|
Post by thirdchill on May 5, 2015 12:40:22 GMT
Some of the proposals for the aborted review were utterly ridiculous, for that reason alone I am glad it failed. The Consett and Barnard Castle seat was ridiculous, and was opposed by every single party locally. Especially as Tow Law (which you would travel through to get from one to the other) was in another constituency.
|
|
|
Post by brothersideways on May 5, 2015 16:20:20 GMT
Pretty ironic that the Tories want more unelected Lords (who are paid £109k per year for sitting on a seat once per day) and less elected MP's (who are paid £67k per year), that's definitely addressing the unfairness. Note - abolishing the House of Lords would save up to £86,505,000 just from their pay (£1.72 bln across a period of 20 years). Is this a better form of cuts? No. A well staffed legislature, with experts working to review and amend laws, is essential to keeping democracy running well and the power of the government in check. We do have one of the largest legislatures on the planet. But we have a strong reputation for our legal sector, and our laws are the basis for the legal systems of a large part of the world. It is essential, and should be a poiunt of national pride, that our laws are fair, democratic, well designed, and well implemented. That's not to say the Lords shouldn't be reformed. But it shouldn't be reformed as a cost cutting exercise, unless there are efficiencies that can be made without affecting its function.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 5, 2015 17:53:55 GMT
We could always try enforcing the law that currently exists. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 says in Schedule 3 that the number of seats in Great Britain shall be not substantially more or less than 613. The number of Northern Irish seats should be 16, 17 or 18. And Wales is guaranteed 35 seats.
If we actually had 16 seats for NI, 35 for Wales and the remaining 578 between England and Wales, we'd be down to 629 (the same as the 1992-1997 Parliament) by barely trying. Someone more au fait with these things will be able to explain why the particular method in the Act basically means the number of seats will default to an increase.
I agree with others that it is ridiculous that we use the register at the start of the review. Scottish local boundary reviews are based on trying to obtain equal electorates at 5 years after the review (the mid-point of the period the boundaries will be in force). There's no real reason I can see why that couldn't be applied to parliamentary reviews and then you get rid of at least one issue.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 5, 2015 18:53:09 GMT
We could always try enforcing the law that currently exists. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 says in Schedule 3 that the number of seats in Great Britain shall be not substantially more or less than 613. The number of Northern Irish seats should be 16, 17 or 18. And Wales is guaranteed 35 seats. No it doesn't, that was replaced by the 2011 Act. As things stand the cut to 600 seats will happen automatically in the 2020 review, unless the next government passes new legislation saying otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on May 5, 2015 21:23:08 GMT
You can reduce to 600 easily, if you allow for a little more flexibility in the quota by just a few percent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 21:55:29 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. But they were only "ridiculous" because the geography of the UK is not a pure rectangle so easily divided into squares. With such radically adjusted rules, of course new seats had unexpected shapes and sizes. Some worked. Others didn't. But what they all had was a fairness, by and large a concept alien to seats in previous reviews.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 5, 2015 22:18:24 GMT
The worst thing is I think he believes his argument. He may even believe that 'fairness' is a noun.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 5, 2015 22:19:38 GMT
We could always try enforcing the law that currently exists. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 says in Schedule 3 that the number of seats in Great Britain shall be not substantially more or less than 613. The number of Northern Irish seats should be 16, 17 or 18. And Wales is guaranteed 35 seats. No it doesn't, that was replaced by the 2011 Act. As things stand the cut to 600 seats will happen automatically in the 2020 review, unless the next government passes new legislation saying otherwise. You and your pedantry!!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 6, 2015 7:16:17 GMT
750 seats seems to me to be the optimum number for creating constituencies based on natural communities and with a degree of electoral equality (ie +/- 10%, not +/- 5% which was an absurd constraint)
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 6, 2015 11:47:02 GMT
I don't think there is an magic number, in some areas the natural constituency may be 60000, in others it may be 80000, so whatever you choose there will always be some awkward constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 6, 2015 15:51:04 GMT
Your figures don't make any sense, if reducing the Lords by 180 saved 64.8million that would imply they earned £360k per year? In any event, if numbers were reduced, the most likely candidates to go would be the ones who don't attend very much anyway (and therefore don't claim very much currently either).
If you have an elected judiciary scrutinizing and amending legislation, then they won't be a judiciary any more, they will be a legislature.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on May 8, 2015 18:14:32 GMT
OK, so now we have a Majority government, for 5 years, what happens to the boundary review legislation which is (iirc) still on the statute book, especially assuming the Tories will still want to go for a reduction in the number of MPs and equalisation of constituencies
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,609
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 8, 2015 18:20:04 GMT
OK, so now we have a Majority government, for 5 years, what happens to the boundary review legislation which is (iirc) still on the statute book, especially assuming the Tories will still want to go for a reduction in the number of MPs and equalisation of constituencies As long as the boundary commission are told to take more congnisance of council boundaries compared to ward boundaries to avoid nonsenses such as "Fulwood and Barnsley West" and "Harrogate and Leeds East" when Sheffield could have 5.0 seats and Leeds 7.0 seats - then it could draw up workable seats. Edit: and instead of exactly 600 seats (or whatever), allow the boundary commission to go up or down a few seats if it makes for a better nation-wide fit. For instance, the BC could say: 600 seats will give too many areas something-anna-half seats, we will consult on 594 and 605 seats.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 8, 2015 18:30:34 GMT
OK, so now we have a Majority government, for 5 years, what happens to the boundary review legislation which is (iirc) still on the statute book, especially assuming the Tories will still want to go for a reduction in the number of MPs and equalisation of constituencies Yes, still on the statute book, implementation was just delayed for 5 years. So I believe the process will begin again next spring, presumably with the same criteria and hence with the same inherent problems.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 8, 2015 19:11:19 GMT
Going by the 2014 electorates, the allocation for the next review would be
East 57 (-1) East Midlands 43 (-3) London 68 (-5) North East 25 (-4) North West 68 (-7) South East 81+2 (-1) South West 53 (-2) West Midlands 53 (-6) Yorkshire & Humber 50 (-4) ENGLAND 498+2 (-33)
SCOTLAND 53+2 (-4) WALES 29 (-11) N IRELAND 16 (-2)
Allowable electorate range would be 71986-79562
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,757
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 8, 2015 21:39:43 GMT
Goodness me, twenty nine Welsh seats eh? Well, I like a challenge I say. When I get the results from the newspapers tomorrow (which will have the electorates for the general election), I'll have a go at Dyfed / Powys and see what I can come up with.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,609
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 8, 2015 22:00:50 GMT
50 seats for Yorkshire. I'll just resubmit my previous submission (which was actually recommending somebody else's model for Sheffield), adding actual boundaries for seven seats in Leeds from one of the other submissions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2015 4:39:49 GMT
*cracks knuckles*
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
|
Post by The Bishop on May 9, 2015 10:12:11 GMT
There must at least be a chance of getting the silly 5% variation limit changed this time?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 9, 2015 10:48:37 GMT
50 seats for Yorkshire. I'll just resubmit my previous submission (which was actually recommending somebody else's model for Sheffield), adding actual boundaries for seven seats in Leeds from one of the other submissions. Even if the total is the same, individual seats may no longer be valid as their electorates may now be outside the quota range.
|
|