|
Post by greenhert on Mar 6, 2021 22:27:04 GMT
Is there ever going to be a review of the current London Assembly seats, especially due to forecast electorate growth around the River Thames? Also, some of these London Assembly single member constituencies are poorly constructed: Waltham Forest should be paired with Redbridge, not Hackney and Islington, and Barking & Dagenham should be joined up with Havering, not the City, Newham and Tower Hamlets; the City of London should be with West Central. There was a review in 2014 which concluded that no change should be made. The fact that the law requires that there be specifically 14 SMCs and 11 list seats in the London Assembly is a key problem; the London Assembly should be expanded to 30 seats (15 SMCs and 15 list seats) with salaries reduced slightly to compensate. UPDATE: Having looked at Boundary Assistant, and seen how unequal the current London Assembly seat electorates are, it is clear a 15th SMC in the London Assembly would be the best way to solve current electoral inequalities between the London Assembly seats given the size of each London Borough.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 6, 2021 23:42:36 GMT
The London Assembly is a seriously weak body because the Mayor only needs approval for one thing - the budget - and that will pass unless there's a two-thirds majority against it. Although given scrutiny powers, the rest of what it does is just talk because the policies and officials it scrutinises don't need the support of the Assembly.
My solution to the problem would be to make it a 200 member body, sitting part-time, and with a wider remit to scrutinise any issue affecting the community in London. So not just GLA decisions, but those of the entire public sector, business, culture, society, everything. Then it could be elected from single-member constituencies.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 7, 2021 10:44:47 GMT
The London Assembly is a seriously weak body because the Mayor only needs approval for one thing - the budget - and that will pass unless there's a two-thirds majority against it. Although given scrutiny powers, the rest of what it does is just talk because the policies and officials it scrutinises don't need the support of the Assembly. My solution to the problem would be to make it a 200 member body, sitting part-time, and with a wider remit to scrutinise any issue affecting the community in London. So not just GLA decisions, but those of the entire public sector, business, culture, society, everything. Then it could be elected from single-member constituencies. It should not be entirely elected from single member constituencies, nor should any other Assembly in Britain, and nor should Westminster for that matter. AMS works very well indeed for retaining the constituency link and ensuring that there is a fair chance for smaller parties to gain representation.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 7, 2021 10:50:22 GMT
The London Assembly is a seriously weak body because the Mayor only needs approval for one thing - the budget - and that will pass unless there's a two-thirds majority against it. Although given scrutiny powers, the rest of what it does is just talk because the policies and officials it scrutinises don't need the support of the Assembly. My solution to the problem would be to make it a 200 member body, sitting part-time, and with a wider remit to scrutinise any issue affecting the community in London. So not just GLA decisions, but those of the entire public sector, business, culture, society, everything. Then it could be elected from single-member constituencies. It should not be entirely elected from single member constituencies, nor should any other Assembly in Britain, and nor should Westminster for that matter. AMS works very well indeed for retaining the constituency link and ensuring that there is a fair chance for smaller parties to gain representation. Remember that David Boothroyd considers smaller parties gaining representation to be a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 7, 2021 10:52:44 GMT
It should not be entirely elected from single member constituencies, nor should any other Assembly in Britain, and nor should Westminster for that matter. AMS works very well indeed for retaining the constituency link and ensuring that there is a fair chance for smaller parties to gain representation. Remember that David Boothroyd considers smaller parties gaining representation to be a bad thing. Qite right too. It mucks up the stats and makes getting a clear majority more difficult. One never wants three teams in a game; just the two.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 7, 2021 10:59:58 GMT
Remember that David Boothroyd considers smaller parties gaining representation to be a bad thing. Qite right too. It mucks up the stats and makes getting a clear majority more difficult. One never wants three teams in a game; just the two. Well you say that....
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 7, 2021 11:13:42 GMT
Remember that David Boothroyd considers smaller parties gaining representation to be a bad thing. Qite right too. It mucks up the stats and makes getting a clear majority more difficult. One never wants three teams in a game; just the two. And if neither of the two are fit to govern?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 7, 2021 15:22:18 GMT
Qite right too. It mucks up the stats and makes getting a clear majority more difficult. One never wants three teams in a game; just the two. And if neither of the two are fit to govern? Well ! I think that we both feel that generally it is a 'Given', but that it is very unlikely to be improved by a mix of parties or any two, three or five other parties either?
