politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest slot: The boundaries of reason

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest slot: The boundaries of reason

I previously looked back at the impact of demographic changes on party politics from 1992 to 2015.  That’s all well and good, but what changes can we expect for 2020?  To determine that we first need to consider what the new boundaries are likely to look like.

Read the full story here

Jonathan

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

Tissue_Price

An excellent overview, antifrank. Boundary reviews may in general be bad for incumbents, but the sooner they know what region they will be contesting next time, the better.

I suspect 650 instead of 600 will be the will of the House, regardless of Conservative strategising along your lines. In fact, if they play their cards right, they might be able to get away with sticking the blame on Labour.

Sunil_Prasannan

Wouldn't it be better to allocate through eligible voters, rather than registered?

Sunil_Prasannan

And what about the House of Lords? 600 seats would make the Commons even smaller with respect to the Lords.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Lords is the only Upper House in the world larger than its respective Lower House.

MarkHopkins

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Wouldn't it be better to allocate through eligible voters, rather than registered?

On the day of the election, those two are exactly the same.

Meaning: by then, if you have not registered, then you will not be eligible to vote. So what matters is who is registered.

MyBurningEars

Sunil_Prasannan said:

And what about the House of Lords? 600 seats would make the Commons even smaller with respect to the Lords.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Lords is the only Upper House in the world larger than its respective Lower House.

Though the Lords also has a very different type and behaviour to most upper houses, and for the way the UK makes use of its upper house, a larger one with greater breath of experience may well be advantageous.

Not sure what I feel about it, but I wouldn't want to base my conclusion on international comparisons that are largely irrelevant.

Philip_Thompson

Thanks for the excellent analysis Antifrank. I don't think its plausible to block the reforms, if they are blocked then won't the election be fought on boundaries based on data from 20 years earlier? These reforms surely have to be accepted this time?

Also, who makes the decision for accepting/rejecting the boundaries? Is it just the Commons or do the Lords get a say too - and if they do, can a Lords rejection be itself overcome by the Parliament Act.

Jonathan

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Pulpstar

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

No, it would save 50 * £100,000 ? (MP Salary + Staff + additional costs + pension) (£100k is probably a low estimate) = £5 million/ year.

Against that you have the argument that parliament would (all else being equal) be even less representative and that electors would only have 11/13ths the access they had to their previous MP.

It's not alot, but "every little helps..."...

MyBurningEars

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

Not pointless, certainly better value for money and that should matter.

But so too should the increasing number of constituents per seat (higher population, less seats), which makes it harder for MPs to be responsive and stay in touch, or deal with case work. And in a reduced house there is also greater creep of executive power, as a higher proportion of government MPs are on the payroll and fewer back benchers to hold them to account.

Tissue_Price

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Philip_Thompson

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

America gets by with a Congress with 435 in the lower house and 100 in the upper house. Why do we need 650 in the lower and 790 in the upper? I'd suggest we can cope with going down to 435 or less if the entire USA can.

Its been repeatedly said lately in the Battle for Skinner's Seat that there are more MPs than there are seats in the Commons. A reduction in MPs to a number that all fit in the Commons seems a sensible starting point.

Jonathan

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

Richard_Nabavi

I'm not sure I follow antifrank's argument on the difference between 650 and 600 seats (assuming sensible equalisation of constituency sizes in each case). In particular this bit doesn't make sense to me:

Many of the constituencies with the lowest number of registered voters are in contiguous Labour-held areas. On a shrinking seat count determined by numbers of registered voters, that is the worst permutation for a party, because there is much less scope to recoup lost seats in the area by taking seats of a rival party

Surely that is a consequence of making constituency sizes more equitable, not the number of constituencies?

I can see that, other thing being equal, larger constituencies might be less good for minor parties (who can get concentrated votes only in smallish areas), but I don't see why increasing constituency size would make a systematic difference to Lab vs Con.

Philip_Thompson

MyBurningEars said:

And in a reduced house there is also greater creep of executive power, as a higher proportion of government MPs are on the payroll and fewer back benchers to hold them to account.

