Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Dec 22, 2016 11:51:43 GMT
More info is needed. There is somewhat of a three-line whip in the Tory party to get the changes through, so any (seemingly selfish) Tory MP who doesn't vote for them may be held in some opprobrium. If they are not to be seen as selfish, Tory opponents would have to have good arguments against the changes. Some of them agree with me that the changes could be done in a more sympathetic manner (and the Commission is maybe shooting itself in the foot by its extreme approach) but most people see this as a weak complaint.
If there is any sign of a revolt, the government is in a bind: it ought to lean on the Commission to do a few things differently, but of course it isn't allowed to interfere.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 22, 2016 19:11:31 GMT
Do they have to go through both houses, or just the Commons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 22, 2016 19:29:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 22, 2016 19:31:52 GMT
That's what I thought. It's possible they'll have a harder time passing through the Lords than they will the Commons. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 22, 2016 20:50:21 GMT
That's what I thought. It's possible they'll have a harder time passing through the Lords than they will the Commons. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 22, 2016 21:03:09 GMT
It probably will go through, though I'm rather hoping that it doesn't. I'm not really bothered by anywhere else (except the Scottish Islands, why do they get preferential treatment, but Anglesey* doesn't?), but the review for Wales is an utter travesty, particularly in the North (which admittedly isn't the easiest region to draw boundaries for, regardless of the numbers...). For one thing I really don't seen why the Commons needs reducing to 600 members from 650, especially when the Lords has 800+ members (and though not all of them are necessarily active, that's really beside the point).
Were it up to me, I'd keep the Commons at 650 members for now, and simply redistribute the seats based on that number. Also, I'd remove the special status that the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetlands receive to redress the gross malapportionment that occurs by letting them remain (whilst factors such as community ties are important, they must ultimately give way to maintaining decent apportionment, should a conflict occur).
* And no, I don't bloody care if it has a bridge to the mainland and the others don't, it's still an inconsistent application of the rules...
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 22, 2016 21:32:45 GMT
Were it up to me, I'd keep the Commons at 650 members for now, and simply redistribute the seats based on that number. Also, I'd remove the special status that the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetlands receive to redress the gross malapportionment that occurs by letting them remain (whilst factors such as community ties are important, they must ultimately give way to maintaining decent apportionment, should a conflict occur). I'd seperate out equalising and tighting the constituency electorates from reducing the size of the Commons. Doing both in one big bang operation causes too many transitional problems. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 22, 2016 21:36:47 GMT
That's what I thought. It's possible they'll have a harder time passing through the Lords than they will the Commons. Why? Because the only party to benefit from the new boundaries will be the Tories, and they don't have a majority in the Lords. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 22, 2016 23:17:05 GMT
Because the only party to benefit from the new boundaries will be the Tories, and they don't have a majority in the Lords. Would they take that risk with due process, fairness and their very future just for a one-off 'up yours'? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 22, 2016 23:52:12 GMT
Because the only party to benefit from the new boundaries will be the Tories, and they don't have a majority in the Lords. Would they take that risk with due process, fairness and their very future just for a one-off 'up yours'? I agree, the boundary review is a clear manifesto commitment, which by convention the Lords does not block. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 23, 2016 0:22:26 GMT
It's also the case that boundaries need reviewing periodically and this review is now overdue. If this one were to be kicked out you would have to balance any unsatisfactory elements in the proposals against the unsatisfactory aspects of the current boundaries which are likely to get more unsatisfactory as time goes by.
