Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 14:23:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 4, 2014 16:28:40 GMT
Those two statements are not necessarily contradictory. doktorb is correct in saying that the Lib Dems have too many MPs; David Boothroyd (with typical lefty arrogance) thinks (honestly, albeit incorrectly) that the Labour Party doesn't have too many MPs. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 4, 2014 16:30:27 GMT
I would stick with the zombie review rules. We have too many MPs, and the review helped towards a more suitable and cost effective number It would be easy enough to adjust the old rules to increase the quota for each review and prevent the total number of constituencies being ratcheted up. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,862 
|
Post by Crimson King on Jul 4, 2014 16:53:47 GMT
My reading of the report is that they show that the thing which would have most reduced the need to cross boundaries with constituencies was quite a small increase in the tolerance allowed for constituency size, and that a small amount of ward splitting would have mopped up the rest.
the problems were not caused by the change in numbers of MPs so whether 600 or 650 (or some over number) is the right size is a separate issue.
As a matter of interest how many MPs would there be if numbers in England were unchanged but the other nations were at the same quota?
|
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jul 4, 2014 17:18:56 GMT
The government's declared aim in changing the rules at this boundary review was to change the outcome in terms of seats, even when no change in votes occurred. That is the definition of gerrymandering and I'm sorry you're too blinkered to see it. The objective of the review to make constituencies of a more equal size, to which I can't see any downside. That is unless you are from a party with an inbuilt advantage as you do better in the smaller constituencies & having to invent factious reasons to defend the indefensible. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2014 17:20:05 GMT
Those two statements are not necessarily contradictory. doktorb is correct in saying that the Lib Dems have too many MPs; David Boothroyd (with typical lefty arrogance) thinks (honestly, albeit incorrectly) that the Labour Party doesn't have too many MPs. No, I'm not saying that (at the moment at least). Reducing the number of MPs is an anti-democratic move. It means less scrutiny of the executive and lower levels of representation of the people. The only circumstance in which it would be acceptable is if there were proper regional devolution within England. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 4, 2014 17:22:20 GMT
The government's declared aim in changing the rules at this boundary review was to change the outcome in terms of seats, even when no change in votes occurred. That is the definition of gerrymandering and I'm sorry you're too blinkered to see it. The objective of the review to make constituencies of a more equal size, to which I can't see any downside. The downside is that constituencies are not mere arbitrary collections of approximately the same number of electors, but natural communities - the interests of which a single person can represent. It is far more important that constituencies are logical communities than that they are of equal electorates. |
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jul 5, 2014 4:35:08 GMT
The objective of the review to make constituencies of a more equal size, to which I can't see any downside. The downside is that constituencies are not mere arbitrary collections of approximately the same number of electors, but natural communities - the interests of which a single person can represent. It is far more important that constituencies are logical communities than that they are of equal electorates. Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger Secondly, we've already got very mixed constituencies, my home constituency which has amongst it a mixture of rural villages, very mixed race town centre, 1950s social housing built for London overspill & large 1980s expansion (et al), according to your argument these areas, which have very little in common, would have separate MPs. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jul 5, 2014 7:35:56 GMT
I would suggest:
- A UK-wide quota based on a fixed target size for the Commons. I don't have very strong opinions on whether this target size should be close to the current one or smaller (say 600) but I do have sympathy with the idea that if it's the latter the size of the payroll vote should also be reduced.
- Retain the 5% limit in general, but allow up to 10% where this allows a crossing of ceremonial county boundaries to be avoided. This would mean no need for "Devonwall".
- Allow split wards where this allows other major criteria (such as local government boundaries and community ties) to be better taken account of. In principle the legislation already allows for this, as seen in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but something ought to be done to make the English Commission do it too. This would have allowed for reasonably sensible boundaries in places like Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and north Cheshire even with the 5% rule. There should also be some flexibility where wards are being re-drawn; one of the absurdities of the failed review was that the contortions in north Cheshire were based on not splitting wards which had already been abolished for all other purposes.
