is this........

As you follow British elections historically, you will *know* that in "ye olden dayes" the discrepancies in constituency sizes were FAR greater and more extreme than they are today. Even relatively recently, I mean - is there anything remotely similar now to Birmingham Ladywood c1970 or Glasgow Central c1980 (or for that matter - excluding the sui generis IoW anyway - the likes of Bromsgrove/Redditch or Horsham/Crawley around that time)??

But it never caused the angst the more modest differences seem to now - and yes, the Tories managed to win elections despite this.

I have said it before, and will again - I have *no* objection having constituency electorates as similar as is practically possible, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL . And there's the rub, innit? To force constituencies into a rigid mathematical formula, some genuine and indefensible monstrosities were mooted - which go against everything the defenders of FPTP have traditionally informed us were its virtues. And all to gain an advantage for the Tories which was, in reality, nowhere near as great as the denizens of Stainesland/pb.com had endlessly claimed in their fulminations against evil Stasiesque ZaNuLieBore "gerrymandering".......

And nor can the Tories be that surprised at the LibDems finally losing patience, given the regularity with which you have shafted them since May 2010

If you had been prepared to compromise - both on this and on other issues - you would still have your changes now, and likely to become law in the not too distant future. Fulminating against Labour is rewarding displacement activity, but ultimately misses the point

[marksenior]

Jan 14, 2013 20:06:40 GMT stepney said:

If this were malapportionment that worked in the Tory Party's favour, you would be the first whining that it should be got rid of, end of. The difference between us is that I would like to think that if it were malapportionment that worked in the Tory Party's favour, I would be right behind you backing you up.

But the malapportionment works in the Conservative's favour . In 2010 they got 48% of Parliamentary seats for just 37% of the vote . The fact that Labour get an even bigger malapportionment in their favour does not alter the fact that there is one also in the favour of your party and you are simply being greedy in wanting a bigger bias in your favour .

[stepney]

Jan 14, 2013 20:31:22 GMT marksenior said:

Jan 14, 2013 20:06:40 GMT stepney said:

If this were malapportionent that worked in the Tory Party's favour, you would be the first whining that it should be got rid of, end of. The difference between us is that I would like to think that if it were malapportionent that worked in the Tory Party's favour, I would be right behind you backing you up.

But the malapportionent works in the Conservative's favour . In 2010 they got 48% of Parliamentary seats for just 37% of the vote . The fact that Labour get an even bigger malapportionent in their favour does not alter the fact that there is one also in the favour of your party and youare simply being greedy in wanting a bigger bias in your favour .

Oh, piss off. Malapportionment is not the same as not achieving an exactly proportional result. As we know, exactly proportional results lead to hung parliaments where snakes in the grass perpetually hold the balance of power. This is not desirable in a two- or two-and-a-half party system. On the showing of the last three years, crushing of the - treacherous, indecisive, back-stabbing - half is more obviously desirable.

In 2010 the Conservatives managed a 7% lead over Labour and a hung Parliament. In 2005 Labour managed a 3% lead over us and a 66-seat majority. In 2010 Labour, despite not being the largest party, got more seats per vote than us. If we are in the lead fairness dictates it should work the other way round.

If the Lib Dems ever got a bigger % share of the vote than any other party I would be the first to gladly say they should form a Government. Alas this has not happened since 1906.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 20:06:40 GMT stepney said:

The death of the boundary review occurs primarily because of a Labour Party that believes its opponents are not just wrong or misguided,

my god I think we have the prize for the biggest load of rubbish this year so far. The same whining form tories who claim that votes are worth less in one seat than another and yet in any way refuse to want proper PR and campaign for it. How is a one vote in Witney worth 'Less' than say one vote in marginal Wolverhampton SW ?

Now if Stepney had campaigned for PR he may have some little credence for this view but to blame Labour for not voting on a government bill with the Tories but not the LD's is so laughable it belies belief.

Maybe if his own party produced a bill with far more leeway and margins to bend where obvious natural communities were being broken up then it could have passed.

[tricky]

Jan 14, 2013 20:42:50 GMT stepney said:

Jan 14, 2013 20:31:22 GMT marksenior said:

But the malapportionent works in the Conservative's favour . In 2010 they got 48% of Parliamentary seats for just 37% of the vote . The fact that Labour get an even bigger malapportionent in their favour does not alter the fact that there is one also in the favour of your party and youare simply being greedy in wanting a bigger bias in your favour .

Oh, piss off. Malapportionment is not the same as not achieving an exactly proportional result. As we know, exactly proportional results lead to hung parliaments where snakes in the grass perpetually hold the balance of power. This is not desirable in a two- or two-and-a-half party system. On the showing of the last three years, crushing of the - treacherous, indecisive, back-stabbing - half is more obviously desirable.

