|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jul 20, 2017 10:48:03 GMT
I guess the bill will not create a 650 seat parliament with a 10% tolerance threshold against the average sized seat based on census data rather than the electoral roll  I am warming to the idea of a census basis for the roll, but you'd want to wait for the 2021 census. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 20, 2017 11:28:50 GMT
If Caroline Lucas is a co-sponsor for this bill, then it definitely will not feature a '500 seat Commons with a 2% tolerance threshold'.
As a fellow Green Party member, I know she would never sponsor unfair legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jul 20, 2017 11:51:48 GMT
I guess the bill will not create a 650 seat parliament with a 10% tolerance threshold against the average sized seat based on census data rather than the electoral roll I am warming to the idea of a census basis for the roll, but you'd want to wait for the 2021 census. Yeah, I imagine you would. It just makes sense to me considering we do it every ten years anyway and so we can update our boundaries like clockwork. If someone choose to not register to vote that doesn't mean that person doesn't have an MP who they can contact if they need help or assistance. Furthermore the use of the electoral role harms young people and minorities far more and I just feel we should probably avoid doing that if we can help it. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jul 20, 2017 12:10:21 GMT
I am warming to the idea of a census basis for the roll, but you'd want to wait for the 2021 census. Yeah, I imagine you would. It just makes sense to me considering we do it every ten years anyway and so we can update our boundaries like clockwork. If someone choose to not register to vote that doesn't mean that person doesn't have an MP who they can contact if they need help or assistance. Furthermore the use of the electoral role harms young people and minorities far more and I just feel we should probably avoid doing that if we can help it. Electoral commission has said that the latter effects are statistically irrelevant after IER. It is also worth remembering that the Census also has levels of estimation involved, also around young people and minorities. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 21, 2017 9:34:15 GMT
Yeah, I imagine you would. It just makes sense to me considering we do it every ten years anyway and so we can update our boundaries like clockwork. If someone choose to not register to vote that doesn't mean that person doesn't have an MP who they can contact if they need help or assistance. Furthermore the use of the electoral role harms young people and minorities far more and I just feel we should probably avoid doing that if we can help it. Electoral commission has said that the latter effects are statistically irrelevant after IER. It is also worth remembering that the Census also has levels of estimation involved, also around young people and minorities. I do not believe the Electoral Commission on this. They have been the main cheerleaders for IER, which I consider to be a wholly unnecessary and biased change, which does not even achieve the aims that the Electoral Commission set out for it, which was in any case resolving a non-problem.
The census does provide estimations for missing returns, but they are well-motivated.
I have long been a partisan of using census data for boundaries. Since nationality was included as a question, the main argument against (that it includes those ineligible to vote) has fallen. Once every 10 years is about the right timescale for changing boundaries. And it also solves the multiple registration problem (in boundary terms - people can still register in multiple places where eligible).
|
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Jan 30, 2018 23:05:12 GMT
That still doesn't guarantee it'll pass though; they only have a majority of eight with the DUP mind and there are a lot more than eight Tories who will have to be... convinced to support the new rules. Its not like they'll get much support from the other opposition parties: Labour will oppose the boundaries on principle (that being that the new rules hurt them more than the Tories); a reduction in the number of seats hurts the smaller parties which means that the Lib Dems, Plaid and Lucas aren't going to back them and it makes it harder for Lady Hermon to hold her seat if they wants to run again. Perhaps the most likely is the SNP since I'm pretty sure the new boundaries aren't terrible for them and since they are the major party in Scotland changes tend to help them; but even then they won't support them for a litany of reasons - less seats for Scotland; and also because it'd embarrass the Tories.
Basically even if they have the DUP on side, the whips have to work extra hard and probably have to make a fair few promises for the Tory MPs that are going to be redistributed out of their seats and aren't the sort that will blindly vote with the whip. They only need to lose five between them and the DUP; I have that as still being more likely than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 31, 2018 1:05:02 GMT
The new boundaries in NI mean I've went from being 80% sure the review wouldn't pass to now being 50/50. First thing to note the DUP's support is still not guarantied, even with what amounts to a near ideal map for them it still results in the loss of one unionist MP something the DUP wont be keen on, they may yet abstain.