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 7, 2021 15:26:21 GMT
And if neither of the two are fit to govern? Well ! I think that we both feel that generally it is a 'Given', but that it is very unlikely to be improved by a mix of parties or any two, three or five other parties either? Maybe not, but at least it might give me someone to vote for which would be more than a meaningless gesture?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 7, 2021 15:28:57 GMT
Well ! I think that we both feel that generally it is a 'Given', but that it is very unlikely to be improved by a mix of parties or any two, three or five other parties either? Maybe not, but at least it might give me someone to vote for which would be more than a meaningless gesture? Yes. There is that. I too want my meaningless gesture with the Fox party. I think I might get on quite well with him. We won't win anything of course.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 7, 2021 23:53:33 GMT
The London Assembly is a seriously weak body because the Mayor only needs approval for one thing - the budget - and that will pass unless there's a two-thirds majority against it. Although given scrutiny powers, the rest of what it does is just talk because the policies and officials it scrutinises don't need the support of the Assembly. My solution to the problem would be to make it a 200 member body, sitting part-time, and with a wider remit to scrutinise any issue affecting the community in London. So not just GLA decisions, but those of the entire public sector, business, culture, society, everything. Then it could be elected from single-member constituencies. If all 200 of them were elected by STV in an at-large election from the whole of Greater London, it would inevitably produce a congenial and consensual assembly of enlightened wise people, nodding sagely at each other in general agreement on most issues, and would inevitably result in a flourishing economy, a clean healthy sustainable environment with safe cycle lanes and pedestrian areas, a cultural and artistic flourishing of creativity and expression, and would inevitably squeeze out and get rid of any corrupt councillors, self-important Walter Mittys, publicity freaks, one-issue obsessives, parochial busibodies, and incompetent place-holders. To make the system even more efficient, it should be compulsory for all registered parties to select a full list of 200 candidates (balanced by race, age, gender, disability etc), and voters should be required to list all candidates in order of preference on their ballot paper. Voting and counting should be done manually, not by scanning machines.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 8, 2021 5:04:05 GMT
The London Assembly is a seriously weak body because the Mayor only needs approval for one thing - the budget - and that will pass unless there's a two-thirds majority against it. Although given scrutiny powers, the rest of what it does is just talk because the policies and officials it scrutinises don't need the support of the Assembly. My solution to the problem would be to make it a 200 member body, sitting part-time, and with a wider remit to scrutinise any issue affecting the community in London. So not just GLA decisions, but those of the entire public sector, business, culture, society, everything. Then it could be elected from single-member constituencies. It should not be entirely elected from single member constituencies, nor should any other Assembly in Britain, and nor should Westminster for that matter. AMS works very well indeed for retaining the constituency link and ensuring that there is a fair chance for smaller parties to gain representation. That was my first thought, but it should be noted that the current ratio of 14 constituency seats to 11 list seats has led to some extremists entering City Hall. Johnloony's proposal for a very particular form of STV would lead to record numbers of invalid ballot papers. The fundamental point of making the London Assembly far bigger and giving it some actual teeth is one I fully agree with, though.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 8, 2021 7:33:10 GMT
It should not be entirely elected from single member constituencies, nor should any other Assembly in Britain, and nor should Westminster for that matter. AMS works very well indeed for retaining the constituency link and ensuring that there is a fair chance for smaller parties to gain representation. That was my first thought, but it should be noted that the current ratio of 14 constituency seats to 11 list seats has led to some extremists entering City Hall. Johnloony's proposal for a very particular form of STV would lead to record numbers of invalid ballot papers. The fundamental point of making the London Assembly far bigger and giving it some actual teeth is one I fully agree with, though. How did the election of Ken Livinsgtone as Mayor have anything to do with the system used to elect assembly members?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 9, 2021 9:25:03 GMT
That was my first thought, but it should be noted that the current ratio of 14 constituency seats to 11 list seats has led to some extremists entering City Hall. Johnloony's proposal for a very particular form of STV would lead to record numbers of invalid ballot papers. The fundamental point of making the London Assembly far bigger and giving it some actual teeth is one I fully agree with, though. How did the election of Ken Livinsgtone as Mayor have anything to do with the system used to elect assembly members? Note my use of the plural. Red Ken isn't the only person elected to the GTA over the past 21 years who could match that description.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 9, 2021 13:12:35 GMT