Not sure this argument holds. There are probably Ministerial jobs that exist - sometimes without portfolio even - largely even if not officially because a higher payroll vote is desired. A reduction in MPs could be met with a proportional reduction in the number of Ministers.

The number of "payroll" ministers has not been fixed through history.

TCPoliticalBetting

Wow antifrank, I feel guilty for snapping back at you on a previous thread.
A very useful article thanks.

Tissue_Price

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

Sure, that's the case for multi-member STV. But if a party is sufficiently well-supported as to get both members (think Labour in East London or the Tories in rural Oxfordshire) then they should. Otherwise you'll just see "Independent" workarounds.

Indigo

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!

MyBurningEars

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

Expect Hull to return 1st Labour, 2nd Cooperative Party. Ergo pointless.

But harks back interestingly to how things used to be with multi member constituencies and Liberals letting Labour have a bash at the second seat.

If you want more representative and diverse MPs at a local level then opt for multi member STV, aka "British PR".

kle4

I don't mind the Lords being larger than the Commons, for a consultative chamber a more fluid, larger membership may well be best, but I am sure it could be slimmed down a great deal. Hundreds never or very rarely appear, so since they are either incapable or unwilling to regularly (or even infrequently, on matters of import) contribute, or perhaps only in it for the title, maybe they should lose their voting privileges automatically after a while, even if they are still called 'Lord' (I believe Lord Ashcroft can still claim that title despite renouncing his place in the House).

Jonathan

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

America gets by with a Congress with 435 in the lower house and 100 in the upper house. Why do we need 650 in the lower and 790 in the upper? I'd suggest we can cope with going down to 435 or less if the entire USA can.

Its been repeatedly said lately in the Battle for Skinner's Seat that there are more MPs than there are seats in the Commons. A reduction in MPs to a number that all fit in the Commons seems a sensible starting point.

This argument has been discounted several times. To compare you have to add in the 50 state legislatures not just the federal govt. Most have two chambers.

Jonathan

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

Sure, that's the case for multi-member STV. But if a party is sufficiently well-supported as to get both members (think Labour in East London or the Tories in rural Oxfordshire) then they should. Otherwise you'll just see "Independent" workarounds.

And that would add to the commons would it not.

MyBurningEars

Philip_Thompson said:

MyBurningEars said:

And in a reduced house there is also greater creep of executive power, as a higher proportion of government MPs are on the payroll and fewer back benchers to hold them to account.

Not sure this argument holds. There are probably Ministerial jobs that exist - sometimes without portfolio even - largely even if not officially because a higher payroll vote is desired. A reduction in MPs could be met with a proportional reduction in the number of Ministers.

The number of "payroll" ministers has not been fixed through history.

Correct and I hope the two are legally coupled, so they come down together. But unless this is done then it's a risk to a smaller chamber and at least needs to be considered.

Richard_Nabavi

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.

Err, that is exactly the point which gives us a lever to ensure that the non-Eurozone countries can edge away and also that we get some protections. Of course if we leave the EU altogether (whether or not we immediately signed up to some EEA-style deal) we'd have zero say and zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

I'm not sure I follow antifrank's argument on the difference between 650 and 600 seats (assuming sensible equalisation of constituency sizes in each case). In particular this bit doesn't make sense to me:

Many of the constituencies with the lowest number of registered voters are in contiguous Labour-held areas. On a shrinking seat count determined by numbers of registered voters, that is the worst permutation for a party, because there is much less scope to recoup lost seats in the area by taking seats of a rival party

Surely that is a consequence of making constituency sizes more equitable, not the number of constituencies?

I can see that, other thing being equal, larger constituencies might be less good for minor parties (who can get concentrated votes only in smallish areas), but I don't see why increasing constituency size would make a systematic difference to Lab vs Con.

Leeds was a bad example (only 4/8 Leeds MPs are Labour, 3 Con, 1 LD) but take Liverpool as a perfect example with 5 MPs all Labour. Removing one MP would mean Labour would lose one no matter what.

