Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,737
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 4, 2015 22:16:42 GMT
(Source: BBC News)
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 4, 2015 22:40:49 GMT
Make a start with combining Orkney and Shetland with Western Isles; probably add in a few more islands as well. New title the Scottish Islands.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 4, 2015 22:46:33 GMT
I am very opposed to reducing the number of MPs as it will lead to even less critical scrutiny of government because far too many back benchers are absorbed in the constant and quite unnecessary growth of ministerial jobs. To cut costs (not a prime objective for me) I would abolish a number of ministries and reduce the number of junior ministers. Let us not pretend that most of them are doing very much that is useful. I agree that they are busy with duties and work ............. but dispute that most of it serves any real important purpose.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on May 4, 2015 22:55:10 GMT
I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is that, for me, the Lib Dems lost all democratic credibility when out of a fit of pique they blocked the equalisation of constituencies. The second is that I have long thought that the number of Scottish MP's needed to be reduced to reflect that they had less to do as more and more powers are transferred to Edinburgh. If the majority of the 50 seats to be lost are in Scotland, excellent.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 4, 2015 22:58:12 GMT
You don't "address the unfairness of current Parliamentary boundaries ... to make votes of more equal value" by reducing the number of elected members, you do it by tightening the electoral quota allowance and using more up-to-date data at each decquinennial review. You reduce the number of elected members by reducing the number of elected members. And are they saying that giving MPs a 50/650 increase in workload isn't going to result in a 50/650 increase in pay, resulting in the total cost remaining the same?
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,011
|
Post by peterl on May 4, 2015 22:59:43 GMT
I am very opposed to reducing the number of MPs as it will lead to even less critical scrutiny of government because far too many back benchers are absorbed in the constant and quite unnecessary growth of ministerial jobs. To cut costs (not a prime objective for me) I would abolish a number of ministries and reduce the number of junior ministers. Let us not pretend that most of them are doing very much that is useful. I agree that they are busy with duties and work ............. but dispute that most of it serves any real important purpose. While I can see where you are coming from, there are 650 MPs and only about 100 of those hold any level of ministerial rank. Even if you cut the number of MPs to 600, you still have 100 scrutinised by 500. As for cutting the number of junior ministers, I think that would also be a good idea. If however cutting the number of MPs is back on the table, it really does need to be done more sensibly this time. No strict quota to keep within 5% of. Would be better to set out to the Boundary Commissions that the total number of seats for each of England, Scotland, Wales and NI is between x and y and let them work out the details.
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on May 4, 2015 23:00:12 GMT
I am very opposed to reducing the number of MPs as it will lead to even less critical scrutiny of government because far too many back benchers are absorbed in the constant and quite unnecessary growth of ministerial jobs. To cut costs (not a prime objective for me) I would abolish a number of ministries and reduce the number of junior ministers. Let us not pretend that most of them are doing very much that is useful. I agree that they are busy with duties and work ............. but dispute that most of it serves any real important purpose. This is a fair point. The number of ministerial posts etc should be reduced first, before any reduction is made. However it's difficult to see any government volunteering to do this first part, since the promise of ministerial office keeps a fair number of MP's in line, and the fewer backbenchers there are the less effect a rebellion may potentially have.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 4, 2015 23:03:31 GMT
I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is that, for me, the Lib Dems lost all democratic credibility when out of a fit of pique they blocked the equalisation of constituencies. Sigh. Constituencies are ALREADY drawn to be equal and we ALREADY have 15-yearly boundary reviews to do this (I can't understand how so many people have forgotten the constant prefixing of any news item in 2010 with "on the new boundaries....."). The problem is that the quota is always up to ten years out of date. The constituencies used in the 2010 general election were drawn up in 2004-2006 using electorates from 2001. On the 2001 electorate more than 90% of current constituencies (excluding special cases) are within 10% of the electoral quota.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on May 4, 2015 23:06:56 GMT
I have a couple of thoughts on this. The first is that, for me, the Lib Dems lost all democratic credibility when out of a fit of pique they blocked the equalisation of constituencies. Sigh. Constituencies are ALREADY drawn to be equal and we ALREADY have 15-yearly boundary reviews to do this (I can't understand how so many people have forgotten the constant prefixing of any news item in 2010 with "on the new boundaries....."). The problem is that the quota is always up to ten years out of date. The constituencies used in the 2010 general election were drawn up in 2004-2006 using electorates from 2001. On the 2001 electorate more than 90% of current constituencies (excluding special cases) are within 10% of the electoral quota. In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 4, 2015 23:10:47 GMT
Sigh. Constituencies are ALREADY drawn to be equal and we ALREADY have 15-yearly boundary reviews to do this (I can't understand how so many people have forgotten the constant prefixing of any news item in 2010 with "on the new boundaries....."). The problem is that the quota is always up to ten years out of date. The constituencies used in the 2010 general election were drawn up in 2004-2006 using electorates from 2001. On the 2001 electorate more than 90% of current constituencies (excluding special cases) are within 10% of the electoral quota. In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it? The Conservative proposal wasn't just a regular boundary change. It was a reduction in the number of MPs, and simultaneously a change in the rules about how equal the constituencies had to be. The Lib Dems blocked it because the Tories had not backed reform of the House of Lords.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on May 4, 2015 23:14:30 GMT
In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it? The Conservative proposal wasn't just a regular boundary change. It was a reduction in the number of MPs, and simultaneously a change in the rules about how equal the constituencies had to be. The Lib Dems blocked it because the Tories had not backed reform of the House of Lords. I thought that the failure to back the AV proposal had more to do with it. More thought was more to question why, if the proposal made no real difference, it was worth the effort and downside to oppose it.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 5, 2015 0:06:44 GMT
Sigh. Constituencies are ALREADY drawn to be equal and we ALREADY have 15-yearly boundary reviews to do this (I can't understand how so many people have forgotten the constant prefixing of any news item in 2010 with "on the new boundaries....."). The problem is that the quota is always up to ten years out of date. The constituencies used in the 2010 general election were drawn up in 2004-2006 using electorates from 2001. On the 2001 electorate more than 90% of current constituencies (excluding special cases) are within 10% of the electoral quota. In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it? It really is a national embarrassment that our parliamentary boundaries are drawn on the basis of such out of date information while our largest Antipodean colony manages to adjust their boundaries every three years without much difficulty.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on May 5, 2015 9:01:18 GMT
And given the lack of registration I'd want to move to equal (+/- 10%) population constituencies otherwise you are going to build in some huge distortions.