Lets assume though they do ultimately support it and given Sinn Fein's abstentions that would result in 315 against and 328 for, thus the magic number of Tory rebels needed to defeat the review is 7, factoring in absentee's, the speaker and what not lets just say there needs to be 10 or so Tory rebels. that's very possible.
The usual suspects from the Tory awkward squad spring to mind, Phillip Davies who's own seat is made even more marginal under the proposals or Bill Cash who's seat is abolished, hell maybe John Baron will vote against them again just to annoy the government All in all its estimated about 25 Tory MP's lose out and that doesn't factor in multiple MP's fighting over one successor seat or MP's who's seats remain notionally Tory but see their majorities tumble to varying degrees.
Really it all comes down to how ruthless the Tories are going to be re their "no colleague left behind" strategy and how feisty the Tory benches are feeling, there will be a lot of angry Tories who will need alternative (and in most cases safe) seats elsewhere, to what ends will the Tories go to in attaining them and will MP's trust in their parties to live up to the promise.
Also what about the new "awkward squad" of Tory remainers? Ken Clarkes seat is made into an ultra marginal, Stephen Hammond see's his majority cut by two thirds, given the last year or so are these once loyal MP's going to continue their new found rebellious streak.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 31, 2018 11:18:07 GMT
The widespread assumption that the DUP will now flip 180 degrees into supporting the review really doesn't seem to be based on very much so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 11:23:45 GMT
The DUP's main issue is the disappearing unionist seat, and has never been tied to maps. They would take a lot of persuading to even abstain.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 31, 2018 21:07:59 GMT
Thanks for the breakdown IceAgeComing. While it’s far from a dead cert I think the potential for Corbyn to have a large(r) majority will keep a lot of Tories onside. Now the DUP’s abstention is pretty secure I think it is more likely than not to scrape through. The Bishop check out the Northern Ireland thread, the revised boundaries are favourable to the the DUP. No, they aren't. The DUP have 10 seats right now. On the revised boundaries, they'd most likely win 9. They're shored up a bit in Belfast South (though not enough to make it safe long-term), Belfast North gets a good deal safer and they might take North Down off Hermon, but fundamentally there'd be one less unionist seat and the same number of nationalist seats. The revised proposals are much better for the DUP than the initial proposals. And they possibly provide a slightly better firewall against future demographic change. But they aren't better than the present situation, and that's going to be something the DUP cares deeply about. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 31, 2018 22:23:56 GMT
Thanks for the breakdown IceAgeComing . While it’s far from a dead cert I think the potential for Corbyn to have a large(r) majority will keep a lot of Tories onside. Now the DUP’s abstention is pretty secure I think it is more likely than not to scrape through.
The Bishop check out the Northern Ireland thread, the revised boundaries are favourable to the the DUP. If the DUP abstain rather than vote in favour I think it more likely than not the review will still fail, that would switch the arithmetic to 318 in favour vs 315 against meaning there needs to be just two Tory rebels and it fails. To put that into context THREE Tory MP's (not sure which ones though) defied their whips and voted for the Khan amendment requesting the gov scrap the reduction to 600 seats and instead just equalise the constituency sizes based on a 650 member parliament, given the DUP supported this move and thus the Tory whips knew they'd lose they instructed their MP's to abstain, the fact that three Tories felt strongly enough to defy their whips and vote to support a Lab amendment that was going to pass anyway yet was purely symbolic shows the strength of feeling. I'm 90% certain their will at least be a couple of Tory rebels thus the DUP's abstention probably won't be enough, they need to actively support it for it to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 31, 2018 22:46:28 GMT
