|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 23, 2017 22:08:05 GMT
Is there an anti-Tory bias in the voting system? I thought that since 2015 there has been an anti-Labour bias in that, on UNS, if the two main parties are tied on votes the Tories still get more MPs than Labour. Or have I misunderstood what you were talking about? Indeed there isn't a bias in the constituency boundaries but the perception that there was was the rationale for them passing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act ( and the 2005 and 2010 results, juxtaposed, did justify that perception at that time). But my point was not whether or not the boundaries are rigged against them but that if they want to address structural issues which may count against them at elections the rules on eligibility to vote (along with other issues like dual registration) are things they ought to look at. My own angle is not based on trying to assist the Conservative party per se but is my principled objection to foreign nationals voting in general elections (and especially in referendums which determine essential issues of sovereignty) but I'm surprised that they seem so unconcerned about the issue Fair enough. I very strongly agree with you on the issue of foreigners voting, with the sole caveat that if a country allows British citizens to vote then I think that common decency dictates that we should return the favour for that country's citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 23, 2017 22:24:28 GMT
Well, it is currently unlawful (as it is an improper consideration/purpose) for a Council or Her Majesty's Ministers to decide how to fulfil their statutory obligations on the basis of party political considerations. But both Labour and Conservative governments and Councils have been suspected of so doing from time to time. That's no secret. But we've reached a different level if people see social cleansing as a legitimate tactic to improve Tory chances in the inner boroughs, it is the direct destruction of communities and people's lives for partisan gain. Utterly disgusting. Actually Labour have been much fairer than the Conservatives in relation to electoral matters - them supporting the reduction of the number of Scottish MPs for 2005 and the Representation of the People Act 1948 spring to mind as good acts. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have often manipulated elections to further its dominance (the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in the mid 1980s is a good example - though of course that wasn't illegal as it was by virtue of an Act of Parliament). |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 23, 2017 22:36:10 GMT
Actually Labour have been much fairer than the Conservatives in relation to electoral matters - them supporting the reduction of the number of Scottish MPs for 2005 and the Representation of the People Act 1948 spring to mind as good acts. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have often manipulated elections to further its dominance (the abolition of the Metropolitan County Councils in the mid 1980s is a good example - though of course that wasn't illegal as it was by virtue of an Act of Parliament). Are you arguing against yourself... But seriously that wasn't my point, I was distinguishing between regular meddling and what Pete suggested, which everyone is being remarkably blase about. No, the example that I was thinking of is that it is suspected by some that the 1997-2010 Labour government supported a open-door immigration policy to further its electoral chances. I don't know whether that suspicion is valid - it is certainly true that net immigration soared during that government, but that doesn't prove that it was a deliberate policy (indeed if it was a deliberate policy it doesn't seem to have worked as it hasn't boosted Labour's electoral prospects at all - if anything it has worsened them). I should add that an obvious example of where Labour manipulated (or tried to manipulate) an election is when it delayed the implementation of boundary changes in 1969/1970. It didn't work as they got tossed out of power at the next election, but it was still very naughty. But generally, in my view, Labour have been much fairer than the Conservatives in relation to the manipulation of elections. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,044
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 23, 2017 23:21:54 GMT
No, the example that I was thinking of is that it is suspected by some that the 1997-2010 Labour government supported a open-door immigration policy to further its electoral chances. The technical term for that kind of thing is Dolchstoßlegende. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 23, 2017 23:51:48 GMT
Adrian I hope you don't endorse this: "As for the more permanent poor residential population, Westminster council knows what it needs to do there, but one would hope they'd have the good sense and decency not to dump the problem on Peterborough or Milton Keynes or Hastings" Absolutely disgusting. Have I misunderstood? I thought was agreeing that London councils should not export their poor to the sticks. For any reason. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 24, 2017 0:03:37 GMT
Generally speaking, I don't think politicians are as machiavellian as their lazy critics make them out to be. Blair didn't encourage immigration in order to help Labour win elections. London councils aren't farming tenants out to Milton Keynes in order to help Tories win elections. Of course such actions can have electoral consequences, but it's not the reason for the policies.