If it was an area, say in Wales, with 5 MPs - four Labour and 1 PC - then its possible Labour may not lose the one. Depending upon how the boundaries are split they could end up keeping all four new seats.

Take my town of Warrington, it has two MPs. From 1945-1983 it was only one and was solid Labour. After 1983 it was split into North and South, North is solid Labour, South is a marginal (currently Tory). Were the town to be merged back into a single seat then it would be the Tory seat that was lost.

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!
Re-read it. We're not part of the EMU.

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

I don't mind the Lords being larger than the Commons, for a consultative chamber a more fluid, larger membership may well be best, but I am sure it could be slimmed down a great deal. Hundreds never or very rarely appear, so since they are either incapable or unwilling to regularly (or even infrequently, on matters of import) contribute, or perhaps only in it for the title, maybe they should lose their voting privileges automatically after a while, even if they are still called 'Lord' (I believe Lord Ashcroft can still claim that title despite renouncing his place in the House).

Also remember the Lords is unelected!

JosiasJessop

An excellent article. Thanks, Antifrank.

Philip_Thompson

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

America gets by with a Congress with 435 in the lower house and 100 in the upper house. Why do we need 650 in the lower and 790 in the upper? I'd suggest we can cope with going down to 435 or less if the entire USA can.

Its been repeatedly said lately in the Battle for Skinner's Seat that there are more MPs than there are seats in the Commons. A reduction in MPs to a number that all fit in the Commons seems a sensible starting point.

This argument has been discounted several times. To compare you have to add in the 50 state legislatures not just the federal govt. Most have two chambers.

No you don't, that's like counting our local Councils. The State legislatures play no role in the Federal government.

Richard_Nabavi

Philip_Thompson said:

Leeds was a bad example (only 4/8 Leeds MPs are Labour, 3 Con, 1 LD) but take Liverpool as a perfect example with 5 MPs all Labour. Removing one MP would mean Labour would lose one no matter what.

If it was an area, say in Wales, with 5 MPs - four Labour and 1 PC - then its possible Labour may not lose the one. Depending upon how the boundaries are split they could end up keeping all four new seats.

OK, but equally if you remove one seat from West Sussex it's going to be a Tory seat. It seems to me that antifrank is counting the same effect twice: it's the equalisation which has an asymmetric effect between the Conservatives and Labour (because it removes the current unfair bias to Labour), not the seat-count reduction, surely?

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!

Re-read it. We're not part of the EMU.

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. Anyway as usual in your role as arch Cameroon cheerleader, you completely miss the point. It demonstrates, contrary to Euro enthusiasts pontifications here last week that the EU has no interest in federalism, its about centralisation and always has been,, and the chance of the renegotiations getting anything useful as a result is the square root of zero - hope you have some good tinsel to hand to dress it up with!

not_on_fire

Whilst it's hard to argue against equalizing constituency sizes by population, reducing the number of constituencies is a daft move. If we are stuck with FPTP then if anything we should be increasing the number of MPs.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leeds was a bad example (only 4/8 Leeds MPs are Labour, 3 Con, 1 LD) but take Liverpool as a perfect example with 5 MPs all Labour. Removing one MP would mean Labour would lose one no matter what.

If it was an area, say in Wales, with 5 MPs - four Labour and 1 PC - then its possible Labour may not lose the one. Depending upon how the boundaries are split they could end up keeping all four new seats.

OK, but equally if you remove one seat from West Sussex it's going to be a Tory seat. It seems to me that antifrank is double-counting the same effect twice: it's the equalisation which has an assymetric effect between the Conservatives and Labour (because it removes the current unfair bias to Labour), not the seat-count reduction, surely?

Equalisation is the main change yes, but reduction in seats depends upon the granularity of the seats and the distribution of marginals. A solid bloc of contiguous seats would be reduced in strength. Though both Labour and Tories have plenty of those.

MarqueeMark

Another excellent piece of work, Mr. Antifrank.

