Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 23, 2019 9:47:13 GMT
If, as seems obvious, the Conservatives get a landslide (or a half decent majority) will they simply adopt the recommendations and be done with it?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,075
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 23, 2019 10:32:42 GMT
We don't even know yet if their manifesto will have a commitment on the proposals, as in 2017. Has there been any comment on this by Johnson as PM?
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 23, 2019 11:20:34 GMT
We don't even know yet if their manifesto will have a commitment on the proposals, as in 2017. Has there been any comment on this by Johnson as PM? None that I have seen, but as I said elsewhere, Johnson loves the theatre of the Commons chamber too much to cut its size, I reckon he will just adopt Glass-Khan (or something similar) with minimal fuss should he get back in. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 23, 2019 12:56:49 GMT
It'll be a disgrace if the next election is fought on boundaries 22 years out of date in terms of when the electorates were originally set. When was the last time boundaries were that old? 1945 possibly. IIRC the boundary changes before the 1955(?) GE were less sweeping than usual, meaning that by 1970 some were very out of date indeed. There are a couple of reasons for that. An extensive review took place for the 1950 GE and the rules adopted at that time provided for very regular reviews (every 3 to 7 years IIRC) so when another review took place just 5 years later and abolished or significantly altered a number of constituencies which had only been created for 1950 there was a storm of protest from MPs and constituency parties, so they lengthened the review term to 10-15 years (amended sometime around 1986 to 8-12 years.) The lesson of the 1955 review, unfortunately, was forgotten by the people who passed the "5% threshold and reviews every 5 years" legislation. Of course, the second reason is that a review *did* take place before the 1970 election, but Labour, judging the boundary changes to be unfavourable, found a procedural way to delay them until after 1970. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 23, 2019 16:32:11 GMT
We could see a third boundary review before any makes it into law.
Given a scenario in which there is a small Conservative majority, the threat of starting another boundary review, or implementing the 600 seats review, could also be used as leverage against MPs considering rebelling on key Brexit votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2019 16:56:17 GMT
We could see a third boundary review before any makes it into law. Given a scenario in which there is a small Conservative majority, the threat of starting another boundary review, or implementing the 600 seats review, could also be used as leverage against MPs considering rebelling on key Brexit votes. Without new legislation there's going to be a new boundary review starting anyway in a couple of years time, so a threat to start one would be utterly meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 23, 2019 16:58:20 GMT
We could see a third boundary review before any makes it into law. Given a scenario in which there is a small Conservative majority, the threat of starting another boundary review, or implementing the 600 seats review, could also be used as leverage against MPs considering rebelling on key Brexit votes. Without new legislation there's going to be a new boundary review starting anyway in a couple of years time, so a threat to start one would be utterly meaningless. A threat to start a 600 seat review (as opposed to a 650 one) in which certain seats would probably disappear could be deployed against MPs sitting there. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2019 17:03:28 GMT
Without new legislation there's going to be a new boundary review starting anyway in a couple of years time, so a threat to start one would be utterly meaningless. A threat to start a 600 seat review (as opposed to a 650 one) in which certain seats would probably disappear could be deployed against MPs sitting there. Again, it needs new legislation to start a 650 seat review. 600 is now the legal default. Unless the law changes the next review will be a 600 seat review with a 5% threshold. Presenting something that is currently enshrined in law as a threat is unlikely to be effective unless the MPs in question are complete idiots. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 24, 2019 16:18:31 GMT
The Conservative manifesto says "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the
same – a cornerstone of democracy" which says to me as soon as Brexit is done, (and in conjunction with their intention to do away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act), they will launch ANOTHER set of boundary reviews for 650 constituencies (average 69,231 electors, range: 65,769 - 72,692 electors)
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Nov 24, 2019 17:44:37 GMT