In 2010 the Conservatives managed a 7% lead over Labour and a hung Parliament. In 2005 Labour managed a 3% lead over us and a 66-seat majority. In 2010 Labour, despite not being the largest party, got more seats per vote than us. If we are in the lead fairness dictates it should work the other way round.

If the Lib Dems ever got a bigger % share of the vote than any other party I would be the first to gladly say they should form a Government. Alas this has not happened since 1906.

You are still defending the malapportionment that helps your Party. As for the accusations of tit for tat the boundary changes were part of a comprehensive programme of constitutional change that involved an elected Lords as a counterbalance to the increased power of the Executive by increasing the proportion of the Commons that was payroll vote.

As the Tories decided to shoot down Lords reform the justification for reducing the size of the Commons was reduced commensurately to the stage where Nick decided that the Liberal Democrats should no longer support the measure. Sensible.

By declaring that we are being treacherous you are indulging in the same thing that you attacked robo for, namely assigning evil motives to your opponents.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 14, 2013 20:06:40 GMT stepney said:

The death of the boundary review occurs primarily because of a Labour Party that believes its opponents are not just wrong or misguided, but evil, and therefore malapportionment (or indeed anything) is a just measure to try and get it out of power, and secondly because of Nick Clegg playing a petulant game of tit for tat over Lords reform. Well done both, you save your own undersized seats and screw the wicked Tories over with it.

There is a very small kernel of truth in this, and it'd be an interesting debate to have, if it wasn't drowning in a lake of irony.

[The Bishop]

This meme that Labourites believe their opponents are "evil" is a classic example of "poisoning the well" in an effort to shut down debate.

Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Gaddafi and Assad killing thousands in an attempt to hold onto their ill gotten gains - that is evil. No, I don't think the vast majority of Tories are "evil" - I do think at times, however, that their ideology (which I accept many of them sincerely hold) blinds them to the possible consequences of their actions. And the fact that so many of their leading lights are drawn from such a narrow and unrepresentative strata of society, if anything, exacerbates this.

And back on topic, I don't believe the Tories embraced this boundary reform for "bad" reasons , on the whole. I *do* think that many bought into a convenient myth about the present arrangements giving Labour a "huge in built advantage" as some sort of magic bullet for their electoral woes. And that even after the rather more complex reality became evident, the stubborn refusal to lose face meant Cameron and co would not accept some of the very sensible and reasonable amendments on offer........

Some might think that is a lesson that could be drawn more widely. I could not possibly comment

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 15, 2013 11:17:26 GMT The Bishop said:

Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. Gaddafi and Assad killing thousands in an attempt to hold onto their ill gotten gains - that is evil. No, I don't think the vast majority of Tories are "evil" - I do think at times, however, that their ideology (which I accept many of them sincerely hold) blinds them to the possible consequences of their actions. And the fact that so many of their leading lights are drawn from such a narrow and unrepresentative strata of society, if anything, exacerbates this.

Sometimes it's ideology that blinds people to consequences. Sometimes it's just not thinking it through, because of inexperience, intellectual laziness or not considering it important relative to other issues (although that last one meshes with ideology a little). None of those things is evil, just mistaken. I don't believe that really makes any difference to the policy outcomes it produces.

That said, there is a certain tendency in the party that will view these things as evil, because it takes a Manichaean view. It's just that other parties also have those people, because it's a personality type, not a political viewpoint. Certain Tories will insist that we have more of those people, but whilst that may be true in their area, I spent enough of my Saturday mornings in my youth in a beating van to have a diametrically opposite anecdotal experience.

And then, of course, there are people who are actually motivated by emnity, because they see things as a zero sum gain, and their enemies have to lose for them and their supporters to win. The difficulty is identifying between those people and others with similar policy priorities but who are operating in good faith. I don't believe there's any clear way to distinguish.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 15, 2013 14:55:44 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Certain Tories will insist that we have more of those people, but whilst that may be true in their area, I spent enough of my Saturday mornings in my youth in a beating van to have a diametrically opposite anecdotal experience.

Can you explain what this means? I've read it several times to try and discern some other meaning, but all I can summon up is some image of you being dragged into the back of a van, SPG style, and beaten up by the local Tories. Im sure this can't be what you mean, not least because if such facilities had ever existed then I would surely have been aware of them

[East Anglian Lefty]

Beating is the practice of going through undergrowth making a lot of noise in order to put up pheasants. It's an integral part of a pheasant shoot. The beating van is the van used to transport those beating from one drive to another, as most shoots take place over a reasonably large and relatively dispersed acreage. On the shoot I used to beat at, a fairly large percentage of the attendees were rural farmers. Even prior to the progress towards the hunting ban gaining momentum, several of them weren't willing to accept that a Labour government could ever be legitimate.

