2018 Review - will it pass through Parliament?

[mondialito]

Jun 11, 2017 22:43:11 GMT @odo said:

Jun 11, 2017 22:39:16 GMT mondialito said:

Given what the draft proposals for Northern Ireland looked like, I am going to take a punt and say no.

Is there a map with the NI proposal somewhere on the site? (couldn't locate one on a search)

Here is Plan Builder: boundaryassistant.org/PlanBuilder2018.html

[John Chanin]

I've been thinking about this, and suggest that a likely outcome is that Northern Ireland will be "exempted" from the review and retain its existing 18 seats. The Conservatives will then push through the review with DUP support. There may be some rebels from the backbenches on the Conservative side but I suggest not very many would be willing to vote against the government if they pushed the point.

In principle I don't have any objection to reducing MP numbers to 600, and nor I suspect do many other people. But there isn't anyone who feels strongly about it either, and opposition parties will resist on solely selfish grounds. Presumably they will then have to support a review based on 650 seats, which will still reduce the number in Wales, but will as a result preserve virtually all the existing seats.

[The Bishop]

I'm sure there are those who would like to do what you say, but exempting NI and keeping everything else the same would be *incredibly* bad optics.

Probably something the government can do without right now.

[Harry Hayfield]

It is simply not possible (using the data that Electoral Calculus produced showing how much of each old constituency is in the proposed ones) for one person to do on their own quickly, but I have done Northern Ireland which came up as in 2015 DUP 7, Sinn Fein 7, SDLP 2, Ind 1 and in 2017 comes out as DUP 8, SF 9 (with a Unionist majority in Glenshane and Upper Bann so I believe that the DUP would indeed vote for the new boundaries. However, without knowing the results for the rest of the country, I couldn't say if other parties would be in favour of the changes or not.

[marksenior]

If you look at the initial proposed new boundaries they are now much less favourable to the Conservatives taking account of the new updated GE results .
The new proposed Blackpool North and Fleetwood seat for example is now shown as highly marginal and IMHO should actually be marginally Labour .
Without any political advantage for them , the Conservatives will cynically abandon the exercise and possibly have a new 650 seat review ,

[Pete Whitehead]

Watford would be a Labour seat now on the proposed boundaries

[Deleted]

Jun 15, 2017 8:40:22 GMT John Chanin said:

I've been thinking about this, and suggest that a likely outcome is that Northern Ireland will be "exempted" from the review and retain its existing 18 seats. The Conservatives will then push through the review with DUP support. There may be some rebels from the backbenches on the Conservative side but I suggest not very many would be willing to vote against the government if they pushed the point.

Would need primary legislation and I doubt such an obviously partisan manoeuvre would get through the Lords.

[Sharon]

Given that apparently the DUP didn't like the proposals for N. I. I think this is a zombie review.

[clyde1998]

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

[Harry Hayfield]

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning.

[hullenedge]

Labour could create some mischief here. It's becoming clear (after last week's results, the new electoral geography, return of cube law etc) that the proposed new seats will not benefit the Tories and most likely hurt the DUP. That could prove a useful wedge for the opposition. I can already hear Corbyn's words if there's a climb down - Tories fiddling the boundaries etc.

[La Fontaine]

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

The problem is that many/most Labour MPs are simply too self-interested. They won't support anything which may threaten their own seats. So PR will only happen if SNP and/or Lib Dems make it an absolute condition (ie no referendum) of propping up a Labour government.  And the hard left, apart from Arthur Scargill, have always been opposed.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jun 16, 2017 7:09:46 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning.

I see you're still a Lib Dem in spirit Harry

[Pete Whitehead]

Anyway what has really been shown up by this election (and it should have been considered anyway) is that it's ridiculous to claim to have such regard to equal electorates when so many voters are actually counted twice (even if they are not actually voting twice). I don;t know the numbers but there are getting on for 2 million UK students. Not all will be registered in two places but if a million of them are then that's about 2% of the total electorate on which these figures are going to be based (also second home owners who will though be much smaller in number)

[The Bishop]

Maybe not that much smaller (we are talking of 100s of thousands at least I would have thought)

[maxque]

Jun 16, 2017 9:28:51 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Anyway what has really been shown up by this election (and it should have been considered anyway) is that it's ridiculous to claim to have such regard to equal electorates when so many voters are actually counted twice (even if they are not actually voting twice). I don;t know the numbers but there are getting on for 2 million UK students. Not all will be registered in two places but if a million of them are then that's about 2% of the total electorate on which these figures are going to be based (also second home owners who will though be much smaller in number)

Well, most countries use Census count, but such a measure would go against the Conservative plan to screw the map towards overrepresentation of rural areas.

[Foggy]

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

There's no reason those systems (especially STV) couldn't necessarily involve boundary reviews, although they'd be somewhat different exercises from what we're used to at the moment.

Jun 16, 2017 7:09:46 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning.

All utterly abominable suggestions.

[jamie]

Regarding STV, I'd presume there would still be boundary reviews. This would either involve the redrawing of seats to get them back into quota (same as FPTP) or changing the number of MPs per constituency where necessary. Regional STV would not need regular boundary reviews, except to reallocate the number of MPs (assuming the number is based on the size of the electorate).

[greenhert]

Jun 16, 2017 16:57:28 GMT Foggy said:

Jun 16, 2017 0:59:40 GMT clyde1998 said:

I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area.

There's no reason those systems (especially STV) couldn't necessarily involve boundary reviews, although they'd be somewhat different exercises from what we're used to at the moment.

Jun 16, 2017 7:09:46 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning.

All utterly abominable suggestions.

In the Republic of Ireland there are regular views for the Dail constituencies which all use STV. Germany has them as well for its single member constituencies. Lithuania had one for its 2016 election.

[afleitch]

STV adjustments in Scotland at the last review were minimal, except where there was a significant increase or reduction in seats.

The reason why these new reviews suck is the quota and disrespecting communities for the sake of maths. Which hasn't been a feature of our system since 1832.