Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 29, 2020 12:25:36 GMT
I have managed to get a 32 seat Wales and will pan it out between now and Sunday evening (General Election 1997 permitting of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 29, 2020 13:22:15 GMT
It would essentially amount to an amendment of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill even if it was not explicitly such, since both bills call for 650 seats and amend the same Act. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 29, 2020 14:15:49 GMT
No. It would effectively be a usurpation of the Government bill. They both amend the 1986 Act, but in inconsistent ways. If, magically, the Bone bill received Royal Assent tomorrow, the text of the Government bill would be unaffected - but it would refer to pieces of legal text that no longer existed. Presumably Bone will instead park his bill, and instead put forward actual amendments to the Government bill to try to get his 7.5% and Northern Ireland wishes. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 29, 2020 18:46:17 GMT
As I have problems with pictures I shall have to describe these constituencies using the ward names (and hope that someone else can draw up the maps)
(All electorate figures from December 2015)
If names do not make much sense it is because my geographical knowledge of places outside Mid Wales is quite frankly terrible, therefore feel free to suggest suitable names.
Amman Valley (Electorate: 66,628)
Comprises:
Cwm-twrch 1486
, Ystradgynlais 1980
, Aber-craf 1110
and Ynyscedwyn 1686
from Brecon and Radnorshire (9%)
Betws 1730
, Glanamman 1720
, Garnant 1486
and Quarter Bach 2108
from Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (11%)
Gowerton 3862
, Kingsbridge 3299
, Gorseinon 3228
, Penllergaer 2466
, Pontardulais 4616
, Mawr 1305
and Llangyfelach 3803
from Gower (34%)
Pontardawe 3936
, Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen 2171
, Lower Brynamman 1014
, Cwmllynfell 894
, Ystalyfera 2065
, Godre'r graig 1452
and Rhos 1940
from Neath (20%)
Penderry 7146 from Swansea East (11%)
Cockett 10125 from Swansea West (15%)
Notional Calculation: Lab marginal (Lab 16047, Con 14428)
Bethesda and the Conwy Coast (Electorate: 66,495)
Comprises:
Penrhyn 3784
, Pensarn 2075
, Marl 3500
, Craig-y-Don 2801
, Deganwy 3235
, Tudno 3606
, Mostyn 2751
, Gogarth 2829
, Capelulo 1179
, Conwy 3227
, Pant-yr-afon/Penmaenan 2119
, Pandy 1433
, Llansanffraid 1807
, Caerhun 1609
, Eglwysbach 1195
, Trefriw 1022
, Gower 887
, Crwst 1583
, Betws-y-Coed 932
, Uwch Conwy 1230
and Bryn 1349
from Aberconwy (66%)
Arllechwedd 971
from Arfon (1%)
Llandrillo yn Rhos 6032
, Mochdre 1458
, Rhiw 4909
, Glyn 2935
, Eirias 2749
and Colwyn 3288
from Clwyd West (32%)
Notional Calculation: Con safe seat (Con 16267, Lab 12824)
To be continued
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 29, 2020 19:26:18 GMT
Why does Bone want a separate quota for Northern Ireland? I’ve never seen this suggested anywhere. There already is a separate quota for Northern Ireland allowed under the rules and was during the zombie reviews. If Northern Ireland's fractional entitlement is between 0.33 and 0.67 there is greater flexibility allowed. It's explained in section 7 of the rules here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/11/enacted |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 2, 2020 11:18:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 2, 2020 16:11:56 GMT
Labour’s reasoned amendment is as follows:
Keir Starmer
Cat Smith
Rachel Reeves
Angela Rayner
Valerie Vaz
Mr Nicholas Brown
That this House whilst supporting the retention of 650 parliamentary constituencies declines to give a Second Reading to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill because the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate power over constituency sizes and boundaries in the hands of the executive, because the Bill fails to create a more flexible electoral quota allowing greater consideration to be given to local ties and community connections when drawing constituency boundaries, and because the proposed numeration date for the boundary review of 1 December 2020 risks boundaries being based on an incomplete register owing to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the preparation of electoral registers.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 2, 2020 16:16:36 GMT
Labour’s reasoned amendment is as follows: Keir Starmer
Cat Smith
Rachel Reeves
Angela Rayner
Valerie Vaz
