Welsh Parliament is set to expand

[John Chanin]

Dec 3, 2021 21:34:09 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Dec 3, 2021 19:34:08 GMT Andrew_S said:

Predictable that the Welsh Assembly would rename itself as a parliament, and then want to increase its numbers. The next thing will probably be to re-name the First Minister the "prime minister of Wales".

Already works in Welsh. Prif Weinidog means both First and Prime Minister. Should really have gone for Cadeirydd/Chairman like other county-like institutions.

Whiny dog sounds really dreadful in English

[stb12]

Dec 4, 2021 10:45:18 GMT The Bishop said:

Dec 3, 2021 19:34:08 GMT Andrew_S said:

Predictable that the Welsh Assembly would rename itself as a parliament, and then want to increase its numbers. The next thing will probably be to re-name the First Minister the "prime minister of Wales".

Though this hasn't yet happened in Scotland.

Interestingly Prime Minister of Northern Ireland was used for the original form of devolution there

Is there much known significance behind that being used then, only for First Minister to become the phrase for future devolution in the UK?

[cibwr]

the original title was First Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly for Wales

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Dec 4, 2021 10:54:44 GMT John Chanin said:

Dec 3, 2021 21:34:09 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Already works in Welsh. Prif Weinidog means both First and Prime Minister. Should really have gone for Cadeirydd/Chairman like other county-like institutions.

Whiny dog sounds really dreadful in English

It's etymologically nothing to do with whiny dogs! It's the prefix gwo- (under, cognate with hypo-), plus gnif (toil), plus the suffix -og (which tends to mean "someone who does x", e.g. swyddog, an officer, someone who does a swydd, a job). It's a fairly good equivalent to the Greek ὑπηρέτης, which gets rendered as minister in the Latin Vulgate.

[johng]

Dec 5, 2021 14:28:18 GMT cibwr said:

the original title was First Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly for Wales

That doesn't sound too bad at all actually.

On a more serious note, I don't see why people get would up so easily by what names things are called.

[Penddu]

Dec 5, 2021 15:33:00 GMT johng said:

Dec 5, 2021 14:28:18 GMT cibwr said:

the original title was First Secretary of the Executive Committee of the National Assembly for Wales

That doesn't sound too bad at all actually.

On a more serious note, I don't see why people get would up so easily by what names things are called.

One of the longest running debates in establishing the original Assembly was whether it should be called National Assembly FOR Wales or National Assembly OF Wales.

First rate nit-picking to obstruct debate on other issues...

[Harry Hayfield]

So what is the new Senedd going to be then? 20 constituencies of 4 members or 20 constituencies of 5 members?

"The (Labour) conference unanimously voted for a motion saying the 60-member parliament should grow to between 80 and 100 members."

[nodealbrexiteer]

Mar 12, 2022 14:18:22 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

So what is the new Senedd going to be then? 20 constituencies of 4 members or 20 constituencies of 5 members?

"The (Labour) conference unanimously voted for a motion saying the 60-member parliament should grow to between 80 and 100 members."

A better motion would have been to abolish the fucking thing

[islington]

Mar 12, 2022 15:01:09 GMT Andrew_S said:

Would it be correct to assume the one thing that isn't going to happen with the Welsh Parliament is that the so-called proportional voting system might be made more proportional than it currently is. It's an odd sort of proportional system where you can win small majorities with nothing like 50% of the vote.

Easier said than done. Most real-world 'proportional' systems have this kind of feature.

[clyde1998]

Mar 12, 2022 14:18:22 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

So what is the new Senedd going to be then? 20 constituencies of 4 members or 20 constituencies of 5 members?

"The (Labour) conference unanimously voted for a motion saying the 60-member parliament should grow to between 80 and 100 members."

I think it depends on whether the electoral system will change and whether the link between the Westminster and Senedd constituencies will be maintained.

If the link and voting system are maintained, the 32 constituencies could be divided neatly into either: four regions each electing twelve members or eight regions of six members each. This would give a total of 80 members; I'd prefer the former of the two.

[clyde1998]

Mar 12, 2022 16:52:39 GMT islington said:

Mar 12, 2022 15:01:09 GMT Andrew_S said:

Would it be correct to assume the one thing that isn't going to happen with the Welsh Parliament is that the so-called proportional voting system might be made more proportional than it currently is. It's an odd sort of proportional system where you can win small majorities with nothing like 50% of the vote.

Easier said than done. Most real-world 'proportional' systems have the kind of feature.

That's partially due to effective thresholds. If you need to get 5% to win a seat under the system, anyone below 5% in effect gets excluded from the proportionality; most situations where a party has won a majority in a proportional system, it's due to them winning around 50% when excluding the votes of extra-parliamentary parties.

[Harry Hayfield]

Mar 12, 2022 17:32:34 GMT clyde1998 said:

Mar 12, 2022 14:18:22 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

So what is the new Senedd going to be then? 20 constituencies of 4 members or 20 constituencies of 5 members?

"The (Labour) conference unanimously voted for a motion saying the 60-member parliament should grow to between 80 and 100 members."

I think it depends on whether the electoral system will change and whether the link between the Westminster and Senedd constituencies will be maintained.

If the link and voting system are maintained, the 32 constituencies could be divided neatly into either: four regions each electing twelve members or eight regions of six members each. This would give a total of 80 members; I'd prefer the former of the two.

