carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,573
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 4, 2020 8:05:28 GMT
Withdrawn after debate, however.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 4, 2020 13:08:28 GMT
Withdrawn after debate, however. I don't think it would have served its stated purpose, anyways. The problem is that creating an under, ahem, sized seat under the rule forces the average population of the remaining Scottish seats upwards without changing the target corridor, not the acreage minimum.
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,573
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 9, 2020 9:11:45 GMT
No date set yet for the Report Stage, but a couple of (fairly predictable) amendments have been tabled by Keir Starmer: one to allow the Boundary Commission, where necessary, to use a 7.5% tolerance, and one to maintain parliamentary oversight of the process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 9:33:31 GMT
No date set yet for the Report Stage, but a couple of (fairly predictable) amendments have been tabled by Keir Starmer: one to allow the Boundary Commission, where necessary, to use a 7.5% tolerance, and one to maintain parliamentary oversight of the process. Phrased slightly differently than previously attempted amendments for changing the quota
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,053
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 9, 2020 12:17:41 GMT
Remaining Commons stages are scheduled for Tuesday 14 July (per the Leader of the House’s statement this morning).
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 9, 2020 16:31:09 GMT
Wales (32 constituencies)I shall be posting Google Earth maps of the constituencies over the next few weeks with names subject to change (and feedback on names appreciated). If only someone could create a dedicated website that allowed you to create constituency maps ... To be fair, although Plan Builder is an awesome tool, it's not necessarily the best way of presenting one's preferred plan to others. Using Google Maps has a few advantages: one is that you can show the actual boundaries in places that you've split wards; another is that it's interactive in a way that a screenshot from PB isn't; and another is that you can annotate the seats with information. Example: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1uqlgR6_V01Q023524AzUZWA2EijxAoSK
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,053
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 9, 2020 18:01:38 GMT
Introduce electronic voting into the chamber, and give the IOW MP 1.6 votes, and fractional votes for Ynys Mon, the Scottish Islands, and Hazel Grove. Hazel Grove? has there been a major shift of the tectonic plates that I missed? I just don’t like Hazel Grove, and I would like to disenfranchise its people slightly as punishment.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 9, 2020 18:10:13 GMT
Hazel Grove? has there been a major shift of the tectonic plates that I missed? I just don’t like Hazel Grove, and I would like to disenfranchise its people slightly as punishment.
"A Slight Disenfranchisement" by Lord Wisconsin
I don't like the Grovers They Slighted me once Don't want to pay nowt Want everything bunce
As their lord and master I rule them by rote And now i've decided to
withdraw their vote
But only just slightly I aim to be fair The Lord's the almighty We're all in his care
They can go to the poll once they've worked at the foundry
And then I'll come along And re-draw their boundary
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,573
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 14, 2020 10:06:12 GMT
No date set yet for the Report Stage, but a couple of (fairly predictable) amendments have been tabled by Keir Starmer: one to allow the Boundary Commission, where necessary, to use a 7.5% tolerance, and one to maintain parliamentary oversight of the process. This is today, and there appear to be only two further amendments put forward. One from the SNP & Plaid seeking to fix a minimum numebr of seats in Scotland (59) and Wales (40), and one from the Lib Dems/APNI/Greens, seeking to change the definition of 'electorate' to be based on estimates of eligible voters, rather than just number on the electoral roll.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 14, 2020 12:16:15 GMT
The first one is clearly a non starter as far as Wales in concerned (apart from Plaid, all other parties agree their historic over-representation should now end)
The second could quite possibly get Labour support I would have thought?
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,053
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 14, 2020 14:57:37 GMT
Chris Clarkson’s (Con - Heywood and Middleton) contribution at 15:47:05 might quite useful for ammunition for arguing the BCE should split wards more often. It’s clear in his mind that the bill he’s voting on today poses no bar to ward splitting.
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,053
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 14, 2020 15:26:52 GMT
Clive Efford (Lab - Eltham) contribution from 16:21:25 is also good stuff on why the BCE are wrong about ward splitting.