As far as who is allowed to vote is concerned, my mantra continues to be that taxpayers (and would-be taxpayers!) should have the vote, subject to a residency requirement of, say, two years, for both local and national elections, and that there should be no favouritism towards people from certain countries.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 24, 2017 0:05:45 GMT
Have I misunderstood? I thought was agreeing that London councils should not export their poor to the sticks. For any reason. 'Westminster council knows what it needs to do' referring to 'the problem' meaning poor people. I read that as advocation of moving poor ppl out of Westminster - social cleansing - to further the conservatives election chances Well, I'm happy to have been generous in my interpretation, even if it was underserved. When I hear people saying they know what a council needs to do, I assume they will want to be as empathetic as I am... |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 24, 2017 8:37:32 GMT
Indeed there isn't a bias in the constituency boundaries but the perception that there was was the rationale for them passing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act ( and the 2005 and 2010 results, juxtaposed, did justify that perception at that time). But my point was not whether or not the boundaries are rigged against them but that if they want to address structural issues which may count against them at elections the rules on eligibility to vote (along with other issues like dual registration) are things they ought to look at. My own angle is not based on trying to assist the Conservative party per se but is my principled objection to foreign nationals voting in general elections (and especially in referendums which determine essential issues of sovereignty) but I'm surprised that they seem so unconcerned about the issue Fair enough. I very strongly agree with you on the issue of foreigners voting, with the sole caveat that if a country allows British citizens to vote then I think that common decency dictates that we should return the favour for that country's citizens. I think the issue of who is allowed to vote for what is overdue a review. Restricting votes for parliament to citizens (as of course many countries do) requires you to address the issue of emigres, and dual citizens who may never have lived in your country. Logically a narrow franchise of citizens who are resident would seem best. I don't believe people who live abroad should have a vote, although arrangements need to be made for those temporarily resident abroad (eg diplomats, soldiers) as used to be the case. For local elections we currently have a residential franchise, which excludes residents who are not commonwealth or EU citizens. This isn't terribly logical either. I'd be inclined to give the vote to anyone whose residence is not explicitly temporary. Ireland is a special case because Irish citizens are not subject to immigration controls. By definition they are therefore "permanent residents" if they live here. jigger 's point about reciprocal arrangements is a good one. Are there any countries where British citizens are permitted to vote in national elections? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Oct 24, 2017 9:11:09 GMT
Fair enough. I very strongly agree with you on the issue of foreigners voting, with the sole caveat that if a country allows British citizens to vote then I think that common decency dictates that we should return the favour for that country's citizens. I think the issue of who is allowed to vote for what is overdue a review. Restricting votes for parliament to citizens (as of course many countries do) requires you to address the issue of emigres, and dual citizens who may never have lived in your country. Logically a narrow franchise of citizens who are resident would seem best. I don't believe people who live abroad should have a vote, although arrangements need to be made for those temporarily resident abroad (eg diplomats, soldiers) as used to be the case. For local elections we currently have a residential franchise, which excludes residents who are not commonwealth or EU citizens. This isn't terribly logical either. I'd be inclined to give the vote to anyone whose residence is not explicitly temporary. Ireland is a special case because Irish citizens are not subject to immigration controls. By definition they are therefore "permanent residents" if they live here. jigger 's point about reciprocal arrangements is a good one. Are there any countries where British citizens are permitted to vote in national elections? Ireland, Uruguay and New Zealand. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 24, 2017 10:27:40 GMT
I think the issue of who is allowed to vote for what is overdue a review. Restricting votes for parliament to citizens (as of course many countries do) requires you to address the issue of emigres, and dual citizens who may never have lived in your country. Logically a narrow franchise of citizens who are resident would seem best. I don't believe people who live abroad should have a vote, although arrangements need to be made for those temporarily resident abroad (eg diplomats, soldiers) as used to be the case. For local elections we currently have a residential franchise, which excludes residents who are not commonwealth or EU citizens. This isn't terribly logical either. I'd be inclined to give the vote to anyone whose residence is not explicitly temporary. Ireland is a special case because Irish citizens are not subject to immigration controls. By definition they are therefore "permanent residents" if they live here. jigger 's point about reciprocal arrangements is a good one. Are there any countries where British citizens are permitted to vote in national elections? Ireland, Uruguay and New Zealand. Go on, explain that one...... |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Oct 24, 2017 11:15:43 GMT
Ireland, Uruguay and New Zealand. Go on, explain that one...... I forgot a lot from my quick glance. Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucie, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay: Anyone living there for 15 years can vote. Chile: Anyone living there since 5 years can vote. Hong Kong, New Zealand: Anyone with the permanent resident status. Malawi: Anyone living there since 7 years can vote. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 24, 2017 15:58:55 GMT