- The Commissions should invite initial submissions before producing their provisional recommendations, as happens for local government reviews. Some of the ideas in the provisional recommendations last time should never have seen the light of day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 5, 2014 9:30:49 GMT
The downside is that constituencies are not mere arbitrary collections of approximately the same number of electors, but natural communities - the interests of which a single person can represent. It is far more important that constituencies are logical communities than that they are of equal electorates. Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger In general, voters are quite dissatisfied if they find themselves placed in a constituency that does not reflect local ties. Look at the Devonwall example: north Cornwall and north Devon are not so very different, but people there (especially in Cornwall) do not regard themselves as part of the same community. They are prepared to put up with being in a larger constituency so long as the boundaries fit with local ties. Look also at the Isle of Wight. There has been no outcry from the Isle of Wight that their constituency is too large, and no demand for equal representation. What there has been is a fierce opposition to any constituency containing parts of the Isle of Wight and parts of mainland England. There has also been opposition to putting two small constituencies on the Isle of Wight, on the grounds that there was no logical and consistent way to divide the Island into two. The Isle of Wight is perfectly happy to have effective underrepresentation; they are not happy to have an illogical constituency forced on them. Two points in response to that. 1) Constituencies should be communities of interest but that doesn't mean homogenous areas. The easiest constituencies to do are places like Worcester, where a single town neatly contains the right number of people, but even there there is a very diverse area. St Johns is not very like Broomhall, but they are right next to each other on the map. 2) Sometimes the Boundary Commission has recommended ludicrous constituencies. Unfortunately since the 1950s there is no way to override them by agreement among all the elected representatives of the area. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 5, 2014 11:42:50 GMT
The downside is that constituencies are not mere arbitrary collections of approximately the same number of electors, but natural communities - the interests of which a single person can represent. It is far more important that constituencies are logical communities than that they are of equal electorates. Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger If that's the case, why are we bothering with 5% tolerance? Why not go to the American system and require exact equality of electorate? The answer, of course, is that we accept that constituencies should be of relatively equal sizes, but also that they should represent identifiable areas. The problem with the 6th Review was that it attached too much importance to one criterion at the expense of the others. In general, I think 5% tolerance is a good idea, with the proviso that it should probably relate to the estimated electorate in five years time, as with local government reviews. But there should be the option to go outside it where it allows more natural seats to be drawn. There should also be guidance that the aim should be to make the variance as low as possible, because this time round the BCE didn't care provided they were within 5%. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 5, 2014 15:44:33 GMT
I think the problem was that many of the supporters of the 5% threshold assumed that the boundary commission would split wards rather than produce absurd seats. What they should have done was made clear in the legislation that producing seats with reasonable community ties was of greater importance than not splitting wards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 10:53:22 GMT
By way of a frivolous update to this thread, here's a map of Lancashire which appears to have been almost completely obliterated from the internet. For whatever reason.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 10:57:29 GMT
(Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Blackpool South, Wyre and Preston North, Preston South, Lancaster and Morecambe, Valleys of Ribble and Lune, Pendle and Clitheroe, and Blackburn.)