As I recall, the pressure to reduce from 650 to 600 seats was essentially pandering to the public desire to cut the cost of politics, following the expenses scandal. If the reduction to 600 gets thrown out, then it might have some potency. We saw this year what happens when a party pledged in its 2010 manifesto to reduce Parliament to 600 seats, but then reneges on that out of self preservation.

It gets reduced to 8 seats at the subsequent election...

JEO

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!

Re-read it. We're not part of the EMU.

That's correct, but his point is still right that the EU is clearly not becoming a "loser union". The EU is becoming a centralised superstate, with us as an outlying territory with some extra autonomy. There's still a very real danger of us getting outvoted on issue after issue by a common Eurozone position. It will be essential that Cameron's renegotiation protects us on this: not just on finance matters, but on every area of QMV. A double QMV requirement for Eurozone and non-Eurozone members would be a good solution.

Sandpit

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!
The EZ countries have to converge their fiscal policies, the fact that they haven't is why we see the Greek mess on the news every night.

What Cameron is asking for is that the EZ countries be allowed to do this, while the UK (and Denmark, probably Sweden as well) can take a step back and not plough towards becoming a single country. It is in both the EZ and UK interest to allow this to happen, provided certain rules are agreed upon such as the EZ countries not imposing regulation aimed primarily at the City of London.

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.
Also note the comments about social cohesion "Better labour market and social performance, as well as social cohesion should be at the core of the new process of “upward convergence” put forward in this report.". Enough to warm the hearts of any true conservative!

Re-read it. We're not part of the EMU.

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. Anyway as usual in your role as arch Cameroon cheerleader, you completely miss the point. It demonstrates, contrary to Euro enthusiasts pontifications here last week that the EU has no interest in federalism, its about centralisation and always has been.

EMU can centralise all it wants as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't give two hoots.

We need protections so we can't be outvoted in QMV by an EMU bloc. That is something Cameron is seeking - if he gets that then that will be an incredible victory. It is also the biggest challenge of the negotiations.

Richard_Nabavi

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

Sandpit

Oh, and yet another insightful and well written article from Mr Antifrank. He is rather good at this.

Indigo

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.

Err, that is exactly the point which gives us a lever to ensure that the non-Eurozone countries can edge away and also that we get some protections. Of course if we leave the EU altogether (whether or not we immediately signed up to some EEA-style deal) we'd have zero say and zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.

Slackbladder

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Indigo

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.

Err, that is exactly the point which gives us a lever to ensure that the non-Eurozone countries can edge away and also that we get some protections. Of course if we leave the EU altogether (whether or not we immediately signed up to some EEA-style deal) we'd have zero say and zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.
Which is meaningless as the WTO is not a democracy.

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.

Err, that is exactly the point which gives us a lever to ensure that the non-Eurozone countries can edge away and also that we get some protections. Of course if we leave the EU altogether (whether or not we immediately signed up to some EEA-style deal) we'd have zero say and zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.

Which is meaningless as the WTO is not a democracy.



What ?

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

TheWhiteRabbit

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

Going from 650 to 600 just seems a waste of time.

There are arguments about equalising constituencies size.
There are bigger arguments about creating more representative constituencies and HoC.

But the move from 650-600 is pointless.

America gets by with a Congress with 435 in the lower house and 100 in the upper house. Why do we need 650 in the lower and 790 in the upper? I'd suggest we can cope with going down to 435 or less if the entire USA can.

Its been repeatedly said lately in the Battle for Skinner's Seat that there are more MPs than there are seats in the Commons. A reduction in MPs to a number that all fit in the Commons seems a sensible starting point.

This argument has been discounted several times. To compare you have to add in the 50 state legislatures not just the federal govt. Most have two chambers.

No you don't, that's like counting our local Councils. The State legislatures play no role in the Federal government.

US state government have responsibility for a lot of areas which local councils do not.

TheWhiteRabbit

Richard_Nabavi said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Leeds was a bad example (only 4/8 Leeds MPs are Labour, 3 Con, 1 LD) but take Liverpool as a perfect example with 5 MPs all Labour. Removing one MP would mean Labour would lose one no matter what.