Go on, explain that one...... I forgot a lot from my quick glance. Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucie, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago I'm surprised Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not on that list. When did they change the law? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Oct 24, 2017 19:46:06 GMT
I forgot a lot from my quick glance. Commonwealth: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucie, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago I'm surprised Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not on that list. When did they change the law? Australia: 1984 (through people on the register at that date were grandfathered in) Canada: 1970 (no grandfathering) New Zealand: Law was changed to "permanent residents" in 1975. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 25, 2017 14:07:17 GMT
(b) The BCE's revised scheme in the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area is a terrible mess, if anything slightly worse than the initial proposals in this area (which were bad enough). There's no good solution that I can find, but the 'least worst' is to keep both Finchley and Southgate together and join them in a dumbbell-shaped seat, with Barnet and Cockfosters making up the other seat. So I'll suggest that. The revised scheme's proposals for the Barnet / Finchley / Southgate area are indeed a terrible mess, having very slightly repaired the initial scheme's butchering of Southgate at the cost of substantially worsening its butchering of Finchley. However, while your solution is both reasonably minimal and obvious in relation to both the initial and the revised schemes, your Finchley and Southgate constituency is still something of a geographical monstrosity, the real problem being the way in which the Kings Cross railway line almost totally blocks direct communication between the Finchley and Southgate halves (and this has been only slightly less of a problem with both the BCE schemes for the area). I am currently thinking about two variants of an alternative proposal which I dislike rather less than anything I have seen so far - even though both variants require a ward split and have some other problems of their own. The proposal amounts to creating separate Finchley-centred and Southgate-centred constituencies. In both variants, the proposal only affects the revised scheme's proposed Finchley and Enfield Southgate, Chipping Barnet and Hornsey and Wood Green constituencies, with Hornsey and Wood Green only being affected to the extent of what is added to the current constituency to bring it within the permissible range. Both variants keep the current Enfield Southgate wards of Southgate, Southgate Green, Winchmore Hill, Cockfosters (as with the revised proposals for Finchley and Enfield Southgate) and Bowes Park (unlike either BCE proposal) in one constituency, and the current Finchley and Golders Green wards of Finchley Church End, East Finchley, West Finchley and Woodhouse together in another. The current Chipping Barnet wards of Brunswick Park and East Barnet would go to the Southgate-centred constituency, and Oakleigh, Underhill and Totteridge to the Finchley-centred constituency. The variants differ by what happens to Coppetts and High Barnet wards. Note that, without these two ward, all three constituencies (including Hornsey and Wood Green, due to it not gaining Bowes) would be below range, but that one of the two wards has to be split as either of them unsplit would bring the Finchley constituency above range. In one variant, then, Coppetts ward south of the North Circular Road (polling districts - omitting the E09000003 prefix - CDC and CDE) goes into Hornsey and Wood Green (to give an electorate of 71,290), and the rest into the Finchley constituency (electorate 75,627 - suggested name, Finchley and Dollis Valley). High Barnet ward goes unsplit into the Southgate constituency (electorate 76,455 - suggested name, Southgate and Chipping Barnet). The Coppetts ward split is along a very clear barrier, with the southern part already being surrounded on three sides (with good connections) by Hornsey and Wood Green. In the north, the incorporation of the whole of High Barnet ward into the Southgate constituency does create a rather bad community split at a number of points from Chipping Barnet town centre through to Sterling Corner (though not quite so bad, I think, as the split in the BCE revised proposals through North Finchley). In the other variant, the whole of Coppetts ward goes into Hornsey and Wood Green (electorate 77,775), but in High Barnet ward, only the eastern two polling districts (CAA and CAB) go into the Southgate constituency (giving an electorate of 71,131 - suggested name, Southgate and East Barnet) with the remainder to the west in the Finchley constituency (electorate 74,466 - suggested name, Finchley and Chipping Barnet). The northern part of Coppetts ward fits rather less well with Hornsey and Wood Green than does the southern part of the ward, but conversely the split in High Barnet ward, while less neat than the Coppetts ward one suggested above (or indeed the Brunswick Park ward split suggested by the BCE), cuts mostly through physical divides just to the east of Chipping Barnet town centre that may not be noticeable on a map. Indeed, there is even some historical excuse for it - it mostly runs close to the pre-1965 boundary between East Barnet and Barnet Urban Districts. By the way - I have lived in Chipping Barnet constituency almost all my life and been an intermittently active member of the Labour Party here for about forty years. I grew up in Brunswick Park ward, and now live in High Barnet ward. I don't want to see Chipping Barnet split, but I know both Finchley and Southgate as well, and every proposal that I have seen in this review does more damage to one, other or both of them than either of my variants above does to Chipping Barnet. Comments? I have been giving this area some more thought as I agree the Finchley/Southgate link is far from ideal. Finchley