No, they aren't. The DUP have 10 seats right now. On the revised boundaries, they'd most likely win 9. They're shored up a bit in Belfast South (though not enough to make it safe long-term), Belfast North gets a good deal safer and they might take North Down off Hermon, but fundamentally there'd be one less unionist seat and the same number of nationalist seats. The revised proposals are much better for the DUP than the initial proposals. And they possibly provide a slightly better firewall against future demographic change. But they aren't better than the present situation, and that's going to be something the DUP cares deeply about. Until recently 9 was a rather good result for the DUP. Belfast South will always be Belfast South, Unionist in some years, perhaps going nationalist in the long run. That is unchanged. Hermon in North Down is a short term problem. These two constituencies will be winnable, as they are now, 10 would still be very possible. Leaving these two cases aside it would be much more in the DUP’s intrest to take these favourable boundaries now (you made my argument for me here) given the possibility of demographic shift and given the potential for much worse boundaries in the long run. That is my veiw on things. The DUP's issue isn't primarily partisan advantage its the allocation of unionist seats (whether that be DUP, UUP or Lady H) to nationalist seats (whether that be Sinn Fein or the SDLP) At the moment the ratio is 11 unionists to 7 nationalists, these proposals remove one unionist seat. Then take the doomsday scenario where the SDLP regain Belfast South (they very well could even on the new boundaries) NI would then have 9 unionist MP's to 8 nationalists, that's dangerously close to parity something the DUP will be wary to allow.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 31, 2018 22:50:39 GMT
If the DUP abstain rather than vote in favour I think it more likely than not the review will still fail, that would switch the arithmetic to 318 in favour vs 315 against meaning there needs to be just two Tory rebels and it fails. To put that into context THREE Tory MP's (not sure which ones though) defied their whips and voted for the Khan amendment requesting the gov scrap the reduction to 600 seats and instead just equalise the constituency sizes based on a 650 member parliament, given the DUP supported this move and thus the Tory whips knew they'd lose they instructed their MP's to abstain, the fact that three Tories felt strongly enough to defy their whips and vote to support a Lab amendment that was going to pass anyway yet was purely symbolic shows the strength of feeling. I'm 90% certain their will at least be a couple of Tory rebels thus the DUP's abstention probably won't be enough, they need to actively support it for it to pass. You were 50/50 yourself earlier today. I would describe myself as 51/49. It could still fail, I understand that. There is just a slightly better chance that *if* this goes to a vote (which it probably will, can’t see Khan’s PMB getting any traction now) it will pass. Arms can be twisted, promises made. My 50/50 is based on the possibility the DUP will now be able to be bribed into actively backing the review. On the initial proposals the Tories could offer NI all the money in the world and the DUP still wouldn't vote for it, these boundaries though and the DUP might be inclined to wave them through.
The Tories wont settle for an abstention, they know that will leave the vote on a knife edge, it will be vote for or vote against.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 31, 2018 22:51:42 GMT
No, they aren't. The DUP have 10 seats right now. On the revised boundaries, they'd most likely win 9. They're shored up a bit in Belfast South (though not enough to make it safe long-term), Belfast North gets a good deal safer and they might take North Down off Hermon, but fundamentally there'd be one less unionist seat and the same number of nationalist seats. The revised proposals are much better for the DUP than the initial proposals. And they possibly provide a slightly better firewall against future demographic change. But they aren't better than the present situation, and that's going to be something the DUP cares deeply about. Until recently 9 was a rather good result for the DUP. Belfast South will always be Belfast South, Unionist in some years, perhaps going nationalist in the long run. That is unchanged. Hermon in North Down is a short term problem. These two constituencies will be winnable, as they are now, 10 would still be very possible. Leaving these two cases aside it would be much more in the DUP’s intrest to take these favourable boundaries now (you made my argument for me here) given the possibility of demographic shift and given the potential for much worse boundaries in the long run. That is my veiw on things. No. This still does not make sense. Your definition of 'favourable boundaries' is one less unionist seat. I think you're failing to understand how this calculus works. Yes, long-term it does seem unlikely that unionism can hold all its current seats. But the DUP have consistently fought for unionism's long-term goals by fighting for its short-term goals. 18 seats work for them right now. Until that changes, why would they want to give a seat away? And no, the DUP have no interest in helping the Tories get a majority, or in reducing the amount paid on elected officials' salaries. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,318 
|
Post by maxque on Feb 1, 2018 0:08:26 GMT