If it was an area, say in Wales, with 5 MPs - four Labour and 1 PC - then its possible Labour may not lose the one. Depending upon how the boundaries are split they could end up keeping all four new seats.

OK, but equally if you remove one seat from West Sussex it's going to be a Tory seat. It seems to me that antifrank is counting the same effect twice: it's the equalisation which has an asymmetric effect between the Conservatives and Labour (because it removes the current unfair bias to Labour), not the seat-count reduction, surely?

I'd say there was an extent to which a seat reduction helps the Tories as largest party, as distinct from the equalisation which would help the Tories in all elections.

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

I thought I might borrow yours since you appear to know what the EU is going to be like in the future if we stay in. The IN campaign is busy letting people believe the only answer which is definitely not true, that it will be the same as now. Stay in or jump out, its a leap in the dark either way.

Philip_Thompson

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Who where those europhiles optimists here a week or so ago telling how Cameron had it made and we were heading for a more federal loser union with powers being devolved back to the member states ? Did they read the latest press releases from the EU leadership on the future direction of the EU ? http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU.

This body would have the final say on individual nations’ fiscal policies, controlling their tax and spending in a bid to converge their economies into one financial union speaking with one voice at international bodies such as the IMF.

Err, that is exactly the point which gives us a lever to ensure that the non-Eurozone countries can edge away and also that we get some protections. Of course if we leave the EU altogether (whether or not we immediately signed up to some EEA-style deal) we'd have zero say and zero protection against Eurozone hegemony.

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.

Which is meaningless as the WTO is not a democracy.


Having a "seat" at the WTO is utterly meaningless since the WTO doesn't cast votes on a per-seat basis. We are members of the WTO and are involved in all negotiations on WTO Your idea of a whole-seat is meaningless.

Plato

Police withheld bombshell report revealing how gangs of Muslim men were grooming more than 100 schoolgirls as young as 10 in case it inflamed racial tensions ahead of General Election

West Midlands Police release March 2010 document for first time this week
It says 100 mainly white children were at serious risk of being groomed
Report says perpetrators were all Asian, which could cause tension locally
No appeal was made and the report was published for first time this week


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138984/Police-withheld-bombshell-report-revealing-gangs-Muslim-men-grooming-100-schoolgirls-young-10-case-inflamed-racial-tensions-ahead-General-Election.html#ixzz3e4yML3nj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Richard_Nabavi

Indigo said:

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.

I mean that, currently, we have an absolute and unconditional veto on measures which the Eurozone needs to take. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to undo some of the damage of Lisbon.

As for the WTO, that argument is bogus, because (a) obviously the WTO only has a role in areas covered by the WTO, and (b) it is tinfoil-hat-bonkers to assume that the EU (with 500 million people) doesn't have a much bigger role in trade negotiations than one country of 64 million people.

Sandpit

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Yes, and it would have produced a very different Parliament now to the one we have if the two seats rule was applied to the same results.

With possibly 100 UKIP MPs, half a dozen greens and many fewer from the SNP. Lab and Con would both be down also, the result probably being either Con/Lib Coalition again or Con/UKIP.

Disraeli

Sandpit said:

Oh, and yet another insightful and well written article from Mr Antifrank. He is rather good at this.

+1

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

I thought I might borrow yours since you appear to know what the EU is going to be like in the future if we stay in. The IN campaign is busy letting people believe the only answer which is definitely not true, that it will be the same as now. Stay in or jump out, its a leap in the dark either way.

No I know the state of the EU today and by the end of the negotiations we'll have an idea about those. Changes in the future will have future referenda, so if a line is crossed I disagree with then I'll wait until then rather than be paranoid today about possible future changes.

TheWhiteRabbit

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Yes, and it would have produced a very different Parliament now to the one we have if the two seats rule was applied to the same results.

With possibly 100 UKIP MPs, half a dozen greens and many fewer from the SNP. Lab and Con would both be down also, the result probably being either Con/Lib Coalition again or Con/UKIP.

Difficult to say UKIP seats.