Mr Nicholas BrownThat this House whilst supporting the retention of 650 parliamentary constituencies declines to give a Second Reading to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill because the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate power over constituency sizes and boundaries in the hands of the executive, because the Bill fails to create a more flexible electoral quota allowing greater consideration to be given to local ties and community connections when drawing constituency boundaries, a nd because the proposed numeration date for the boundary review of 1 December 2020 risks boundaries being based on an incomplete register owing to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the preparation of electoral registers. Was this not the argument that Labour used to oppose the 2011 laws, the 2013 review and the 2018 review? |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 2, 2020 16:29:06 GMT
Andrew Rosindell MP (Con, Romford) has just called for polling districts as the building blocks, not wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 2, 2020 16:37:19 GMT
Chloe Smith has just said she is looking at using electoral data unaffected by the pandemic for the next review.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 2, 2020 16:37:23 GMT
The electoral data will be the "best data that is unaffected by the coronavrus pandemic"
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 2, 2020 16:50:41 GMT
Labour will be pushing for a 7.5% variance.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 2, 2020 17:01:08 GMT
The SNP have said they do not want 56/57 for Scotland but keep the current 59 and it sounds like the DUP want to keep Northern Ireland at 18.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 2, 2020 17:21:11 GMT
Labour will be pushing for a 7.5% variance. I think (it’s not entirely clear). |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 3, 2020 6:56:57 GMT
The vote on the Labour leader's amendment was: AYE 137 NO 264
AYE: Lab 125, Lib Dem 2, Plaid 2, SNP 8
NO: Con 261, DUP 3
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 3, 2020 15:17:57 GMT
Job advert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 9:01:22 GMT
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 4, 2020 10:21:06 GMT
Wanting to use the most up to date electorate figures = political manipulation
Wanting to use old figures that maximise the registration of your own voters = absolutely fine
For what it's worth I think the coronavirus situation could negatively impact the usefulness of the 2020 electorate figures, but to accuse the Government of choosing that date for that reason is ridiculous. When the policy was being formulated there was no way of knowing that we would be facing these circumstances.
Labour's claim that electorates should be based on registered voters at the previous general election and nothing more recent really is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 4, 2020 10:42:58 GMT
Wanting to use the most up to date electorate figures = political manipulation Wanting to use old figures that maximise the registration of your own voters = absolutely fine For what it's worth I think the coronavirus situation could negatively impact the usefulness of the 2020 electorate figures, but to accuse the Government of choosing that date for that reason is ridiculous. When the policy was being formulated there was no way of knowing that we would be facing these circumstances. Labour's claim that electorates should be based on registered voters at the previous general election and nothing more recent really is ridiculous. It is not "ridiculous". The issue has been exhaustively discussed here. There is no "right" answer. The General Election figures will overestimate and the December figures will underestimate. And this does have partisan implications. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 4, 2020 10:52:45 GMT
Wanting to use the most up to date electorate figures = political manipulation Wanting to use old figures that maximise the registration of your own voters = absolutely fine For what it's worth I think the coronavirus situation could negatively impact the usefulness of the 2020 electorate figures, but to accuse the Government of choosing that date for that reason is ridiculous. When the policy was being formulated there was no way of knowing that we would be facing these circumstances. Labour's claim that electorates should be based on registered voters at the previous general election and nothing more recent really is ridiculous. It is not "ridiculous". The issue has been exhaustively discussed here. There is no "right" answer. The General Election figures will overestimate and the December figures will underestimate. And this does have partisan implications. I agree that there is no right answer, and that there will be positives and negatives for whichever one ends up being chosen. What annoys me is the suggestion that it is somehow driven solely by a partisan desire to 'fiddle' the figures and give the Government an advantage. |
|
