Ask the Forum thread- psephology

[greatkingrat]

There were 6 constituencies in England and Wales (and another 48 in Scotland)

Finchley and Golders Green
Chelsea and Fulham
Doncaster North
Earley and Woodley
Cities of London and Westminster
Hartlepool

Mostly down to either anomalous Lib Dem performances in 2019, or no Reform UK candidate in 2024.

[riccimarsh]

How do we all feel about these six suggestions for parliamentary reform??

[john07]

Aug 29, 2024 0:00:19 GMT riccimarsh said:

How do we all feel about these six suggestions for parliamentary reform??

It sounds remarkably like Militant policy from the 1970s?

[nyx]

Aug 29, 2024 0:00:19 GMT riccimarsh said:

How do we all feel about these six suggestions for parliamentary reform??

1) makes sense
2) out of institutional continuity, no- but I'd be fine with reform to such an extent it effectively becomes a different body
3) Two is probably too often, but 3 or 4 years might make sense
4) "doesn't follow instructions" is vague
5) unnecessary
6) Reasonable

[uthacalthing]

If you intend to take this nonsense seriously

1/ Out of London. Don't be daft. The costs would be staggering, the benefits illusory, the international consequences catastrophic. By all means, move entire government departments out of London. The government and all its opposing parties spent all of 2019-20 telling us that Zoom Calls were real meetings

2/ Abolish the upper chamber, no, reform it, well we have done for centuries so I suppose so

3/ GE every 2 years? No. Every seven, maybe, up in thirds or rolling 5-year terms, maybe.

4/ Oh do shut up 

5/ So, no ministers or speaker who either knows what he is on about or who we have had time to rumble 

6/ MPs salary 10% more that they earned the year before they were elected, 10% pay rise every year, floor and ceiling set to £30k and  £300k. No additional pay for minsiters. 

I had a good friend who very much wanted to be an MP. He was Ministerial material, unlike most ministers. Once he was earning £200k a year, he gave up his ambition as he could not afford the pay cut. He bought his first house the year I cleared my mortgage. Thats London for you.  

[The Bishop]

Number 4 is easily the most nonsensical, all the others can at least be argued for coherently.

[johnloony]

The most insane part of that tweet is the implication that the photograph of the people in the House of Commons somehow supports the argument for any of the proposals.

As far as I can tell, the implication is that if politicians of different parties are being friendly with each other, then they must be betraying the real interests of the people who elected them. Presumably this is the sort of far-lefty who will only be happy if the politicians are frenziedly hating each other all the time.

[gwynthegriff]

Aug 29, 2024 10:37:19 GMT The Bishop said:

Number 4 is easily the most nonsensical, all the others can at least be argued for coherently.

"I like Stoke on Trent" ?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Aug 29, 2024 11:20:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Aug 29, 2024 10:37:19 GMT The Bishop said:

Number 4 is easily the most nonsensical, all the others can at least be argued for coherently.

"I like Stoke on Trent" ?

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002130m

[J.G.Harston]

Aug 29, 2024 0:00:19 GMT riccimarsh said:

How do we all feel about these six suggestions for parliamentary reform??

Sounds like a recipe for unimpeded government. Get all those pesky drags on power *OUT* of the way and kicked into the long grass. Have them all running in circles chasing their own tails instead of noticing what those in power are doing. Just as in the film V for Vendetta, when they blew up the Houses of Parliament my immediate thought was: well done, now the government is even *more* firmly entrenched, you've destroyed the seat of the very people who would be trying to *stop* the government.

[islington]

Aug 29, 2024 0:00:19 GMT riccimarsh said:

How do we all feel about these six suggestions for parliamentary reform??

Sign me up for no.2.

Not for the rest, though.

[stb12]

I mean even in the US where there’s term limits for the President and most Governors, there’s no term limits for the legislative branches

[john07]

Aug 29, 2024 18:43:05 GMT stb12 said:

I mean even in the US where there’s term limits for the President and most Governors, there’s no term limits for the legislative branches

Three two-year time limits for MPs?

Best of luck trying to form a Government with that crackpot idea.

It all reeks of Trot-style ‘transitional demands’.

[nyx]

Aug 29, 2024 11:20:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Aug 29, 2024 10:37:19 GMT The Bishop said:

Number 4 is easily the most nonsensical, all the others can at least be argued for coherently.

"I like Stoke on Trent" ?

Could be anywhere, but I would say the general principle of moving the government to elsewhere in the country would be useful for cost-saving purposes if nothing else. All expenses (MP housing, building maintenance, etc) would be far more feasible outside of London, and selling off government buildings in London following such a move would probably recuperate the cost of moving given how valuable London property is.