Would you vote for a single candidate?

UKIP benefitted from being the challenger, which wouldn't apply the same way.

Richard_Nabavi

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I'd say there was an extent to which a seat reduction helps the Tories as largest party, as distinct from the equalisation which would help the Tories in all elections.

That may be so, but of course it would work the other way if and when Labour happens to be stronger.

Having said that, 650 down to 600 is not a huge change of granularity.

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

I thought I might borrow yours since you appear to know what the EU is going to be like in the future if we stay in. The IN campaign is busy letting people believe the only answer which is definitely not true, that it will be the same as now. Stay in or jump out, its a leap in the dark either way.

No I know the state of the EU today and by the end of the negotiations we'll have an idea about those. Changes in the future will have future referenda, so if a line is crossed I disagree with then I'll wait until then rather than be paranoid today about possible future changes.

This would be like the referendum on the EAW ? Or the raft of other powers that were quietly given back the the EU without asking the people. The referendum lock is a sham, the number of types of EU agreement and changes in law that do not require a referendum, such as for example anything attached to an accession treaty, or any powers returned by an Order in Council, rather than primary legislation (is I believe was the case of the EAW) make it no more than a fig-leaf.

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

Oh, and yet another insightful and well written article from Mr Antifrank. He is rather good at this.

Agreed. And the cost of access to this thinking? Precisely no pounds and no pennies. A round of applause to OGH for providing this exceptional meeting place.

Sandpit

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Yes, and it would have produced a very different Parliament now to the one we have if the two seats rule was applied to the same results.

With possibly 100 UKIP MPs, half a dozen greens and many fewer from the SNP. Lab and Con would both be down also, the result probably being either Con/Lib Coalition again or Con/UKIP.

Difficult to say UKIP seats.

Would you vote for a single candidate?

UKIP benefitted from being the challenger, which wouldn't apply the same way.

I was looking at @Jonathan's original idea of 325 double-size constituencies, with two Members elected from different parties. I make the assumption of one vote per person as now.

Obviously the behaviour of the electorate can and will be very different based on the voting system (not going down that route again!) but UKIP were well into the three figures for second places last month.

Tissue_Price

Just a quibble on the "Lib Dem 8" (this year's result on new 650-boundaries) - that seems optimistic.

Obviously it depends very much on the extent of the changes you envisaged to the seats of that heroic octet.

Indigo

Light blue touch paper..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0gMngc68v4

Dimitrios Papadimoulos, Vice-President of the European Parliament calls for a common European Immigration policy... Dan Hannan's head almost explodes when he hears him say it!

Tissue_Price

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

Oh, and yet another insightful and well written article from Mr Antifrank. He is rather good at this.

Agreed. And the cost of access to this thinking? Precisely no pounds and no pennies. A round of applause to OGH for providing this exceptional meeting place.

Just imagine if we had to pay for it at antifrank's hourly rate.

SirBenjamin

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Yes, and it would have produced a very different Parliament now to the one we have if the two seats rule was applied to the same results.

With possibly 100 UKIP MPs, half a dozen greens and many fewer from the SNP. Lab and Con would both be down also, the result probably being either Con/Lib Coalition again or Con/UKIP.

This is essentially the 'first and second past the post' concept that Brian May proposed on QT the other week, I suspect without thinking it through particularly thoroughly.

In some very tight seats the second place candidate can get 20k+ votes and come within a whisker of the winner. In uber safe seats, 2nd place can be miles behind on ~10% of the vote.

Treating these two second places equally is ridiculous and would in poor second places being elected but not very close thirds in multi-way marginals and other anomalies.

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Tissue_Price

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

JEO

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

I thought I might borrow yours since you appear to know what the EU is going to be like in the future if we stay in. The IN campaign is busy letting people believe the only answer which is definitely not true, that it will be the same as now. Stay in or jump out, its a leap in the dark either way.

No I know the state of the EU today and by the end of the negotiations we'll have an idea about those. Changes in the future will have future referenda, so if a line is crossed I disagree with then I'll wait until then rather than be paranoid today about possible future changes.