I don't much like the reduction to 600 seats, but it was in the manifesto and FWIW I suspect that the general public is in favour of there being fewer MPs.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 23, 2016 0:29:14 GMT
It's also the case that boundaries need reviewing periodically and this review is now overdue. If this one were to be kicked out you would have to balance any unsatisfactory elements in the proposals against the unsatisfactory aspects of the current boundaries which are likely to get more unsatisfactory as time goes by. I don't much like the reduction to 600 seats, but it was in the manifesto and FWIW I suspect that the general public is in favour of there being fewer MPs. It's overdue in Scotland, but more or less on time in England, Wales and NI. Had the zombie review not been abandoned, that would have represented an early change in boundaries for those three constituent countries. The Lords get a vote as a matter of course, but they shouldn't try to block it as it's essentially none of their business. I would have sympathy with a tiny handful of ex-MPs who might not want to see their former constituency be dismembered in a particular way who could thus decide to cause a division, but there should not ultimately be a majority against the proposals. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 23, 2016 0:45:33 GMT
Would they take that risk with due process, fairness and their very future just for a one-off 'up yours'? I agree, the boundary review is a clear manifesto commitment, which by convention the Lords does not block. It's not that which will ensure it gets through the Lords unscathed (after all the manifesto commitment wasn't to a specific arrangement of boundaries). It's the unwillingness of the House of Lords to get involved in something which fundamentally affects the composition of the other House. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 6:21:43 GMT
A review of constituencies will be long, long overdue by 2020. Not passing this Review only stores up trouble and ammunition for later.
|
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Dec 23, 2016 8:49:55 GMT
A review of constituencies will be long, long overdue by 2020. Not passing this Review only stores up trouble and ammunition for later. I agree with this, but still reckon that it could well be defeated in the commons before getting to the lords. The reduction element, along with soe of the boundaries suggested by the commission, will make a number of conservative MPs vote against the changes. I'd be tempted to go for the Pat Glass amendment, really not convinced by a reduction in MPs unless the role was to change significantly (the amount of constituency work done by MPs has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years). 10% variance is still pretty large though, means a difference of approximately 15,000 electors between certain constituencies. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 23, 2016 11:04:58 GMT
I also agree with the idea that we shouldn't be cutting MP numbers while increasing Lord numbers I saw further up this page Nor should we be doing it whilst the "payroll vote" remains unchanged in size. In fact, we shouldn't be cutting the number of MPs full stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 23, 2016 11:41:15 GMT
In fact, we shouldn't be cutting the number of MPs full stop. Under the current circumstances I agree, though if the UK were to transition to a full federal system of governance over the current ad-hoc devolution that is currently in place (scenario is purely hypothetical, I know), then I would imagine that a system wide reduction of MP numbers would be in order. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
Member is Online
|
Post by Eastwood on Dec 23, 2016 16:43:16 GMT
It probably will go through, though I'm rather hoping that it doesn't. I'm not really bothered by anywhere else (except the Scottish Islands, why do they get preferential treatment, but Anglesey* doesn't?), but the review for Wales is an utter travesty, particularly in the North (which admittedly isn't the easiest region to draw boundaries for, regardless of the numbers...). For one thing I really don't seen why the Commons needs reducing to 600 members from 650, especially when the Lords has 800+ members (and though not all of them are necessarily active, that's really beside the point). Were it up to me, I'd keep the Commons at 650 members for now, and simply redistribute the seats based on that number. Also, I'd remove the special status that the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetlands receive to redress the gross malapportionment that occurs by letting them remain (whilst factors such as community ties are important, they must ultimately give way to maintaining decent apportionment, should a conflict occur). * And no, I don't bloody care if it has a bridge to the mainland and the others don't, it's still an inconsistent application of the rules...Bangor and Menai Bridge are fundamentally not that different and quite easy for a member of parliament to represent both. The bridge does make a difference. Shetland on the other hand is a bloody long way from anywhere. The old Jo Grimond expenses joke of putting "Bergen" as closest railway station is neither quite true (it was