[Sibboleth]

Moving the capital to a new location never saves money.

[J.G.Harston]

Aug 29, 2024 19:05:21 GMT nyx said:

Aug 29, 2024 11:20:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

"I like Stoke on Trent" ?

Could be anywhere, but I would say the general principle of moving the government to elsewhere in the country would be useful for cost-saving purposes if nothing else. All expenses (MP housing, building maintenance, etc) would be far more feasible outside of London, and selling off government buildings in London following such a move would probably recuperate the cost of moving given how valuable London property is.

But all the "stuff" is in London. You'd just end up with MPs spending all their time commuting to London from where-ever Parliament is based.

[john07]

Aug 29, 2024 19:05:21 GMT nyx said:

Aug 29, 2024 11:20:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

"I like Stoke on Trent" ?

Could be anywhere, but I would say the general principle of moving the government to elsewhere in the country would be useful for cost-saving purposes if nothing else. All expenses (MP housing, building maintenance, etc) would be far more feasible outside of London, and selling off government buildings in London following such a move would probably recuperate the cost of moving given how valuable London property is.

It would be like the old EU issue with shifting everything from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again.

Then you have to build a new home for the Parliament. Experience from Holyrood and elsewhere shows what that would end up costing.

Then there would be the cost of the travelling circus. The senior civil servants will not be relocating. Ministers would presumably require up to three homes. Civil servants would have to travel up and down. It is a good job that HS2 is on the way? Sorry, forgot that has been axed. Good new for the helicopter hire companies?

[nyx]

Aug 29, 2024 19:55:53 GMT john07 said:

Aug 29, 2024 19:05:21 GMT nyx said:

Could be anywhere, but I would say the general principle of moving the government to elsewhere in the country would be useful for cost-saving purposes if nothing else. All expenses (MP housing, building maintenance, etc) would be far more feasible outside of London, and selling off government buildings in London following such a move would probably recuperate the cost of moving given how valuable London property is.

It would be like the old EU issue with shifting everything from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again.

Then you have to build a new home for the Parliament. Experience from Holyrood and elsewhere shows what that would end up costing.

Then there would be the cost of the travelling circus. The senior civil servants will not be relocating. Ministers would presumably require up to three homes. Civil servants would have to travel up and down. It is a good job that HS2 is on the way? Sorry, forgot that has been axed. Good new for the helicopter hire companies?

Plenty of countries have moved their capital city so it's certainly not impossible. In itself it would be a big job, but in the event of a new town being constructed anyway (as the current government is proposing anyway), construction of government buildings within said new town would not be especially major in the context of the cost of the entire development. Especially considering that otherwise sizeable spending would be needed on the Palace of Westminster redevelopment.

The most realistic location would probably be the proposed Tempsford new town given its proximity to London, making transport back and forth in the transitional period relatively easy.

[peterl]

1. I'd strongly support moving Parliament out of London, especially if it could be somewhere that is not a huge city. Preferably somewhere with some history, good locations might include Exeter, Winchester, Canterbury, Norwich, Oxford, Cambridge, Lincoln, Worcester, York, Durham.
2. No. You can argue to reform or even replace the Lords, and there are pros and cons, I tend to think the cons of at least commonly argued reforms like elected peers outweigh the pros. However, just not having a second house will just make it easier for government to pass authoritarian laws.
3. Pluses and minuses. Easier to dispose of a bad government or ditch a hung parliament, but also impedes setting a long term strategy. Perhaps elections by halves or thirds could be considered to have the best of both worlds.
4. Recall for any reason but with a fairly high threshold would be worth exploring. An additional safeguard, once you survive a recall you are safe for the rest of that Parliament.
5. Not if elections are to be every 2 years. If elections are still every 4-5 years, a 3 term limit might be arguable. There are downsides however, loosing valuable experience that new members can learn from. Maybe a compromise would be after so many terms, an MP must take a break and can come back after 1 or 2 parliaments out.
6. Strongly support. MPs receiving high salaries is part of why they are so out of touch with most of the population.

[uthacalthing]

Aug 29, 2024 21:29:18 GMT peterl said:

 MPs receiving high salaries is part of why they are so out of touch with most of the population.

MPs do not have high salaries. The returning officer who shook their hand is probably paid more, their GP is almost certainly paid more  and they will have half a dozen Hgh School Heads who are paid more. Then even more consitituents than all combined in the private sector who earn more.