Changes in the future will not have referenda if they're done by QMV votes. That why we need protection from them.

blackburn63

Far too many politicians and bureaucrats at every level. Parish council, town, district, county, commons, lords and the EU. Far too many people legislating one way or another.

JEO

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

You mean aside from the WTO and similar organisation which currently we only have a say in if we convince the Commission of our cause. Outside the EU we would have a seat on the WTO, exactly the same number of seats as the whole of the EU gets.

I mean that, currently, we have an absolute and unconditional veto on measures which the Eurozone needs to take. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to undo some of the damage of Lisbon.

As for the WTO, that argument is bogus, because (a) obviously the WTO only has a role in areas covered by the WTO, and (b) it is tinfoil-hat-bonkers to assume that the EU (with 500 million people) doesn't have a much bigger role in trade negotiations than one country of 64 million people.

That why we need to make sure we don't trade away this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for some minor fiddling round the edges. We need to make sure we get solid protections against QMV (particularly in finance), opt-outs of the worse legislation and court rulings, better control of our borders, and the trade deals with Canada and the USA.

JonCisBack

Very good article, clearly written with clear examples antifrank - thanks.

650 -> 600 feels like it should be good for the tories as smallish Labour city seats need to expand to take in some tory "shirey" bits. E.g. Peterborough, or where 2 seats might turn to one - e.g. I wouldn't be surprised to see one "City of Swansea" seat next time with some suburbs tacked on to Gower, Neath or Aberavon. Goodbye Swansea E and W... Maybe Luton as well, the list goes on in fact

But for accurate analysis we surely need to wait for the details.

As for MPs fighting over seats, how many typically retire every time? Must be more than the ~8% loss of MPs (OTBE) that the maths suggests. It therefore might mean fewer new MPs in 2020, but that is far less of a problem in the 2015 parliament for Cameron - there should still be enough seats to go around amongst those who don't want to retire.

Tissue_Price

JonCisBack said:

Very good article, clearly written with clear examples antifrank - thanks.

650 -> 600 feels like it should be good for the tories as smallish Labour city seats need to expand to take in some tory "shirey" bits. E.g. Peterborough, or where 2 seats might turn to one - e.g. I wouldn't be surprised to see one "City of Swansea" seat next time with some suburbs tacked on to Gower, Neath or Aberavon. Goodbye Swansea E and W... Maybe Luton as well, the list goes on in fact

But in that example, the Tories might lose Gower - first-time incumbency notwithstanding. It's all very complicated and I suspect the difference between 600 & 650 in percentage terms won't actually be that great.

AlastairMeeks

JonCisBack said:

Very good article, clearly written with clear examples antifrank - thanks.

650 -> 600 feels like it should be good for the tories as smallish Labour city seats need to expand to take in some tory "shirey" bits. E.g. Peterborough, or where 2 seats might turn to one - e.g. I wouldn't be surprised to see one "City of Swansea" seat next time with some suburbs tacked on to Gower, Neath or Aberavon. Goodbye Swansea E and W... Maybe Luton as well, the list goes on in fact

But for accurate analysis we surely need to wait for the details.

As for MPs fighting over seats, how many typically retire every time? Must be more than the ~8% loss of MPs (OTBE) that the maths suggests. It therefore might mean fewer new MPs in 2020, but that is far less of a problem in the 2015 parliament for Cameron - there should still be enough seats to go around amongst those who don't want to retire.

I'm planning to look at some worked examples in a part two article, where I hope to give a fuller explanation of my thinking on some of the points in this article.

I had to call a halt somewhere: it's already a ridiculously long thread header.

Richard_Nabavi

Eurozone ministers have told Greece to come back with a better set of proposals -- in the meantime, their meeting is ‘indefinitely suspended’

http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jun/25/greek-crisis-bailout-talks-resume-eurogroup-summit-live

AlastairMeeks

Perhaps the Greek Finance Minister will be multi-tasking this evening on Question Time.

TheWhiteRabbit

antifrank said:

Perhaps the Greek Finance Minister will be multi-tasking this evening on Question Time.

