2013 review final consultation

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 0:48:11 GMT Richard Allen said:

Jan 29, 2013 19:59:41 GMT cogload said:

Some conservative backbenchers are really really stupid. And I mean stupid. Despite several warnings, despite being told that the laws of physics apply to politics as well in terms of opposite reactions twitter is ablaze with toy throwing and tantrums.

How did some of them get elected?

Quite so. Anyone stupid enough to trust the Lib Dems to stick to a deal (Boundary changes were linked to an AV referendum, not Lords reform) does not deserve to be elected.

For the record I supported the principle of equalising electorates but thought that the 10% tolerance was too tight unless the Boundary Commission were willing to split wards. The proposals for Birmingham were an abomination and I am glad they will not be implemented.

My memory must be going as I was under the impression that boundary changes were part of the overall package of constitutional change including Lords reform.

Upon checking the Coalition agreement:

We will bring forward a Referendum Bill on
electoral reform, which includes provision for
the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the
event of a positive result in the referendum,
as well as for the creation of fewer and more
equal sized constituencies. We will whip
both Parliamentary parties in both Houses
to support a simple majority referendum on
the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to
the positions parties will take during such a
referendum.

Hmm. Not brilliantly drafted is it?

[greatkingrat]

Jan 30, 2013 2:26:18 GMT john07 said:

Jan 29, 2013 17:52:00 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Four Tory rebels: David Davis (because the payroll vote wouldn't be descreasing),

Once more David Davis(unlike his near namesake David Davies) has come out as a man of principle. That was my main objection to the reduction in the size of the commons.

If only there were a few more like him on the Tory (and other) benches.

I would be more impressed with David Davis' principles if he had voted against the bill in the first place, rather than waiting to see what would happen to his seat before voting against.

You should be congratulating Philip Davies or Richard Shepherd who have at least been consistent in their opposition to the bill.

[Deleted]

I would argue in the later case any way you game played the boundaries his seat would have been torn up and he would have to deal with some poor people.....

Is that a principle ??

[Andrew_S]

Jan 30, 2013 10:01:36 GMT @boogieeck said:

note, until then, I had not posted. Because, in a very real an meaningful sense, I did not give a flying fornication. I am awfully interested in government and have to feign an interest in politics. I am not a party hack. I can spot bullshit at 250 feet. So.

Lets start with the most contemptible bit. The proposal to reduce the number of MPs to the arbitrary figure of 500. A measure designed to appeal to the sort of voter who should not be allowed to vote by reason of stupidity and probably doesn't anyway. Convenient irrelevant round number but sold as a cost cutting measure to pander to the anti politician zeitgeist promoted by vile tabloids in reaction to the vile snake oil era of Blair, bought by muppets who are stupid enough to think that the solution to a government squandering a £trn is to shave the cost and effectiveness of democracy by a piddling £100m. Echoed up and down the land by sound bite councillors taking salary freezes to appeal to the most stupid voters. Bollocks from *****.

Moving on. A fairly rubbish proposal, all sorts of faults at local levels. Supported by my Lib Dem colleagues until their squalid little compromise got deservedly humped, then they got stroppy over a really crap reform proposal for the upper house. On-going support from the Conservative party for purely opportunistic reasons, opposed by Labour for purely opportunistic reasons, ditto SNP regardless of their lies, votes for sale from the Irish, but no buyers.

Do you think intelligent voters care? Or do you think they see a bunch of whining, gurning, morons onanising themselves?

So you were against the proposed boundary changes?

[erlend]

The foundation may have been agreed by Parlament. That does not make the consequences of the 5% limit sensible. For that matter the BCE resistance to splitting wards was not logical. For example Cheshire would have worked a lot more logically splitting.

[The Bishop]

I note in passing that all three Tory MPs in Cornwall stayed loyal - and thus implicitly endorsed the "Devonwall" mostrosity. That might just get a wee mention in their opponents leaflets come the GE.