[Pete Whitehead]

Oh I see. The beating van of my imagination sounds like a lot more fun

[the_bullies]

I just can't get my head around how the Tories think the other parties are breaking the convention of not opposing the boundary reforms. Having just listened to the self righteous (& pompous) Lord Forsyth blathering about this. Afterall upto 2010 all parties agreed that any modifications to Laws affecting the rules laid down to constituency size & county boundary crossing were done on an all 'party basis'. These rules lasted the test of time & were only modified occasionly without controvery. Along comes Cameron & changes a number of long standing constitutional issues again previously agreed on a cross party basis i.e. fixed term parliaments, the rules concerning 'no confidence motions' & the subsequent forming of governments, election registration etc etc. & Boundary Commission rules that afterall effect different countries within the United Kingdom that have their own Parliaments Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. This has been done without any reference to these administrations. So I'm afraid this has changed the rules on these so called 'conventions' until the old rules are changed back to what they were pre-2010. Then maybe after 2015 & the 'reset or repeal' of these Bills, we can get back to what we used to have, agreement with all parties except the Tories

[john07]

Jan 14, 2013 20:42:50 GMT stepney said:

Oh, piss off. Malapportionment is not the same as not achieving an exactly proportional result. As we know, exactly proportional results lead to hung parliaments where snakes in the grass perpetually hold the balance of power. This is not desirable in a two- or two-and-a-half party system. On the showing of the last three years, crushing of the - treacherous, indecisive, back-stabbing - half is more obviously desirable.

In 2010 the Conservatives managed a 7% lead over Labour and a hung Parliament. In 2005 Labour managed a 3% lead over us and a 66-seat majority. In 2010 Labour, despite not being the largest party, got more seats per vote than us. If we are in the lead fairness dictates it should work the other way round.

If the Lib Dems ever got a bigger % share of the vote than any other party I would be the first to gladly say they should form a Government. Alas this has not happened since 1906.

You are back confusing the issue. There is no serious malapportionment in Westminster other than due to time lapse since the last review.

The figure you cite about a 7% lead resulting in a hung parliament in 2010 is nothing to do with malapportionment. It was due to the concentraction of labour voters in marginal constituencies while the conservatives piled up huge majorities in the suburbs. I thought that everyone on here with a modicum of knowledge about electoral systems agreed with that point.

The situation in 2005 and 2010 was was pretty much the revers of the situation in 1951 when labour piled up the majorities in the mining areas and the conservatives took a lot of the marginals.

The failed proposals seems to involve trying to rig the elections by reducing the number of constituencies as a means of correcting for the natural bias towards labour. The reduction in seats was likely to disrupt isolated labour and lib dem pockets of support in overwhelmingly conservative areas. In the process it would have decoupled the links between constituency boundaries and natural communities, the only real advantage of FPTP.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 15, 2013 21:17:02 GMT the_bullies said:

I just can't get my head around how the Tories think the other parties are breaking the convention of not opposing the boundary reforms. Having just listened to the self righteous (& pompous) Lord Forsyth blathering about this. Afterall upto 2010 all parties agreed that any modifications to Laws affecting the rules laid down to constituency size & county boundary crossing were done on an all 'party basis'. These rules lasted the test of time & were only modified occasionly without controvery. Along comes Cameron & changes a number of long standing constitutional issues again previously agreed on a cross party basis i.e. fixed term parliaments, the rules concerning 'no confidence motions' & the subsequent forming of governments, election registration etc etc. & Boundary Commission rules that afterall effect different countries within the United Kingdom that have their own Parliaments Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. This has been done without any reference to these administrations. So I'm afraid this has changed the rules on these so called 'conventions' until the old rules are changed back to what they were pre-2010. Then maybe after 2015 & the 'reset or repeal' of these Bills, we can get back to what we used to have, agreement with all parties except the Tories

I'm not sure a full repeal is likely. Obviously if it's a Tory majority, the legislation will continue. God knows what we'll get if there's another Con-LD coalition, except that the negotiations likely won't be edifying.

If it's a Labour-LD government, I suspect we'll see the maintenance of national quotas, but no reduction in seats, both because surviving Lib Dems will have had a reminder of the importance of incumbency and because Labour aren't going to vote for something that disproportionately affects them. I'd imagine reviews would be less frequents than every parliament, but more frequent than now. I've no idea what the acceptable population deviation would be.