Similarly, Maria Miller at 16:40:38.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,752
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 14, 2020 15:55:46 GMT
Chris Clarkson’s (Con - Heywood and Middleton) contribution at 15:47:05 might quite useful for ammunition for arguing the BCE should split wards more often. It’s clear in his mind that the bill he’s voting on today poses no bar to ward splitting. It was obvious from when the legislation was first going through parliament that it was the intention and expectation of MPs that wards would be split in cases where necessary or reasonable, and that the BCE was wrong when it decided to restrain itself from splitting wards except in exceptional circumstances.
|
|
Wisconsin
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,053
Member is Online
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 14, 2020 16:31:55 GMT
Chris Clarkson’s (Con - Heywood and Middleton) contribution at 15:47:05 might quite useful for ammunition for arguing the BCE should split wards more often. It’s clear in his mind that the bill he’s voting on today poses no bar to ward splitting. It was obvious from when the legislation was first going through parliament that it was the intention and expectation of MPs that wards would be split in cases where necessary or reasonable, and that the BCE was wrong when it decided to restrain itself from splitting wards except in exceptional circumstances. Sadly this obvious point wasn’t explicitly reflected in the bill - and if the commission doesn’t change its ways, then these parliamentary interventions, and excerpts from the committee, should be cited in submissions.
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,573
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 14, 2020 17:47:50 GMT
As expected, none of the amendments have come anywhere near passing. Unless we expect the Lords to try and put anything further in, then 5% it is.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 14, 2020 17:57:35 GMT
No date set yet for the Report Stage, but a couple of (fairly predictable) amendments have been tabled by Keir Starmer: one to allow the Boundary Commission, where necessary, to use a 7.5% tolerance, and one to maintain parliamentary oversight of the process. Phrased slightly differently than previously attempted amendments for changing the quota What an idiot. The only thing one creates by giving discretion is room for judicial review, as we have seen with the unworkable Northern Ireland clause. I know that Sir Keir has made a career out of bad decisions that have lined his rich lawyer friends' pockets, but this is rubbish even for him.
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,573
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 16, 2020 14:04:14 GMT
Second reading in the Lords scheduled for 28/07.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2020 17:47:19 GMT
It was obvious from when the legislation was first going through parliament that it was the intention and expectation of MPs that wards would be split in cases where necessary or reasonable, and that the BCE was wrong when it decided to restrain itself from splitting wards except in exceptional circumstances. Sadly this obvious point wasn’t explicitly reflected in the bill - and if the commission doesn’t change its ways, then these parliamentary interventions, and excerpts from the committee, should be cited in submissions. Based on the work done in another thread, effectively undertaking a detailed dummy run using the Dec 2019 electorates and ward boundaries, I'm beginning to wonder how significant an issue ward splits will actually turn out to be.
After all, we've been through the whole of England and we've established that it's possible to draw up 542 seats, all within the magic 5%, with no car crashes and not a single ward split. This strongly suggests (but doesn't prove, of course) that the same outcome will be possible when we see the March 2020 numbers and (where applicable) the new wards.
It's true, of course, that some of the seats are less than perfect, but the same is true of every plan including those at previous reviews when the 5% rule did not apply, and including plans in Scotland where the BCS split wards with gay abandon and still contrived to draw seats that had little internal connectivity or that divided towns that were easily small enough to fit within a single seat (in the 2018 review Motherwell and Stirling suffered particularly).
I'd argue that, despite the 5% limit and the avoidance of ward splits, the overall standard of the non-split seats drawn on the Dec 2019 thread is no worse - indeed, on the whole, is rather better - than the outcome of earlier reviews by Boundary Commissions that were not subject to such strict constraints.
So, given that (relative) equality of electorates is surely a good thing, and that ward-splitting is not desirable in itself, if you can produce a cogent and reasonable plan within the 5% limit and without splits, what is the case for relaxing these constraints?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 16, 2020 18:33:21 GMT
After all, we've been through the whole of England and we've established that it's possible to draw up 542 seats, all within the magic 5%, with no car crashes and not a single ward split. This strongly suggests (but doesn't prove, of course) that the same outcome will be possible when we see the March 2020 numbers and (where applicable) the new wards. We have established no such thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2020 18:39:33 GMT
We've definitely seen that some parts of the country - Yorkshire, Gtr Manchester — could do with flexibility beyond 5%.
|
|