Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,771
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Feb 28, 2018 12:32:54 GMT
It was close last time though and there are many more DUP voters in the new boundaries Sure, but those "DUP voters" newly brought into the constituency didn't actually have the choice of voting for Lady Hermon last time. Presented with that choice, will they necessarily stick with DUP? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 13:58:07 GMT
Well you wouldn't vote DUP unless you wanted to surely. Its not as if unionists in North Down had to vote DUP but yet many did.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Feb 28, 2018 14:48:33 GMT
Well you wouldn't vote DUP unless you wanted to surely. Its not as if unionists in North Down had to vote DUP but yet many did. Hermon seemed to have been caught off guard by the snap general election and probably expected to cruise to victory once again. Her Brexit position probably wasn't great either for a lot of unionist voters. She might go at the next general election even on current boundaries, or she way do much better. It's not like anybody expected 2017 to be remotely close after the 2010 and 2015 GE and 2017 Assembly results. Just the fact she could hold the seat may put off the DUP from supporting a boundary review which is of no direct benefit to them. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 28, 2018 14:52:06 GMT
I've certainly seen it claimed by some in the know that Hermon was "caught napping" last year.
|
|
obsie
Non-Aligned
Posts: 866
|
Post by obsie on Mar 1, 2018 15:24:03 GMT
Possibly, but the northern part of the Ards Peninsula is Bible Belt/fishing territory (e.g. Portavogie) which is as solid as the DUP could hope for and I'm not sure that there would be enough tactical Catholic votes in the southern end to save her under the new boundaries (it also loses Holywood, middle-class and relatively Catholic, which would be a good area for Hermon). Now Jim Shannon would be less palatable than Alex Easton on the Gold Coast, but I'm still not sure it would make a difference.
|
|
colm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 69
|
Post by colm on Apr 17, 2018 17:58:59 GMT
Question about seat allocation in the UK parliament. Why is Wales allocated more seats proportionally than NI? I realize that Scotland had the number of seats reduced after devolution due to gaining a reasonably powerful parliament, but if NI were to have the same number of seats per head as Wales then they would have 23 seats. Second question is why has the UK had roughly 650 for such a long period of time when the UK population has grown substantially in recent decades?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 17, 2018 18:31:16 GMT
Exactly. Parliament should on current population figures (coming up to 66 million people) really have 720 seats, based on the ratio of people: MPs in 1983 and 1997.
Back in 1983, when Parliament was first expanded to have 650 seats, and where seats were much more equal in population terms than ever before, the UK population was just under 56.3 million.
www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/1983/
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Apr 17, 2018 19:34:36 GMT
...why has the UK had roughly 650 for such a long period of time when the UK population has grown substantially in recent decades? There doesn't necessarily have to be a correlation between the number of seats and a growing population. You just increase the average size of the electorate for each seat. The House of Commons is rather too small also. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 20:04:51 GMT
If Westminster really is supposed to be worth over 700 seats, fair enough. But for that number, we need about 70% by fptp and the remainder by a proportional system.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,771
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 17, 2018 21:06:53 GMT
Question about seat allocation in the UK parliament. Why is Wales allocated more seats proportionally than NI? I realize that Scotland had the number of seats reduced after devolution due to gaining a reasonably powerful parliament, but if NI were to have the same number of seats per head as Wales then they would have 23 seats. Second question is why has the UK had roughly 650 for such a long period of time when the UK population has grown substantially in recent decades? The Welsh Assembly didn't have primary legislative competence when first set up, unlike the Scottish and NI ones. And in fact in the days of the old NI parliament, before direct rule was imposed in 1972(?), there were only 12 seats for NI in Westminster. Wales is drastically overrepresented, now that the Assembly does have that competence in devolved areas. I haven't looked at the boundary proposals, but I'd expect that imbalance to be rectified to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 17, 2018 21:34:04 GMT
If Westminster really is supposed to be worth over 700 seats, fair enough. But for that number, we need about 70% by fptp and the remainder by a proportional system. In any AMS system, the number of single member constituencies should generally not be more than half again the number of list seats (so in a 700 seat parliament, 420 FPTP constituencies and 280 list seats, divided between the UK regions, would be much better) and vice versa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 4:45:28 GMT