I am not against reducing the number of MPs, though like others I think the payrole vote is too great and government could do with some rationalisation. Perhaps if we could move from the dog's breakfast of a constitutional mish mash that we now have and proper structured devolution to the English regions you could do away with several ministries, such as health and education as they would be devolved?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 5, 2015 9:32:04 GMT
Sigh. Constituencies are ALREADY drawn to be equal and we ALREADY have 15-yearly boundary reviews to do this (I can't understand how so many people have forgotten the constant prefixing of any news item in 2010 with "on the new boundaries....."). The problem is that the quota is always up to ten years out of date. The constituencies used in the 2010 general election were drawn up in 2004-2006 using electorates from 2001. On the 2001 electorate more than 90% of current constituencies (excluding special cases) are within 10% of the electoral quota. In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it? Partisan self interest (in both cases)?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 5, 2015 9:46:13 GMT
I am very opposed to reducing the number of MPs as it will lead to even less critical scrutiny of government because far too many back benchers are absorbed in the constant and quite unnecessary growth of ministerial jobs. To cut costs (not a prime objective for me) I would abolish a number of ministries and reduce the number of junior ministers. Let us not pretend that most of them are doing very much that is useful. I agree that they are busy with duties and work ............. but dispute that most of it serves any real important purpose. While I can see where you are coming from, there are 650 MPs and only about 100 of those hold any level of ministerial rank. Even if you cut the number of MPs to 600, you still have 100 scrutinised by 500. As for cutting the number of junior ministers, I think that would also be a good idea. If however cutting the number of MPs is back on the table, it really does need to be done more sensibly this time. No strict quota to keep within 5% of. Would be better to set out to the Boundary Commissions that the total number of seats for each of England, Scotland, Wales and NI is between x and y and let them work out the details. You need to strip out the opposition group as well, and the Speaker group and many of those others close to the centre through committees and advice roles and being known to be 'waiting' for a job. The number of truly disinterested back benchers is way under 550 that you imply. I think it is now probably fewer than half.
|
|
|
Post by brothersideways on May 5, 2015 9:52:15 GMT
The basis of FPTP is meant to be MPs representing and being directly responsible to constituencies. For this to work constituencies need to be not too big and unwieldy, and they need to have their own identity. Otherwise if you're not careful you end up heading to the American system, where MPs would be representing constituency South East 47.
The limiting factor on British constituency sizes is that the Isle of Wight should not contain a constituency that merges with the mainland, Cornwall should not have a constituency that crosses the Tamar, and north Scottish constituencies need to be small enough that an MP can conceivably visit the whole area.
I'm not against shrinking the number of MPs for practical reasons. I am against it as a way to improve British democracy solve all the problems with FPTP - it won't do this. I'd rather have more MPs as it would make it easier for MPs to balance their Westminster work-load with coordinating with increasingly powerful regional and devolved bodies, and it would make it more likely that the system would benefit smaller voices. It would be nice to have more diversity of opinions in the House of Commons.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on May 5, 2015 11:16:23 GMT
In which case, why did the Conservatives feel the need to change the boundaries and why did the Lb Dems block it? Partisan self interest (in both cases)? Quite possibly, which also holds for Labour's opposition. I personally find the concept of constituencies of differing sizes unacceptable, whichever party would gain or lose out.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,318
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 5, 2015 11:31:35 GMT
Except that seat sizes varied far more in the "good old days" than they do now.
I am genuinely baffled by those who fetishise mathematical equality above all else (especially when based on an electoral register that is far from unimprovable) If there is a genuine case for FPTP, then it is surely based on the single constuency being reflective of real actual communities and not just an arid statistical exercise. Some of the proposals for the aborted review were utterly ridiculous, for that reason alone I am glad it failed.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,922
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on May 5, 2015 11:51:08 GMT
Mersey Banks...
Sure, it had the right population, but it was crossing the Mersey, too.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 5, 2015 12:31:01 GMT
Crossing county boundaries in general was pretty silly. It seems to have been motivated by a lot of shires just missing out on an extra seat and mets just holding on to them at the 5th review. Which was certainly bad luck for the Tories, but there are more elegant ways of solving the problem - Australia's system of rolling reviews by state could easily be borrowed for counties here.
|
|