|
|
Post by catking on Sept 12, 2018 15:02:30 GMT
Hence why I mentioned the knighthoods for constituency chairs.. And why it takes time... Everything has a price... I admit that in the present febrile atmosphere in the Tory party it may be more difficult than usual I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not going to be inclined to vote to adopt anybody as a candidate because the Chairman of my constituency association has been promised a knighthood. If CLPs and Tory Associations once might have worked that way, they certainly don't now. Another good reason why a final vote by MPs should be removed and the boundary commission's proposals just adopted once the consultation is complete. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 12, 2018 16:38:09 GMT
Hence why I mentioned the knighthoods for constituency chairs.. And why it takes time... Everything has a price... I admit that in the present febrile atmosphere in the Tory party it may be more difficult than usual I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not going to be inclined to vote to adopt anybody as a candidate because the Chairman of my constituency association has been promised a knighthood. I think the idea was that the chairman of a constituency should be capable of bringing the constituency party round to supporting the parachuted candidate, and that a knighthood was an effective way to convince round the chairman. If this plan was carried out the members might not even know about the promised knighthood until the selection was complete. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 12, 2018 16:39:26 GMT
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not going to be inclined to vote to adopt anybody as a candidate because the Chairman of my constituency association has been promised a knighthood. If CLPs and Tory Associations once might have worked that way, they certainly don't now. I would imagine that most Association Chairman are still capable of influencing the vote of their members, through both overt and covert methods. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 12, 2018 19:07:09 GMT
I don't think it's been posted yet, but Anthony Wells has done notionals. He also cites notionals by Rallings and Thrasher. Wells: Con 307 Lab 234 SNP 30 LD 8 Oth 21 R&T: Con 308 Lab 232 SNP 33 LD7 Oth 20 |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 12, 2018 19:15:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 12, 2018 19:46:59 GMT
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not going to be inclined to vote to adopt anybody as a candidate because the Chairman of my constituency association has been promised a knighthood. I think the idea was that the chairman of a constituency should be capable of bringing the constituency party round to supporting the parachuted candidate, and that a knighthood was an effective way to convince round the chairman. If this plan was carried out the members might not even know about the promised knighthood until the selection was complete. Yes, that is what I was implying.. there are probably other ways to influence a constituency organisation of course. Some ministerial visits to show how influential the new MP is going to be, a strong endorsement by the retiring grandee, perhaps a controversial planning application refused after being called in. Anyone who thinks government does not still work through shady deals is a bit naive. Where I live a new Local Plan went through in 2016 thanks only to the votes of a small minority group of councillors. 18 months on and after a lengthy Inquiry, sites totalling 250 houses in the ward of those councillors have been mysteriously removed without discussion. I am sure it is complete coincidence.... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 12, 2018 19:50:13 GMT
I do think though that at the moment it might be hard to foist a strongly Remain MP on a lot of Conservative Associations...
Especially with the BlueRinse insurgency...