If Westminster really is supposed to be worth over 700 seats, fair enough. But for that number, we need about 70% by fptp and the remainder by a proportional system. In any AMS system, the number of single member constituencies should generally not be more than half again the number of list seats (so in a 700 seat parliament, 420 FPTP constituencies and 280 list seats, divided between the UK regions, would be much better) and vice versa. That'll do me  |
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on Apr 18, 2018 19:03:51 GMT
Hi All
I'm new to the site so apologies if you've covered this recently: but I can't get my head round why boundaries isn't a bigger political issue in the mainstream media, given the apparent softening of DUP opposition. There is occasional stuff about potential Tory rebels being offered deals but that's about it. I may have this wrong but doesn't Boris' seat flip Labour under the proposals? Could he be bought off? Is it really worth May's trouble? While on the Labour side it would presumably be chaos given how many seats have already selected plus the whole deselection stuff. Loads for pol journos in all that surely!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Apr 18, 2018 20:10:02 GMT
The "mainstream media" is extremely ignorant in such matters. I am in the minority that has always expected that the latest recommendations will go through. There is no obvious gerrymandering as the Boundary Commission is independent, but the rules they have to follow will generate many unsatisfactory constuencies. The main issue is how the elctorates which determine the numbers are calculated, rather than the sort of partisan boundaries found in many other countries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 21:38:56 GMT
Exactly. Parliament should on current population figures (coming up to 66 million people) really have 720 seats, based on the ratio of people: MPs in 1983 and 1997.
Back in 1983, when Parliament was first expanded to have 650 seats, and where seats were much more equal in population terms than ever before, the UK population was just under 56.3 million.
www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/1983/
You may have a case but good luck convincing the electorate that more MP'S are required. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 18, 2018 21:55:58 GMT
The electorate did not seem to mind when Parliament gained an extra 9 seats for the 1997 general election (for a total of 659).
|
|
|
|
Post by cherrycoffin on Apr 18, 2018 22:00:19 GMT
The electorate did not seem to mind when Parliament gained an extra 9 seats for the 1997 general election (for a total of 659). There’s a difference between gaining 9 seats and gaining 50 to be fair |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Apr 18, 2018 22:07:54 GMT
The electorate did not seem to mind when Parliament gained an extra 9 seats for the 1997 general election (for a total of 659). There’s a difference between gaining 9 seats and gaining 50 to be fair Perhaps an increase to 700 seats in the Commons could be achieved by stealth simply by adding a small number of seats at a time with each boundary review?  Exactly. Parliament should on current population figures (coming up to 66 million people) really have 720 seats, based on the ratio of people: MPs in 1983 and 1997.
Back in 1983, when Parliament was first expanded to have 650 seats, and where seats were much more equal in population terms than ever before, the UK population was just under 56.3 million.
www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/1983/
Interestingly Wales still looses 5 seats under a 720 seat scenario (under a proportional distribution bar the islands). You have to go to 812 seats for Wales to keep it's present allocation of 40.
I think the overrepresentation can be justified but it's certainly interesting. I think the most plausible case for any kind of over-representation could be based on Wales' dependency on money from Westminster, but as soon as it achieves sufficient fiscal autonomy then there would be fewer obstacles to a more proportional distribution of seats. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 18, 2018 23:10:03 GMT
Welsh over-representation is of course purely down to historic factors: it was guaranteed an over-representation of 35 seats and then the "ratchet effect" of using the arithmetic mean in boundary reviews where the quota was based on the existing number of seats pushed it up. Northern Ireland was significantly over-represented in the 1920s (think it had 29 seats!) then under-represented due to having its own parliament, before gaining a small over-representation again.
No need for parliament to expand with the population, it doesn't happen elsewhere, but keep 650 seats.
As for alternative electoral systems, no to any kind of AMS with "top-up" members. I dislike the idea of having two kinds of MPs and really dislike the idea of my vote helping to elect someone I didn't explicitly vote for. STV would be my preferred option, but, if not, keep the status quo.
|
|
|
|
Post by willoughby on Apr 19, 2018 13:13:13 GMT
Yes logically the DUP should abstain, or more likely tell the Tories that they will do so - so the Tories drop the idea. They won't want to support Corbyn against May, but they would probably rather it didn't happen at all so won't want to back it. There is nothing in the pact with the Tories that requires them to back boundaries either.
Then again Northern Ireland politics is a mystery to me. Anyone on here who knows what the DUP really think?
|
|