A majority Labour government offers the greatest likelihoog of wholesale repeal, but even there it's not certain. A straight repeal would look incredibly self-interested, which might not be the best trap to fall into at the start of our administration. And it's notable that few of the Labour arguments against the bill focused on equalisation, for the simple reason that reduced variance in seat size would be a good thing. It's sometimes suggested that economically deprived seats should be smaller as their populace are more likely to be ignored and because they throw up more casework, but I can't see any formula that would reflect that that would be anything than a grotesque partisan gerrymander.

I think a Labour leadership wanting to show reforming instincts would keep several bits of the bill, most notably the quota. I'm pretty sure we'd repeal the unpopular bits (crossing county boundaries, strict adherence to the 5% limit regardless of its impact on seat sanity) and we might want the older system of reviews back, with testimony taken before the initial recommendations are drawn up. I'm almost certain we'd still allow Wales to be over-represented, because it's less important for the leadership to advance an intellectually defensible position than to keep rebellious Valleys backbenchers on side, but we might minimise the extent of that a bit. And we'd definitely want less frequent reviews, because it again would be popular with backbenchers.

But arguing against equalisation of population? It's not a winner for us.

[the_bullies]

I think the equalisation of numbers issue clouds an issue of greater importance, the fabric that binds the UK together, the unwritten Constitution. Not even a Unionist like me in Welsh Labour would allow a situation where a much larger country, governed by a party which is alien to to much of Wales is permanently dominated by it. The same situation is happening in Scotland where values are so different it forced the rise of the SNP. Smaller countries in the Uk were given over-representation originally to 'punch above their weight' in parliament to avoid being 'squashed' by English parties. The federal system being developed now in the UK is part of this devolved goverment. At the moment the Tories are the best friend of the Nationlists & are feeding separation by their actions they have ceased to be the party of the unionists. this is why this legislation I beleive will be repealed & control of boundaries in Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland passed to the devolved Assemblies to avoid any further Tory gerrymandering.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Wales may punch above its weight at the moment, but it still only has 40 seats. It is simply mathematically and topographically impossible for it not to be dominated by England, unless you start reducing its seats to the size of a council ward. I've got no objection to slightly over-representing Wales to enhance its voice, but it's never going to be able to overrule a united England. See also, reasons why federalism can't work in a British context.

[the_bullies]

To reduce the number of Welsh seats by a quarter is unacceptable to the people of Wales & would force the Welsh people to seek greater independence & separation of powers to the Assembly. To Unionists like myself this is an anathema & simply mistaken. There is no way a reduction of seats from 40 to 30 should happen fullstop as it does not respect the geography & makeup of long established communities & valleys & reduces the influence of Westminster of the lives of the Welsh people.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Yes, but a reduction to 30 seats would only happen if there were to be a seat reduction, which Labour is not going to consent to. A reduction of seats on the grounds that the Assembly has received additional powers wouldn't be unreasonable, particularly if it allowed a wider variance in seat population to avoid mangling up the valleys. It might not be popular in Wales, but it wouldn't be unreasonable.

I'd suggest that the appropriate ratio of people to seats would be that currently in existence in Scotland, which would produce 34-35 seats.

[cibwr]

I actually have no problem with an equalistion in the size of constituencies between England and Wales, even if it means a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs (Ideally I'd like zero Welsh MPs at Westminster :-) ).

What was stupid was to make the rules so rigid that community ties were ignored. Historic nations like Cornwall - which has one of the most ancient boundaries in Europe had their wishes ignored and a Devonwall constituency created. So I am pleased that the proposition now seems still born.


Given the disparity between Wales and England it is inevitable that Wales' interests will be largely ignored. This is why I want an independent Wales. Within the union Wales' interests are better served by strengthening the National Assembly, moving to a reserved powers model of devolution rather than the conferred powers model as at present, the devolution of the administration of justice, police, most of criminal and civil law, the creation of a Welsh legal jurisdiction and enlarging the Assembly to enable there to be enough members to staff the committees to keep the executive in check (a reform of the electoral system - moving to stv would be good too).

[No Offence Alan]

Jan 15, 2013 22:15:13 GMT the_bullies said:

... Not even a Unionist like me in Welsh Labour would allow a situation where a much larger country, governed by a party which is alien to to much of Wales is permanently dominated by it. ...

Then you need to construct a constitutional arrangement between Wales and England that means what happens in Wales is as independent as possible of who governs England (and by implication the whole UK) at any one particular time. And that would involve minimising, as far as practical, cross-border flows of public finance.