[Deleted]

Newton had laid claim to the proposed Truro and St.Austell seat last year.

[Arthur Figgis]

Jan 30, 2013 11:30:06 GMT erlend said:

The foundation may have been agreed by Parlament. That does not make the consequences of the 5% limit sensible. For that matter the BCE resistance to splitting wards was not logical. For example Cheshire would have worked a lot more logically splitting.

The solution is to have a full local government boundary review first. All single member wards, naturally.

I'm looking forward to the map of Birmingham's boundaries. ;D

[Richard Allen]

Jan 30, 2013 11:30:06 GMT erlend said:

The foundation may have been agreed by Parlament. That does not make the consequences of the 5% limit sensible. For that matter the BCE resistance to splitting wards was not logical. For example Cheshire would have worked a lot more logically splitting.

Personally I thought that the act should have specifically encouraged ward splitting where necessary in order to create sensible seats. Once you impose a fairly tight limit on the electoral variance you obviously need more flexibility with drawing boundaries if you wish to retain broadly sensible seats.

[Deleted]

indeed Richard and I think if they had done that then a lot of the resistance would have disappeared.

[Andrew_S]

It was such an odd decision not split wards that it almost makes you wonder whether there was a deliberate attempt to ensure the whole process came to nothing. But since I don't believe in conspiracies it was probably more of a cockup.

[The Bishop]

Though it can equally be argued that with just a small amount of flexibility added to the 5% rule, ward splitting wouldn't have been needed anyway......

Labour proposed that, the Tories rejected it.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 13:41:48 GMT The Bishop said:

Though it can equally be argued that with just a small amount of flexibility added to the 5% rule, ward splitting wouldn't have been needed anyway......

Labour proposed that, the Tories rejected it.

add to this once we had the law the Labour Party were very vehement against ward splitting, I do ask now, why that is the case.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 16:51:02 GMT @ianrobo said:

Jan 30, 2013 13:41:48 GMT The Bishop said:

Though it can equally be argued that with just a small amount of flexibility added to the 5% rule, ward splitting wouldn't have been needed anyway......

Labour proposed that, the Tories rejected it.

add to this once we had the law the Labour Party were very vehement against ward splitting, I do ask now, why that is the case.

I'd like to know why the Labour Party went into Yorkshire & The Humber (amongst others) without a single scrap of ideas of their own

I mean, whilst we all know that the "not even a notepad amongst them" device worked well during coalition discussions, it wasn't expected to have been the way in which you approached the boundary change proposals.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 16:51:02 GMT @ianrobo said:

Jan 30, 2013 13:41:48 GMT The Bishop said:

Though it can equally be argued that with just a small amount of flexibility added to the 5% rule, ward splitting wouldn't have been needed anyway......

Labour proposed that, the Tories rejected it.

add to this once we had the law the Labour Party were very vehement against ward splitting, I do ask now, why that is the case.

A big mistake or some kind of high princip[le taken yto extremes? It would be good to be told. we missed a big chance in Yorkshire and allowed ourselves to be walked over. Thankfully this s not going through!

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 30, 2013 17:30:30 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jan 30, 2013 16:51:02 GMT @ianrobo said:

add to this once we had the law the Labour Party were very vehement against ward splitting, I do ask now, why that is the case.

I'd like to know why the Labour Party went into Yorkshire & The Humber (amongst others) without a single scrap of ideas of their own

I mean, whilst we all know that the "not even a notepad amongst them" device worked well during coalition discussions, it wasn't expected to have been the way in which you approached the boundary change proposals.

The regional meetings to establish consensus were organised at short notice, and I think in some regions may have been conducted almost entirely by phone. Yorkshire & Humber is an area with large wards, a number of distinct sub-regional units with long-standing rivalries, quite a lot of seats that required major changes and more than a few incumbents with conflicting desires.

It's not hard to see why a process like that wouldn't reach immediate agreement on a unified plan, nor why regional office didn't want to railroad a unified plan through over local opposition. It wasn't a particularly clever strategy, but given our general disorganisation over how to deal with the boundary review once it passed, it's not unsurprising.