No. This still does not make sense. Your definition of 'favourable boundaries' is one less unionist seat. I think you're failing to understand how this calculus works. Yes, long-term it does seem unlikely that unionism can hold all its current seats. But the DUP have consistently fought for unionism's long-term goals by fighting for its short-term goals. 18 seats work for them right now. Until that changes, why would they want to give a seat away? And no, the DUP have no interest in helping the Tories get a majority, or in reducing the amount paid on elected officials' salaries. What. I did not say that they had an interest in helping the Conservatives or saving money. I have set out why I think the DUP will not oppose the plans, even if that means abstaining. Please don’t say I don’t understand. They have 10 seats now, they would have 9 after. Unacceptable for them. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 1, 2018 11:38:12 GMT
The Bishop check out the Northern Ireland thread, the revised boundaries are favourable to the the DUP. Yes, I know. The point, as others have said, is that even these new proposals far from guarantee their support. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Feb 1, 2018 12:45:54 GMT
Until recently 9 was a rather good result for the DUP. Belfast South will always be Belfast South, Unionist in some years, perhaps going nationalist in the long run. That is unchanged. Hermon in North Down is a short term problem. These two constituencies will be winnable, as they are now, 10 would still be very possible. Leaving these two cases aside it would be much more in the DUP’s intrest to take these favourable boundaries now (you made my argument for me here) given the possibility of demographic shift and given the potential for much worse boundaries in the long run. That is my veiw on things. The DUP's issue isn't primarily partisan advantage its the allocation of unionist seats (whether that be DUP, UUP or Lady H) to nationalist seats (whether that be Sinn Fein or the SDLP) At the moment the ratio is 11 unionists to 7 nationalists, these proposals remove one unionist seat. Then take the doomsday scenario where the SDLP regain Belfast South (they very well could even on the new boundaries) NI would then have 9 unionist MP's to 8 nationalists, that's dangerously close to parity something the DUP will be wary to allow.
The DUP are going to lose this unless they can get the Afzal Khan proposal through. If the next government has a majority, whichever party, they will have no reason to offer the DUP anything, so a Northern Ireland seat, and thus a Unionist seat, is going to disappear anyway. If Labour expand the franchise or introduce apportionment by population Northern Ireland and the DUP are even more stuffed. If they do manage to keep 18 seats the arithmetic is still bad for the Unionists - the 11-7 (or 10-8 assuming Pengelly will not win a second term on the current boundaries) split is not sustainable. The current proposals are the best Unionists are ever going to get. This is the DUP we're talking about though, so it will not be at all surprising to see them vote against this and then see NI lose a seat anyway but with a Sinn Fein majority at the next review. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Feb 1, 2018 13:43:40 GMT
OK some more over the top analysis here from me but I said in an earlier post that about 25 Tories look set to lose out in the review but it occurs to me that I didn't consider the formerly Labour or Lib seats that switch over to the Tories under the review, by my count their are about 20 of them. Many if not most of these seats would be very tight marginals and most have no clear nearby successor in terms of a Tory that loses out and it occurred to me how likely is it that a backbench Tory MP currently sitting pretty in a safe seat could be bribed into voting for the review with the offer of an ultra marginal on the other end of the country that also has a Lab "incumbent" to go up against that seems like a very feeble bribe surely? Since I'm bored I figured I might as well do something of an in depth analysis on each switching seat and post it here for whoevers interested but the main conclusion is that in reality its more like 40 Tory MP's lose out when we disregard these "new" Tory seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Feb 1, 2018 14:48:53 GMT
OK here is my analysis of each new Tory seat for those that care...
Ex Lib
Carshalton and Wallington
Would only just be Tory by my calculations (3 figure majority) and most of the seat is made up of the old one so Tom Brake will still have most of his personal vote and their are no nearby Tories who lose out that might actually want this seat
Westmoreland and Lonsdale
Tory by about 5% now but no obvious Tory successor, the best bet would be David Morris who's own Morecambe seat is abolished but would he really fancy going up against Farron in a seat that contains NONE of his old seat?
Oxford North and Abingdon
Also Tory by about 5% now but there are no Tory losers anywhere nearby and going up against first time incumbent Layla Moran doesn't strike me as wise.