actually a soldier Grimond knew who did a War Office travel warrant) nor accurate (Thurso is slightly closer) but it does represent a kernel of truth about the Shetland lived experience. If you were to combine the Northern Isles with somewhere the question arises should it be Caithness (with it's links to Orkney but little in common with Shetland) or Aberdeen (as the bridgehead for Shetland but politically very different). In fact the Scottish Parliament separation of Orkney and Shetland is in many ways more sensible. Na h-Eileanan an Iar on the other hand have stronger links to the mainland. You again though face the choice of linking Lewis to Rossshire, Harris to Skye, South Uist to Mallaig or Barra to Oban. Each part of the islands looks to a different area of the mainland for it's primary links. Perhaps a Gàidhealtachd constituency linking the islands to Partick and Dowanvale would be the best solution! In short the Scottish Islands constituencies represent a genuine challenge of geography and culture to represent properly that is not replicated by the Menai Strait. Bad Idea I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Dec 23, 2016 17:43:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Dec 23, 2016 17:56:32 GMT
It probably will go through, though I'm rather hoping that it doesn't. I'm not really bothered by anywhere else (except the Scottish Islands, why do they get preferential treatment, but Anglesey* doesn't?), but the review for Wales is an utter travesty, particularly in the North (which admittedly isn't the easiest region to draw boundaries for, regardless of the numbers...). For one thing I really don't seen why the Commons needs reducing to 600 members from 650, especially when the Lords has 800+ members (and though not all of them are necessarily active, that's really beside the point). Were it up to me, I'd keep the Commons at 650 members for now, and simply redistribute the seats based on that number. Also, I'd remove the special status that the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetlands receive to redress the gross malapportionment that occurs by letting them remain (whilst factors such as community ties are important, they must ultimately give way to maintaining decent apportionment, should a conflict occur). * And no, I don't bloody care if it has a bridge to the mainland and the others don't, it's still an inconsistent application of the rules...Bangor and Menai Bridge are fundamentally not that different and quite easy for a member of parliament to represent both. The bridge does make a difference. Shetland on the other hand is a bloody long way from anywhere. The old Jo Grimond expenses joke of putting "Bergen" as closest railway station is neither quite true (it was actually a soldier Grimond knew who did a War Office travel warrant) nor accurate (Thurso is slightly closer) but it does represent a kernel of truth about the Shetland lived experience. If you were to combine the Northern Isles with somewhere the question arises should it be Caithness (with it's links to Orkney but little in common with Shetland) or Aberdeen (as the bridgehead for Shetland but politically very different). In fact the Scottish Parliament separation of Orkney and Shetland is in many ways more sensible. Na h-Eileanan an Iar on the other hand have stronger links to the mainland. You again though face the choice of linking Lewis to Rossshire, Harris to Skye, South Uist to Mallaig or Barra to Oban. Each part of the islands looks to a different area of the mainland for it's primary links. Perhaps a Gàidhealtachd constituency linking the islands to Partick and Dowanvale would be the best solution! In short the Scottish Islands constituencies represent a genuine challenge of geography and culture to represent properly that is not replicated by the Menai Strait. Bad Idea I'm afraid. I know that the MP for Ynys Mon is arguing otherwise, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. The issue I have is that one (or two) particular undersized island that has received its own seperate representation in parliament, is permitted to continue this arrangment, why not all of them? It makes no more of a difference than a lack of a bridge and the presence of choppy seas. Point being, the strength/weakness of transportation links between areas is not a valid excuse for not even attempting to implement more equitable representation amongst parliamentary constituencies. So, determining suitable links between the islands and the mainland is something of a challenge, I can accept that. But, has anyone even attempted to find a workable solution to this challenge? If no, then that just strikes me of laziness. A fair point, but it still strikes me as unfair exceptionalism that the Scottish Island constituencies are allowed to remain standing, whereas the less malapportioned (but still undersized) Ynys Mon gets junked. Not nearly as bad of an idea as letting such gross malapportionment stand. Why should one lot of people receive more effective representation per capita than people elsewhere? I accept and understand that merging these areas into viable, larger seats is something of a steep challenge, but that's not really any excuse. I suppose if nothing else, letting these seats stand as they are just goes against my sense of fair play... |
|