The Conservative manifesto says "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy" which says to me as soon as Brexit is done, (and in conjunction with their intention to do away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act), they will launch ANOTHER set of boundary reviews for 650 constituencies (average 69,231 electors, range: 65,769 - 72,692 electors) "Every vote counts the same" - a barefaced lie. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 24, 2019 17:52:53 GMT
The Conservative manifesto says "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy" which says to me as soon as Brexit is done, (and in conjunction with their intention to do away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act), they will launch ANOTHER set of boundary reviews for 650 constituencies (average 69,231 electors, range: 65,769 - 72,692 electors) "Every vote counts the same" - a barefaced lie. Certainly an imaginative interpretation of the psephological reality. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 24, 2019 18:11:05 GMT
"Every vote counts the same" - a barefaced lie. Certainly an imaginative interpretation of the psephological reality. We aren't confined to parliamentary language here, are we ?- it was a barefaced lie, not a terminological inexactitude. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Nov 24, 2019 18:24:29 GMT
The Conservative manifesto says "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy" which says to me as soon as Brexit is done, (and in conjunction with their intention to do away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act), they will launch ANOTHER set of boundary reviews for 650 constituencies (average 69,231 electors, range: 65,769 - 72,692 electors) No mention of 'cutting the cost of politics' by reducing the number of MPs this time, which is telling. If they want to make life easier for themselves, they should just resurrect the Glass-Khan Amendment. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,773
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Nov 24, 2019 19:04:35 GMT
The Conservative manifesto says "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy" which says to me as soon as Brexit is done, (and in conjunction with their intention to do away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act), they will launch ANOTHER set of boundary reviews for 650 constituencies (average 69,231 electors, range: 65,769 - 72,692 electors) "Every vote counts the same" - a barefaced lie. Yup. Let me know when the Tories embrace PR - since it is only under such a system that *every* vote will count the same. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Nov 24, 2019 19:23:13 GMT
"Every vote counts the same" - a barefaced lie. Yup. Let me know when the Tories embrace PR - since it is only under such a system that *every* vote will count the same. I'd be open to a hybrid system of single-member FPTP seats in shire and unitary counties (where things like Skipton and Ripon are really quite geographically extensive already) and Webster/Ste-Lague party list PR in unitary/metropolitan/London districts/boroughs. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,773
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Nov 24, 2019 19:29:02 GMT
Yup. Let me know when the Tories embrace PR - since it is only under such a system that *every* vote will count the same. I'd be open to a hybrid system of single-member FPTP seats in shire and unitary counties (where things like Skipton and Ripon are really quite geographically extensive already) and Webster/Ste-Lague party list PR in unitary/metropolitan/London districts/boroughs. I'd prefer multi-member STV, which I know is not strictly proportional, but does tend to deliver results pretty close to what a pure PR system would, while retaining geographical constituencies, which seems to be a feature of FPTP that the electorate does value. For this I'd prefer 5 to 6 members per constituency, but be prepared to bend to 4 or 7 under some circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 24, 2019 20:48:16 GMT
Yup. Let me know when the Tories embrace PR - since it is only under such a system that *every* vote will count the same. I'd be open to a hybrid system of single-member FPTP seats in shire and unitary counties (where things like Skipton and Ripon are really quite geographically extensive already) and Webster/Ste-Lague party list PR in unitary/metropolitan/London districts/boroughs. Lol. Nice try. I think the Conservatives suggested that rather blatant gerrymander once before |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Nov 24, 2019 23:09:26 GMT
I'd be open to a hybrid system of single-member FPTP seats in shire and unitary counties (where things like Skipton and Ripon are really quite geographically extensive already) and Webster/Ste-Lague party list PR in unitary/metropolitan/London districts/boroughs. Lol. Nice try. I think the Conservatives suggested that rather blatant gerrymander once before I'd be surprised if it were only once. After all, our 1867 Act, which gave certain boroughs a 3rd MP (accepting the principle that dividing boroughs was a thankless task that would only lead to local ties being asserted in all sorts of parts of Birmingham), also tried to limit the totalitarianism of that prospect by introducing the limited vote. In practice, that did not work, but the idea was a sound sort of approach to boroughs being boroughs and not county divisions...  |
|
