|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 28, 2018 10:30:07 GMT
I oppose this reduction but if an MP I would vote with the whip for party reasons and tactical benefit reasons. Then i would campaign inside party and press for restoring to 650 or 700 seats in the next review using Brexit as the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastofbedfordshire on May 28, 2018 12:11:48 GMT
I would support this if the proposed boundaries weren't so terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 28, 2018 14:27:35 GMT
I know I could look it up, but someone here will know instantly, so what is the theoretical timetable from here on? The deadline for the boundary commissions to submit their final reports is the end of September. After that, it is up to the Government to decide when they want to hold the vote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 15:23:43 GMT
I oppose this reduction but if an MP I would vote with the whip for party reasons and tactical benefit reasons. Then i would campaign inside party and press for restoring to 650 or 700 seats in the next review using Brexit as the reason. 700?! |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,834 
|
Post by john07 on May 28, 2018 16:17:23 GMT
Let’s face the only justification for the reduction in the number of MPs was because simulations suggested that it would give a partisan advantage to the Tories.
I suspect that this will not materialise in practice but it will leave us some truly horrible constituencies in the process. However it is likely to be derailed by some dissident backbenchers who find their seat is being carved up.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on May 28, 2018 18:44:56 GMT
Let’s face the only justification for the reduction in the number of MPs was because simulations suggested that it would give a partisan advantage to the Tories. I suspect that this will not materialise in practice but it will leave us some truly horrible constituencies in the process. However it is likely to be derailed by some dissident backbenchers who find their seat is being carved up. What simulations? It seems very unlikely mathematically. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,739
|
Post by Jack on May 28, 2018 18:51:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 28, 2018 19:00:38 GMT
What's the date on that? 7 October 2014? There have been two general elections since then which considerably undermine it.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 28, 2018 19:43:32 GMT
What's the date on that? 7 October 2014? There have been two general elections since then which considerably undermine it. Ignoring for the moment that demographic change tends to result in people moving from Labour seats to non-Labour seats - which is fixed in the normal process of adjusting boundaries every 15 years or so - the "rigging" in the system is purely the fact that Labour seats tend to be Labour seats with a low turnout, whereas non-Labour seats tend to be non-Labour seats with a high turnout. So, naively adding up all the votes nationwide will show that Labour have "fewer" votes per seat than other parties. But what do you do about it short of marching non-voting Labour supporters in Labour seats to the polling station at gunpoint? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 28, 2018 19:46:39 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats.
In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12.
First past the post does not work at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 28, 2018 20:11:03 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats. In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12. First past the post does not work at all. You're assuming that the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result which is proportional. That's begging the question. The argument for first past the post is not that it delivers proportional results. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:21:19 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats. In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12. First past the post does not work at all. You're assuming that the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result which is proportional. That's begging the question. The argument for first past the post is not that it delivers proportional results. The argument for a democratic electoral system is that is must deliver proportional results. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 28, 2018 20:23:49 GMT
It's unutterably loopy to claim that you can't have a democracy unless you have PR. Makes you sound like a nutter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:27:16 GMT
It's unutterably loopy to claim that you can't have a democracy unless you have PR. Makes you sound like a nutter. It's loopy, and Blairite, to suggest that an electoral system must ensure that only absolutes are true at the expense of arguments outside the extremes. There should be no one-party councils, there should be no landslide elections, there should be no yes-vs-no: there must be proportional representation. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 28, 2018 20:38:28 GMT
There should be a two party system and third parties forced to choose on pain of electoral death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:51:19 GMT
There should be a two party system and third parties forced to choose on pain of electoral death. This blinkered two-party nonsense of yours was bollocks when you used to type it 10 or so years ago on the old VoteUk and it remains bollocks now. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 28, 2018 21:25:16 GMT
I oppose this reduction but if an MP I would vote with the whip for party reasons and tactical benefit reasons. Then i would campaign inside party and press for restoring to 650 or 700 seats in the next review using Brexit as the reason. 700?! 4 (or 5 with Anglesey) protected island constituencies and a fixed divisor of 645 based on the remaining electorate would be fine. In practice that would produce a HOC of 655-660 members which would be acceptable in a post-Brexit UK. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 21:28:07 GMT
4 (or 5 with Anglesey) protected island constituencies and a fixed divisor of 645 based on the remaining electorate would be fine. In practice that would produce a HOC of 655-660 members which would be acceptable in a post-Brexit UK. I have always disagreed with having such a large House of Commons. I would cut and cut again. Commons by two-hundred or so, the Lords completely. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 28, 2018 22:14:13 GMT
4 (or 5 with Anglesey) protected island constituencies and a fixed divisor of 645 based on the remaining electorate would be fine. In practice that would produce a HOC of 655-660 members which would be acceptable in a post-Brexit UK. I have always disagreed with having such a large House of Commons. I would cut and cut again. Commons by two-hundred or so, the Lords completely. No correct answer for that, purely down to individual preference, so your choice is as good as mine. My rationale would be that the HOC is not large on an international basis and, post-Brexit, there's no reason to reduce scrutiny. For a second chamber, with a similar caveat, I'd go for a mix of directly elected, indirectly elected and appointed. 151 members of which 3 by the PM 2 by the leader of the opposition 7 by the HOC from outgoing/defeated members 13 more by the HOC 27 by an electoral college made up of local councillors and members of regional assemblies (London, Scotland, Wales, NI) 33 by the public after each general election, elected for a period covering 3 terms of the HOC i.e. members could serve a maximum of 15 years |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 28, 2018 22:54:24 GMT
Those last two elections still show the unfairness of first past the post in general, and on an even worse scale. UKIP finished third nationally in 2015 but only won one seat, which was held by Douglas Carswell who had as a Conservative been the MP for Clacton since 2005. Labour increased their vote share by 1.5% but made a net loss of 30 seats due to the SNP landslide in Scotland which cost Labour 40 seats. In 2017 the Conservatives increased their vote share by 6.5% but made a net loss of 12 seats. The Liberal Democrats' vote share decreased by 0.5% but their seat total increased by 4 to 12. First past the post does not work at all. You're assuming that the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result which is proportional. That's begging the question. The argument for first past the post is not that it delivers proportional results. Perhaps you could outline your alternative view of what an electoral system is for, then. In my view, the job of an electoral system is to deliver a result that reflects what the electorate voted for. In a party-based democracy (which is what we currently have), it seems rather perverse to suggest that would not be some form of proportional representation between the parties. The main argument for FPTP appears to be either that "we've always done it that way", or "it maintains the current two party system". Neither of which is a coherent argument that it's more democratic, or even that it works for our country. |
|