|
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jul 8, 2014 6:13:06 GMT
Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger In general, voters are quite dissatisfied if they find themselves placed in a constituency that does not reflect local ties. Look at the Devonwall example: north Cornwall and north Devon are not so very different, but people there (especially in Cornwall) do not regard themselves as part of the same community. They are prepared to put up with being in a larger constituency so long as the boundaries fit with local ties. Look also at the Isle of Wight. There has been no outcry from the Isle of Wight that their constituency is too large, and no demand for equal representation. What there has been is a fierce opposition to any constituency containing parts of the Isle of Wight and parts of mainland England. There has also been opposition to putting two small constituencies on the Isle of Wight, on the grounds that there was no logical and consistent way to divide the Island into two. The Isle of Wight is perfectly happy to have effective underrepresentation; they are not happy to have an illogical constituency forced on them. The islands issue was covered in the Act, Shetlands &c would have been an even harder issue, but the IoW did do 2 fairly close constituencies. Since 1997 I have a completely illogical constituency forced upon me - it happens now, the old Swindon constituency was more logical as it was closer to the Swindon boundary (town not borough), but some could have been transferred to be in a constituency with the parishes outside the town Point 2 agree, we had this in the latest LGBCE review of Swindon, no one was happy 1, they don't now, so what's the difference?, I don't know Broomhall at all, but thik I understand your point. But I highly suspect it's much more homogeneous & closer links than the small village of Liddington has to the Brunel built Railway Village in the town centre |
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jul 8, 2014 6:17:08 GMT
Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger If that's the case, why are we bothering with 5% tolerance? Why not go to the American system and require exact equality of electorate? The answer, of course, is that we accept that constituencies should be of relatively equal sizes, but also that they should represent identifiable areas. The problem with the 6th Review was that it attached too much importance to one criterion at the expense of the others. In general, I think 5% tolerance is a good idea, with the proviso that it should probably relate to the estimated electorate in five years time, as with local government reviews. But there should be the option to go outside it where it allows more natural seats to be drawn. There should also be guidance that the aim should be to make the variance as low as possible, because this time round the BCE didn't care provided they were within 5%. Why 5%, well, unless we want to go down the US route of really weird shaped constituencies, we need as small as limit as feasible I would disagree on not splitting wards, I would go to polling districts, but keep this to a minimum, as some urban wards are so large it becomes tricky As for using future electorate, we need to bring this into line with local government either way, but prefer this of the 2 options |
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jul 8, 2014 6:20:40 GMT
Why? Firstly,I would be very unhappy if my vote in South Swindon was worth, effectively less, than one in either rural Wiltshire or Westminster as my constituency is much larger If that's the case, why are we bothering with 5% tolerance? Why not go to the American system and require exact equality of electorate? The answer, of course, is that we accept that constituencies should be of relatively equal sizes, but also that they should represent identifiable areas. The problem with the 6th Review was that it attached too much importance to one criterion at the expense of the others. In general, I think 5% tolerance is a good idea, with the proviso that it should probably relate to the estimated electorate in five years time, as with local government reviews. But there should be the option to go outside it where it allows more natural seats to be drawn. There should also be guidance that the aim should be to make the variance as low as possible, because this time round the BCE didn't care provided they were within 5%. Why 5%, well, unless we want to go down the US route of really weird shaped constituencies, we need as small as limit as feasible I would disagree on not splitting wards, I would go to polling districts, but keep this to a minimum, as some urban wards are so large it becomes tricky As for using future electorate, we need to bring this into line with local government either way, but prefer this of the 2 options |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Aug 14, 2014 18:16:31 GMT
The Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has requested written submissions for their forthcoming inquiry What next on the redrawing of Parliamentary boundaries? Terms of reference
The Committee welcomes written evidence on any or all of the following questions:
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of setting constituency boundaries within 5% of the "electoral quota"?
a) Should a higher or lower tolerance be considered?
2. What are the other considerations the Boundary Commissions should give greatest weight to in drawing constituency boundaries?
3. Should the Boundary Commissions be more open to the possibility of splitting wards when considering boundaries for parliamentary constituencies?
4. Should the recommendations of the Boundary Commission be subject to approval by Parliament, as is the case at present?
5. How accurately does using the registered electorate as the basis for redrawing boundaries reflect the actual population of proposed constituencies?
6. What implications could the implementation of Individual Electoral Registration have for the next—and future—boundary reviews?
7. What are the consequences, including to electoral fairness, of not implementing changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries ahead of the 2015 general election?
8. Is there a case for reconsidering the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600?
a) Should the Boundary Commissions be asked to draw up proposals for new boundaries based on the current number of MPs?The deadline for written submissions is 29 August. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 11:52:22 GMT
"Submissions should not significantly exceed 3,000 words"
Oh dear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 11:57:07 GMT
"Submissions should not significantly exceed 3,000 words" Oh dear. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands if you have written more than that. |
|