This is what everyone seems to forget. Wales sets the rules of Wales, therefore get it out of your head that the next Senedd elections will be based on constituencies (Westminster) and regional lists. It is going to be elected on STV with multi member constituencies as in Ulster and Eire (and I for one simply cannot wait to get my hands on an STV election that I can understand)

[Deleted]

Of course it's not impossible that Wales decides to maintain the link in order to avoid the complication and expense of a boundary review

[clyde1998]

Mar 12, 2022 17:38:21 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Mar 12, 2022 17:32:34 GMT clyde1998 said:

I think it depends on whether the electoral system will change and whether the link between the Westminster and Senedd constituencies will be maintained.

If the link and voting system are maintained, the 32 constituencies could be divided neatly into either: four regions each electing twelve members or eight regions of six members each. This would give a total of 80 members; I'd prefer the former of the two.

This is what everyone seems to forget. Wales sets the rules of Wales, therefore get it out of your head that the next Senedd elections will be based on constituencies (Westminster) and regional lists. It is going to be elected on STV with multi member constituencies as in Ulster and Eire (and I for one simply cannot wait to get my hands on an STV election that I can understand)

I didn't realise that was definitely happening. In that case, I can see the council areas of Wales being used to determine the allocation of seats.

Based on 2019 population and using D'Hondt, each council would be allocated the following seat numbers for a total of 100 seats:

• 12 seats: Cardiff
• 8 seats: Swansea, Rhondda Cynon Taf
• 6 seats: Carmarthenshire, Caerphilly
• 5 seats: Flintshire, Newport, Bridgend
• 4 seats: Neath Port Talbot, Wrexham, Vale of Glamorgan, Powys, Pembrokeshire, Gwynedd, Conwy
• 3 seats: Denbighshire, Monmouthshire, Torfaen
• 2 seats: Ceredigion, Ynys Mon, Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil

With the larger and smaller seats, some splitting and merging could occur to keep each constituency between three and five seats - using the Irish example. My adjustments (in bold) leave us with:

• 5 seats: Flintshire, Newport, Bridgend, Torfaen & Blaenau Gwent
• 4 seats: Neath Port Talbot, Wrexham, Vale of Glamorgan, Powys, Gwynedd, Conwy, Swansea A, Swansea B, Rhondda A, Rhondda B
• 3 seats: Denbighshire, Monmouthshire, Cardiff A, Cardiff B, Cardiff C, Cardiff D, Carmarthenshire A, Carmarthenshire B, Caerphilly & Merthyr Tydfil A, Caerphilly & Merthyr Tydfil B, Pembrokeshire & Ceredigion A, Pembrokeshire & Ceredigion B
• 2 seats: Ynys Mon

I decided to leave Ynys Mon alone, as it's a protected constituency - so perhaps just give it three seats and take one from the next smallest constituency in the allocation: Bridgend. Some of these could follow the new Westminster boundaries - such as the Pembroke/Ceredigion seats, which I believe has two seats covering those two councils; I believe the Cardiff and Swansea Westminster seats include some parts of bordering council areas, so they may need to be redrawn to adjust for that.

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

The reason that Wales's result is not proportional is that it has many 2 and 3 member seats. 4 member seats are better but not great, you really need 5 member seats, or more, for decent proportionality.

We won't get this as the political establishment doesn't want it however much the bleat on about proportionality of representation.

[Penddu]

Welsh Labour conference vote unanimously to extend size of Senedd to 80-100 members and 'at least as much proportionality as present'.
Assuming based on new 32 seats this starts to look like 32×3 member STV or maybe 16×5 (my preference) or 16x6..... with small adjustment for Ynys Môn.

[LDCaerdydd]

We have movement…

96 Members, 3 members per each 32 new Westminster seats will be paired up and each pair will elect six members elected using "closed proportional lists with integrated statutory gender quotas and mandatory zipping"

[johng]

May 10, 2022 8:27:54 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

We have movement…

96 Members, 3 members per each 32 new Westminster seats will be paired up and each pair will elect six members elected using "closed proportional lists with integrated statutory gender quotas and mandatory zipping"
*Tweet snip*

'Closed lists' 'lists' 'D'Hondt' 'six member seats' =

Totally gross.

[Harry Hayfield]

I was watching the Queen's Speech when Liz Saville Roberts MP (Plaid, Dwyfor) casually dropped this into the convcersation as "kick starting the Senedd" and the very first question I asked Alexa was "What are the factors of 96?" and when she said 32 it instantly clicked into place. The new 32 constituency map each electing three members by STV and I startly sourcing the regional list vote for the Senedd in order to create a notional Senedd using what little I learned from Northern Ireland this week.

But then I read this on the BBC report "Seats should be allocated using the D'Hondt formula - which is currently used to make the Senedd better represent how people voted through the election of regional candidates" and my inital reaction was "Okay, let's do the maths".

Ceredigion Preseli regional list vote 2021
Plaid 15,942, Con 8,730, Lab 8,410, Lib Dem 2,908, Green 2,244, Abolish 1,046, UKIP 570, Reform UK 536, Freedom Alliance 260, Christian Party 234, Gwlad 172, Propel 144, Communist 120, TUSC 52
D'hondt Allocations: Plaid wins the first seat, Con wins the second seat, Lab wins the third seat

Now compare that to an STV election where using the quota method (where the quota would be 13,791) Plaid would have 1.16 quotas, the Conservatives 0.63 quotas, Labour 0.61 quotas means that Plaid would be under rewarded on d'Hondt as they would probably win two seats on STV with the third being a scrap between the Conservatives and Labour.

Inital reaction: Not impressed but will do the calculations to see what my final opinion is

[Pete Whitehead]

The statutory gender quotas and zipping are the worst aspect. Why should the law interfere in a party's right to select whichever candidates it wants and let the voters decide? What if the Women's Equality party wants to stand a slate? They're forced to put up 50% men?