Ex Lab seats
Barrow and Furness
Three figure Tory majority, Trudy Harrison (Copeland) might go for this given that part of her seat is contained within it but crucially the vast majority of her seat including her home in the Bootle ward is located in the newly safe Labour West Cumbria seat not to mention this seat has half the majority she currently enjoys
Weaver Vale
Tory by a little over a thousand votes and with what is quickly becoming a popular Lab incumbent in Mike Amesbury, the only plausible Tory successor is Esther McVey!!! Cabinet loyalty might keep her on side or maybe cabinet member priority will see her be given the more plum Altrincham and Knutsford but then that leaves Graham Brady in the cold
Crewe and Nantwich
The addition of an extra rural ward see's this ultra marginal tip over to the Tory column with a 2% majority but with no losing Tories nearby I don't know who is getting bribed with this seat
Keighley
The addition of Tory Wharfdale nudges this into the Tory column with a similar majority to Crewe, a few nearby Tory losers who might want this (Jenkyns in Morley or Andrew in Pudsey) but important to note it contains none of their old seats so their only claim is they are located nearby.
Grimsby South and Cleethorpes
Finally a seat the Tories might actually be able to bribe someone with, its Tory by a comfortable 5,000 votes or thereabout and being on Humberside both Andrew Percy or David Davis (whoever loses in the battle for Goole and Axholme) could be given this.
Lincoln
Near worthless as a bribe, by my figures this is right on a knife edge, three figure Tory majority at most and given there are no Tory losers in Lincolnshire this would be quite the parachute job for such a marginal seat.
Derby East
A possible bribe here, the seat itself is marginal (Tory majority about 5%) but it's something of a successor to the abolished Derbyshire Mid seat of Pauline Latham, only question is will she be content to trade in her current majority of more than 20% for one less than a quarter of that?
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Tory notional majority of 2,500 but Paul Farrelly has defied the odds before and clung on. Real spanner for this seat is that the nearest Tory loser is serial rebel Bill Cash who's Stone seat is abolished, somehow I don't see him being content with this as a replacement.
Coventry South and Kenilworth + Warwick and Leamington
I've thrown these two neighbouring seats in together for obvious reasons. The former has a comfortable(ish) Tory majority of about 4,500 while the latter is more marginal with a majority of less than 2,000. there are certainly Tory losers nearby who might want them, Jeremy Wright in Kenilworth and Southam and Bill Wiggin in Herefordshire North, the question is will they be content to trade in two of the safest Tory seats in the country for two marginals?
Brighton Kemptown and Seahaven
This seat swings massively to the Tories going from a safe Lab seat to a Tory majority of 4% The nearest Tory loser is whoever loses out in the battle for Tunbridge Wells and Crowborough yet this seat is still clearly trending Lab and I cant see Nus Ghani trading in Wealden or Greg Clark trading in Tunbridge Wells for it.
Canterbury and Faversham
Tory majority of 1,500, Helen Whatley would be a fool to trade in ultra safe Faversham and Kent Mid for this.
Bedford
This would be so tight I'm not even sure it would be notionally Tory!!! Pretty useless as a bribe especially against a first time incumbent.
Erith and Crayford
David Evennett going from a 20% majority to a 4% majority with most of his old seat (including his constituency office) pawned off elsewhere, pretty raw deal all around.
Croydon South East
What looks to be a solid Lab incumbent, trending Lab and with a notional Tory majority of less than 2,000 this is not a good bribe for a Tory MP facing the chop
Kensington and Chelsea
Last but by no means least Greg Hands has a good possible alternative here. 10% Tory majority (compared to the 10% Labour majority in Hammersmith and Fulham) Hands can go with half his seat into the safer option, only problem is he loses half his majority with it, not to mention that he will now have to be intimately involved in the whole Grenfell saga which I'm sure any Tory MP would prefer to avoid if they could.