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 12, 2018 20:03:29 GMT
If passed, The Conservatives are promising that every sitting MP will have a seat, but I wonder what that means. so for e.g Stuart Andrew or Andrea Jenkyns no part of their existing constituency is now in a notional Conservative seat so their case is fairly straight forward but what about Boris with a notional majority of 100, does he qualify for being ‘ found’ another seat or is Uxbridge and Northolt ‘ a seat to fight’. ( not that I think he will fight it- he will stand down or get selected somewhere else)
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 12, 2018 20:13:55 GMT
I'm just going to spend the next day or so putting this image in every thread by way of permanent tribute to creativity under the influence of hastily written legislation.  I amused the BCE staff by calling this a "glennmander" at the Chester hearing. Of course Mersey Banks was risible, and the revised proposal of "Mersey Banks and Weaver" was hardly much better, but in the BCE's defence this was the first review under the new rules and in the case of Cheshire they did have to deal with the unusual problem of the very large wards created temporarily by the local government reorganisation. The reason I say the 2018 review is worse than the 2013 review is that the BCE showed so little evidence of having learned from its mistakes. A good example of this is Durham West and Teesdale. The BCE proposed something slightly less terrible in their initial proposals in 2013 combining Consett with Barnard Castle, but rather than looking at the reaction that got and looking for another arrangement, they went and created an even dafter variant. I don't know how much consistency of staff there has been between the two reviews, but I can't see any sign that there's been learning at an organisational level. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Sept 12, 2018 20:29:28 GMT
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not going to be inclined to vote to adopt anybody as a candidate because the Chairman of my constituency association has been promised a knighthood. If CLPs and Tory Associations once might have worked that way, they certainly don't now. Another good reason why a final vote by MPs should be removed and the boundary commission's proposals just adopted once the consultation is complete. Would certainly be willing to support a proposal whereby constituency boundary reviews get one every 10-15 years (preferably a set terms) without the final vote. And at a 10% variance However my biggest concern with that is the issue of accountability, in the sense of a commission being able to do what it likes with public money with little scrutiny (i.e. it's final proposals being unable to be challenged). Therefore to counteract that perhaps the review periods could be extended, and information provided as to how initial proposals were reached should be as open as possible. So the initial proposals get more scrutiny. Any changes to alter variance or number of MPs would of course have to go through parliament and to a vote. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 12, 2018 21:19:52 GMT
I don't think it's been posted yet, but Anthony Wells has done notionals. He also cites notionals by Rallings and Thrasher. Wells: Con 307 Lab 234 SNP 30 LD 8 Oth 21 R&T: Con 308 Lab 232 SNP 33 LD7 Oth 20 And with the calculations now published by Electoral Calculus, we have three sets of numbers Conservatives Low 304 (Electoral Calculus) High 308 (Thrasher and Rallings) Mid Point: 306 Labour Low 232 (Thrasher and Rallings) High 238 (Electoral Calculus) Mid Point 235 SNP Low 30 (Anthony Wells) High 33 (Thrasher and Rallings) Mid Point 32 Liberal Democrats Low 7 (Thrasher and Rallings, Electoral Calculus) High 8 (Anthony Wells) Mid Point 8 Others Low 20 (Thasher and Rallings, Electoral Calculus) High 21 (Anthony Wells) Mid Point 21 Conservative majority (based on mid point) 10 |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 12, 2018 21:23:44 GMT
I don't think it's been posted yet, but Anthony Wells has done notionals. He also cites notionals by Rallings and Thrasher. Wells: Con 307 Lab 234 SNP 30 LD 8 Oth 21 R&T: Con 308 Lab 232 SNP 33 LD7 Oth 20 And with the calculations now published by Electoral Calculus, we have three sets of numbers Conservatives Low 304 (Electoral Calculus) High 308 (Thrasher and Rallings) Mid Point: 306 Labour Low 232 (Thrasher and Rallings) High 238 (Electoral Calculus) Mid Point 235 SNP Low 30 (Anthony Wells) High 33 (Thrasher and Rallings) Mid Point 32 Liberal Democrats Low 7 (Thrasher and Rallings, Electoral Calculus) High 8 (Anthony Wells) Mid Point 8 Others Low 20 (Thasher and Rallings, Electoral Calculus) High 21 (Anthony Wells) Mid Point 21 Conservative majority (based on mid point) 10 Have you looked at which are the seats with different winners at all yet? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 12, 2018 22:47:44 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863
EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244
FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175
IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63
PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336
UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133
With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call.
Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 13, 2018 6:33:03 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. Not a massive surprise at all, even back in February 1974 at least tweleve seats came up as too close to call (including Devon North) so what the BBC did was assume that if the MP was the same, then the seat was the same. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2018 7:04:51 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. It's striking that four of the six seats are in Scotland. I'm guessing that this is because there are typically more parties in play and therefore more variables to juggle. The two English seats are clearly too close to call. My sense is that demographic shifts might favour Labour in Uxbridge and the Tories in Ipswich, but it's only a gut feeling, I've no definite evidence. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 13, 2018 7:22:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2018 7:35:14 GMT
They haven't kept the principle of not splitting wards. They have kept the principle of not splitting wards in Birmingham, then split wards in Sandwell when they realised what a mess it had got them into. I think you're being harsh on islington ; I strongly disagree with him on the matter, but he'd never have done that. As for the overall process, I don't think we should particularly expect a group of civil servants in an office in London to produce good boundaries for the whole country, and I also don't think we should particularly expect political parties to come up with good boundaries. In some areas the consultation got round those problems and produced decent results; in some areas it didn't. I would suggest that, as for local government reviews, they should start by taking submissions and draw up initial proposals based on those; they could then probably have only one consultation phase after the first proposals are published, so the process wouldn't actually take any longer. The BCE certainly has kept the principle of not splitting wards, only splitting them in what it calls "exceptional and compelling circumstances". Their guide to the Review states:
"The BCE seeks to avoid dividing wards between constituencies wherever possible. Wards are well-defined and well-understood units, which are generally indicative of areas which have a broad community of interest. Any division of these units between constituencies would be likely to break local ties, disrupt political party organisations, and cause difficulties for Electoral Registration and Returning Officers. The BCE’s view is therefore that wards should continue to be the default building block for constituencies."
I'm not sure why you're saying I'm being harsh on Islington; I was only stating the truism that out of all us anoraks, he is one of the minority who adhere to the no-splitting principle as firmly as the Commission has tried to do, and that is why his submissions for areas across the country have found particular favour with it. Indeed, he is responsible for the gorgeous new constituency of Birmingham Erdington and Perry Barr.
I agree with you about changing the review process. I think it should be something like: 1. invite suggestions
2. publish initial proposals, with options in difficult areas 3. online/postal consultation 4. publish firm proposals 5. online/postal consultation
6. hearings - only in contentious areas
7. publish final proposals
Just to set the record straight, now that the whole process is complete it turns out, contrary to my expectations at the outset, that I'm actually a more ardent non-splitter than the BCE. I think that most of the splits they have allowed themselves to be inveigled into are not necessary, in the sense that in most of the areas where wards are split the resulting boundaries do not significantly improve on the best that can be achieved without a split. Sheffield and Coombe Hill (Glos) are the only places I'd exclude from this generalization (even in these cases there were non-split alternatives, which I'd probably have gone for - but I can see the case for splitting). On the question of the general competence of the BCE, maybe I'm being charitable but I think there is evidence of an improvement since 2013 and I'd certainly argue that the final recommendations are better this time (in terms of the actual boundaries, at any rate, and leaving aside the names). The Clitheroe/Colne mashup has been nominated as the worst seat in the final recommendations; although in my view the treatment of the Halifax area is just as bad. But we've seen considerably worse in previous reviews. Even if the rules stay the same next time, the BCE would do the process a considerable favour, I (modestly) suggest, if before issuing its initial recommendations it took a good look through this site to see the ideas put forward by the various contributors and the criticism they attract. I'm sure this would help it avoid some of the grosser absurdities it perpetrated both in this review and in the 2013 edition. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 7:42:20 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. Edinburgh South being anywhere close to notionally Conservative seems highly unlikely to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 13, 2018 11:11:13 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. If you look at Edinburgh West, EC have clearly made some big errors. Bits of Inverleith that stay in Edinburgh West have lost most of their Lib Dem votes, as one of several examples. I have emailed them pointing this out... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 11:13:16 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. If you look at Edinburgh West, EC have clearly made some big errors. Bits of Inverleith that stay in Edinburgh West have lost most of their Lib Dem votes, as one of several examples. I have emailed them pointing this out... EC tend not to work out anything correctly (....wow, the English language really is grammar fluid), I doubt much will come from your email, but we live in hope and expectation. |
|