Regarding the 5% rule, I seem to remember it being noted that had seats been assigned by d'Hondt rather than St-Lague (or vice versa, I forget) the North West would have had 69 seats, and I think Tricky suggested that would have allowed much more logical seats in Cheshire. Given that the electorate figures had been available for months before the review began, it's a little surprising nobody on the government benches took note of this and made the appropriate modifications. It's extremely surprising they didn't just alter the bill to let them use the new wards in Cheshire.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2013 17:47:29 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jan 30, 2013 17:30:30 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

I'd like to know why the Labour Party went into Yorkshire & The Humber (amongst others) without a single scrap of ideas of their own

I mean, whilst we all know that the "not even a notepad amongst them" device worked well during coalition discussions, it wasn't expected to have been the way in which you approached the boundary change proposals.

The regional meetings to establish consensus were organised at short notice, and I think in some regions may have been conducted almost entirely by phone. Yorkshire & Humber is an area with large wards, a number of distinct sub-regional units with long-standing rivalries, quite a lot of seats that required major changes and more than a few incumbents with conflicting desires.

It's not hard to see why a process like that wouldn't reach immediate agreement on a unified plan, nor why regional office didn't want to railroad a unified plan through over local opposition. It wasn't a particularly clever strategy, but given our general disorganisation over how to deal with the boundary review once it passed, it's not unsurprising.
Regarding the 5% rule, I seem to remember it being noted that had seats been assigned by d'Hondt rather than St-Lague (or vice versa, I forget) the North West would have had 69 seats, and I think Tricky suggested that would have allowed much more logical seats in Cheshire. Given that the electorate figures had been available for months before the review began, it's a little surprising nobody on the government benches took note of this and made the appropriate modifications. It's extremely surprising they didn't just alter the bill to let them use the new wards in Cheshire.

All the same the Tories and DumbLibs managed a position It's not really acceptable we couldnt never mind rivalries and personalities.

[greatkingrat]

Jan 30, 2013 17:47:29 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Regarding the 5% rule, I seem to remember it being noted that had seats been assigned by d'Hondt rather than St-Lague (or vice versa, I forget) the North West would have had 69 seats, and I think Tricky suggested that would have allowed much more logical seats in Cheshire. Given that the electorate figures had been available for months before the review began, it's a little surprising nobody on the government benches took note of this and made the appropriate modifications. It's extremely surprising they didn't just alter the bill to let them use the new wards in Cheshire.

If d'Hondt was used then London and the North West would gain a seat each at the expense of Wales and Northern Ireland which probably creates more problems than it solves. I do agree that the BCE should have had the discretion to use the new wards where available.

[tricky]

I understand that the reason the English Commission were so opposed to ward splitting (after earlier indicating in guidance that it would be ok although discouraged) is because they went for cheaper software than the BCS and the BCW.


The Labour Party tried too hard to be consensual on this and came dramatically unstuck, for once we were a bit more sensible and went for a rather more dictatorial process (as Dok first discovered to his cost and then discovered that I am a very benevolent despot).

[East Anglian Lefty]

Isn't that partly due to the relative number of seats? The South West and Scotland are the only regions where you have large numbers of Lib Dem seats bordering each other, and even those are only in small parts of the regions. Outside of those areas your MPs are clearly separated from one another and defending one is unlikely to endanger another.

Similarly, Labour had very few problems in southern England, because we're down to a few core urban seats and almost all our targets are based upon urban areas where the best configuration for us is obvious. But where we had vast numbers of MPs in close proximity to one another and some of them were bound to lose out, it would be very hard to be dictatorial.

Indeed, when North West Labour tried it, they got Birkenhead CLP briefing against them to the press. That was mostly Frank Field being his usual charming self. Imagine what it would have been like if it was actually hanging MPs out to dry. It doesn't matter how dictatorial you are, those ructions couldn't be kept in the quiet.