Conclusion from all this there are a LOT of potential rebels and the new Tory seats don't nearly begin make up for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 1, 2018 16:29:30 GMT
OK here is my analysis of each new Tory seat for those that care... Ex Lib Carshalton and Wallington Would only just be Tory by my calculations (3 figure majority) and most of the seat is made up of the old one so Tom Brake will still have most of his personal vote and their are no nearby Tories who lose out that might actually want this seat Westmoreland and Lonsdale Tory by about 5% now but no obvious Tory successor, the best bet would be David Morris who's own Morecambe seat is abolished but would he really fancy going up against Farron in a seat that contains NONE of his old seat? Oxford North and Abingdon Also Tory by about 5% now but there are no Tory losers anywhere nearby and going up against first time incumbent Layla Moran doesn't strike me as wise. Ex Lab seats Barrow and Furness Three figure Tory majority, Trudy Harrison (Copeland) might go for this given that part of her seat is contained within it but crucially the vast majority of her seat including her home in the Bootle ward is located in the newly safe Labour West Cumbria seat not to mention this seat has half the majority she currently enjoys Weaver Vale Tory by a little over a thousand votes and with what is quickly becoming a popular Lab incumbent in Mike Amesbury, the only plausible Tory successor is Esther McVey!!! Cabinet loyalty might keep her on side or maybe cabinet member priority will see her be given the more plum Altrincham and Knutsford but then that leaves Graham Brady in the cold Crewe and Nantwich The addition of an extra rural ward see's this ultra marginal tip over to the Tory column with a 2% majority but with no losing Tories nearby I don't know who is getting bribed with this seat Keighley The addition of Tory Wharfdale nudges this into the Tory column with a similar majority to Crewe, a few nearby Tory losers who might want this (Jenkyns in Morley or Andrew in Pudsey) but important to note it contains none of their old seats so their only claim is they are located nearby. Grimsby South and Cleethorpes Finally a seat the Tories might actually be able to bribe someone with, its Tory by a comfortable 5,000 votes or thereabout and being on Humberside both Andrew Percy or David Davis (whoever loses in the battle for Goole and Axholme) could be given this. Lincoln Near worthless as a bribe, by my figures this is right on a knife edge, three figure Tory majority at most and given there are no Tory losers in Lincolnshire this would be quite the parachute job for such a marginal seat. Derby East A possible bribe here, the seat itself is marginal (Tory majority about 5%) but it's something of a successor to the abolished Derbyshire Mid seat of Pauline Latham, only question is will she be content to trade in her current majority of more than 20% for one less than a quarter of that? Newcastle-under-Lyme Tory notional majority of 2,500 but Paul Farrelly has defied the odds before and clung on. Real spanner for this seat is that the nearest Tory loser is serial rebel Bill Cash who's Stone seat is abolished, somehow I don't see him being content with this as a replacement. Coventry South and Kenilworth + Warwick and Leamington I've thrown these two neighbouring seats in together for obvious reasons. The former has a comfortable(ish) Tory majority of about 4,500 while the latter is more marginal with a majority of less than 2,000. there are certainly Tory losers nearby who might want them, Jeremy Wright in Kenilworth and Southam and Bill Wiggin in Herefordshire North, the question is will they be content to trade in two of the safest Tory seats in the country for two marginals? Brighton Kemptown and Seahaven This seat swings massively to the Tories going from a safe Lab seat to a Tory majority of 4% The nearest Tory loser is whoever loses out in the battle for Tunbridge Wells and Crowborough yet this seat is still clearly trending Lab and I cant see Nus Ghani trading in Wealden or Greg Clark trading in Tunbridge Wells for it. Canterbury and Faversham Tory majority of 1,500, Helen Whatley would be a fool to trade in ultra safe Faversham and Kent Mid for this. Bedford This would be so tight I'm not even sure it would be notionally Tory!!! Pretty useless as a bribe especially against a first time incumbent. Erith and Crayford David Evennett going from a 20% majority to a 4% majority with most of his old seat (including his constituency office) pawned off elsewhere, pretty raw deal all around. Croydon South East What looks to be a solid Lab incumbent, trending Lab and with a notional Tory majority of less than 2,000 this is not a good bribe for a Tory MP facing the chop Kensington and Chelsea Last but by no means least Greg Hands has a good possible alternative here. 10% Tory majority (compared to the 10% Labour majority in Hammersmith and Fulham) Hands can go with half his seat into the safer option, only problem is he loses half his majority with it, not to mention that he will now have to be intimately involved in the whole Grenfell saga which I'm sure any Tory MP would prefer to avoid if they could. Conclusion from all this there are a LOT of potential rebels and the new Tory seats don't nearly begin make up for it. Faversham & Mid Kent disappears in the revised proposals just as it does in the original proposals.
Kenilworth & Southam and Herefordshire North (fka Leominster) are also abolished in the revised proposals, just as they are in the original proposals. Many of those "trading" seats in fact have no choice.
|
|