links well to the West, towards Hendon and 'Golders green' but that link is necessarily(?) broken by the changes to Hampstead etc (at least we may consider it necessary from the point of view that reversing it would have huge knock-on effects across the rest of Middlesex. As you acknowledge, the good links to the North, towards Chipping Barnet, end when you get past Whetstone adn Friern Barnet and here you have a problem with the numbers resulting in a need to split ward. So it has occurred to me that a better link exists between Finchley and the Fortis Green/Muswell Hill area. I don't think this is a particularly novel observation, but I have been able to come up with some alternative plans which a) keep Chipping Barnet intact b) keep Southgate (more or less) intact and c) keep Finchley intact. The reason this may not have been considered is that the two Haringey seats can be maintained with minimal change and what I propose would cause much more disruption in Haringey, but I think any of these suggested seats are more cohesive than the current propsoals in the Barnet/Finchley/Southgate areas |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 25, 2017 14:13:24 GMT
So first solution  Hendon is as per the revised proposals. Chipping Barnet loses Coppetts and gains Cockfosters. The four Finchley wards plus Coppetts are joined with four neighbouring Haringey wards. We then break up the proposed FP&SN seat and put the Islington wards together with four wards in the Hornsey area and tStoke Newington with Tottenham. Wood Green takes the northern tier of HAringey and the Southern tier of Enfield. not much more explanation needed. The downside of this plan is that Haringey ends up divided between four different seats. If this is a problem you can leave FP & SN out of the equation entirely, keep it as proposed and instead have a Tottenham & Hornsey seat. My view is that the links were not so good in this area but on the other hand it avoids creating another cross-borough constituency. There are alternatives in the Enfield seats as well. These are interchangeable, in other words you could take the Enfield/Wood Green plan from my first map with my Haringey/Hackney/Islington plan from the second or vice versa  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 25, 2017 15:41:50 GMT
n fact it's possible to avoid crossing the Barnet/Enfield border altogether (not that I see anything wrong with crossing it around Cockfosters). You could go with the Commissions initial plans for Hendon and which would mean Finchley & Muswell Hill would take Crouch End (which is sensible enough) and push changes all the way through the other seats so that Cockfosters ends up in Southgate.  This does look a bit better around the East of the sub-region but of course I'm bitterly opposed to that arrangement in Hendon. Another alternative is to swap Mill and Finchley church end back and then put Coppetts back in Chipping Barnet, leaving that seat unchanged. This could be the least worst option but IMO Coppetts really should be in this Finchley seat  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 25, 2017 15:43:17 GMT
One thing's for sure - there's plenty of sensible options in this area that don't involve splitting a ward. They'd be far better off splitting a ward in Ealing or Brent to make more sense of the plpans they have there
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 26, 2017 9:53:39 GMT
I anticipated that there might be some response to my previous post from some of those who have expressed an interest in that area but I shan't go all Australian swing voter about it - this is purely an academic exercise for me now (or to use the correct technical term, 'just a bit of fun'). Anyway I shall continue with some further proposed changes in Central London and Middlesex to address some of the problems there (I'm generally quite happy about the revised proposals in East London and South London) My starting point was to see if we could avoid adding Holborn to the Cities seat (because that seat is already comprised of two boroughs namely Westminster and the City of London). Additionally I thought the 'Golders Green' area might be better utilised than putting it with Hampstead and to have a different pair of wards separated from the Barnet configuration discussed above.  One split ward is necessary here but since the BC themselves quite unnecessarily split a ward in Barnet I don't feel constrained to avoid doing so in Ealing so Ealing Common will be split with a couple of PDs in the South going to Brentford & Chiswick I suggest this plan has the following advantages: It keeps the Hamsptead seat entirely within Camden borough and tidies up the Islington/Camden boundary, linking areas which IMO have a better connection (ie Holborn/Finsbury) while also avoiding a Westminster/Camden crossing. Indeed Camden is involved in only one cross borough constituency compared with three in the Commission plan The Harrow seats have minimal change Shepherd's Bush is much better paired with Acton than with Willesden Uxbridge is wholly contained within Hillingdon and joined by areas where it has good and historic links (Ickenham and Harefield) rather than the unsatisfactory pairing with Northolt. Ealing North does not need to be changed The only downside is the necessity of a split ward in Ealing and the Hounslow seat does look a bit messy Edit: From this www.ealing.gov.uk/downloads/file/9632/situation_of_polling_stations_-_ealing_central_and_acton it looks like Polling Districts EA and EB with about 3.5k voters fits the bill to be split off from the rest of Ealing Common. This the area south of the Piccadily line so that is a 'natural' boundary |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 26, 2017 15:22:28 GMT
And an alternative arrangement for the Hendon/Harrow/Brent North/Ruislip seats which possibly works a bit better on the ground and is perhaps less of an obvious gerrymander than my originally proposed Hendon seat was  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 26, 2017 15:29:00 GMT
If islington insists on keeping all the Kenton wards together, you can move Northwick park and Sudbury to Harrow & Wealdstone, Headstone North to Stanmore & Edgware, Kenton West and Queensbury to Kingsbury |
|