How did the election of Ken Livinsgtone as Mayor have anything to do with the system used to elect assembly members? Note my use of the plural. Red Ken isn't the only person elected to the GTA over the past 21 years who could match that description. Which doesn't undermine Pete's point - that extremists can and do get elected under non-proportional electoral systems (and it's not difficult to find examples on both the right and the left). If you're going to claim that the AMS system used for GLA elections causes extremists to be elected then you have to demonstrate not just that extremists have been elected under this system but that the system itself caused those people to be elected.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 9, 2021 21:58:33 GMT
Note my use of the plural. Red Ken isn't the only person elected to the GTA over the past 21 years who could match that description. Which doesn't undermine Pete's point - that extremists can and do get elected under non-proportional electoral systems (and it's not difficult to find examples on both the right and the left). If you're going to claim that the AMS system used for GLA elections causes extremists to be elected then you have to demonstrate not just that extremists have been elected under this system but that the system itself caused those people to be elected. Hey, I'm possibly the biggest advocate on here of a particular form of AMS. I just think the experience of the London Assembly so far demonstrates that the 14:11 ratio of FPTP to top-up seats hasn't succeeded in keeping extremists out. I never even mentioned SV or the mayoralty until Pete did. Either way, the example of Baden-Württemberg shows us that party lists – whether open or closed – are rubbish and unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 9, 2021 23:02:09 GMT
Which doesn't undermine Pete's point - that extremists can and do get elected under non-proportional electoral systems (and it's not difficult to find examples on both the right and the left). If you're going to claim that the AMS system used for GLA elections causes extremists to be elected then you have to demonstrate not just that extremists have been elected under this system but that the system itself caused those people to be elected. Hey, I'm possibly the biggest advocate on here of a particular form of AMS. I just think the experience of the London Assembly so far demonstrates that the 14:11 ratio of FPTP to top-up seats hasn't succeeded in keeping extremists out. I never even mentioned SV or the mayoralty until Pete did. Either way, the example of Baden-Württemberg shows us that party lists – whether open or closed – are rubbish and unnecessary. The only AMS systems that are intended to keep extremists out are ones with threshold restrictions for list seats (which only works if the extremists are sufficiently unpopular), and the GLA's system doesn't include thresholds. So of course it hasn't succeeded at achieving a goal it was never intended to meet. In reality, the only way to reliably keep extremists from being elected is to persuade the electorate not to vote for them (since supporting a system that bans candidates from standing if they have an extremist ideology is extremist in and of itself).
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 10, 2021 1:45:32 GMT
Hey, I'm possibly the biggest advocate on here of a particular form of AMS. I just think the experience of the London Assembly so far demonstrates that the 14:11 ratio of FPTP to top-up seats hasn't succeeded in keeping extremists out. I never even mentioned SV or the mayoralty until Pete did. Either way, the example of Baden-Württemberg shows us that party lists – whether open or closed – are rubbish and unnecessary. The only AMS systems that are intended to keep extremists out are ones with threshold restrictions for list seats (which only works if the extremists are sufficiently unpopular), and the GLA's system doesn't include thresholds. So of course it hasn't succeeded at achieving a goal it was never intended to meet. In reality, the only way to reliably keep extremists from being elected is to persuade the electorate not to vote for them (since supporting a system that bans candidates from standing if they have an extremist ideology is extremist in and of itself). Oh yes it does. The GLA Assembly election has a threshold of 5%, whereas otherwise it would have a de-facto threshold of about 3-3.5%. The existence of the 5% threshold has made a difference to the number of seats for each party (compared to what it would be without the threshold) on most of the occasions on which the GLA has been elected - sometimes as many as 2 seats different. Edit: Specifically: 2000: Christian People's Alliance got 3.3% of the votes. Without the 5% threshold, the number of seats would have been CPA 1 Conservative 8 instead of Conservative 9 2004: BNP got 4.8% and Respect got 4.7%. The number of seats would have been BNP 1 Rsp 1 UKIP 1 Green 1 instead of UKIP 2 Green 2 2008: no difference 2012: UKIP got 4.5%. The number of seats would have been UKIP 1 LD 1 instead of LD 2 2016: Women's Equality Party got 3.5%. The number of seats would have been WEqP 1 UKIP 1 instead of UKIP 2 an average of 1 seat difference each time. When the GLA was establisted in the first place, it was stated almost explicitly that the 5% threshold was deliberately intended to stop the BNP from getting a seat. In the first election in 2000, the result after the event was criticised for excluding an ethnic minority candidate from the CPA who would otherwise have been elected.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 10, 2021 2:09:07 GMT
The only AMS systems that are intended to keep extremists out are ones with threshold restrictions for list seats (which only works if the extremists are sufficiently unpopular), and the GLA's system doesn't include thresholds. It does - 5%. This rule has stopped the Christian People's Alliance (in 2000), the BNP (in 2004) and the Women's Equality Party (in 2016) from taking a seat they would otherwise have had. 5% election wide is a pretty low threshold.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 10, 2021 2:15:08 GMT
Thresholds are, in any event, not tantamount to "ban[ning] candidates from standing" as was insinuated above.
|
|