Or maybe he'll be sacked live. Most coups, after all, happen in absentia...

Tissue_Price

antifrank said:

Perhaps the Greek Finance Minister will be multi-tasking this evening on Question Time.

He's already cancelled that. Interesting priority ;-)

williamglenn

antifrank said:

Perhaps the Greek Finance Minister will be multi-tasking this evening on Question Time.

He'll have a whip-round of the audience and announce a phone number for donations.

DecrepitJohnL

It's not just about maths. Scotland shows what happens when parties -- first the Conservatives and now Labour -- become seen as anti-Scots. The danger now is in Wales, where the Conservatives now hold and, if painted anti-Welsh, risk losing 11 seats: up from 3 when plans were drafted.

Tissue_Price

DecrepitJohnL said:

It's not just about maths. Scotland shows what happens when parties -- first the Conservatives and now Labour -- become seen as anti-Scots. The danger now is in Wales, where the Conservatives now hold and, if painted anti-Welsh, risk losing 11 seats: up from 3 when plans were drafted.

But England shows what happens when parties get seen as pro-Celtic fringe. No-one (apart from the largely irrelevant Plaid) should be going to the wall to defend Welsh over-representation in the HoC.

JonCisBack

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1

So it would look fecking stupid is the answer

Sean_F

JonCisBack said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1

So it would look fecking stupid is the answer

Two-member borough constituencies (sometimes even three member constituencies) were the norm for hundreds of years. And, of course, multi-member wards are still the norm in local elections.

Disraeli

Tissue_Price said:

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

Esther McVey in Wirral West?

SirBenjamin

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

I know Dan Watkins was well North of 40%, having worked the Tooting seat on Election Day.

I'd imagine Lee Scott and Nick de Bois were right up there as well. Also McVey.

On the Labour side, I've less of an idea. Balls? Lab candidate in Gower?

HYUFD

Yougov GOP 2016 primary poll sees Trump joint leader

Rubio 11% (10%)
Trump 11% (2%)
Paul 11% (9%)
Bush 10% (14%)
Walker 10% (9%)
Carson 10% (9%)
Cruz 9% (3%)
Huckabee 6% (7%)
Fiorina 3% (6%)
Christie 2% (4%)
Perry 2% (7%)
Santorum 2% (3%)
Kasich 2% (4%)
Graham 2% (0%)
Jindal 0% (1%)
Pataki 0% (–)
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/06/24/Donald-Trump-joins-crowded-GOP-top-tier-but-many/

calum

A neat summary of Clegg's LBC interview - still spinning the Paddy line - not our fault but the SNP and Tories:

http://m.libdemvoice.org/video-nick-cleggs-interview-on-lbc-46554.html?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Tissue_Price

Disraeli said:

Tissue_Price said:

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

Esther McVey in Wirral West?

Ding! We have a winner. 44.2%.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Calum, a fair point. If the SNP and Conservatives had done worse, the Lib Dems would have more seats.

Disraeli

SirBenjamin said:

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

I know Dan Watkins was well North of 40%, having worked the Tooting seat on Election Day.

I'd imagine Lee Scott and Nick de Bois were right up there as well. Also McVey.

On the Labour side, I've less of an idea. Balls? Lab candidate in Gower?

Labour's best place was probably Croydon Central - its a wafer thin Tory majority.

Tissue_Price

SirBenjamin said:

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

I know Dan Watkins was well North of 40%, having worked the Tooting seat on Election Day.

I'd imagine Lee Scott and Nick de Bois were right up there as well. Also McVey.

On the Labour side, I've less of an idea. Balls? Lab candidate in Gower?

The highest 2nd places were all, unsurprisingly, in Lab-Con marginals, most in London, where there was little UKIP effect:

Wirral West Lab gain 44.2%
City Of Chester Lab gain 43.1%
Brentford and Isleworth Lab gain 42.9%
Ealing Cent and Acton Lab gain 42.7%
Croydon Central C hold 42.7%
Ilford North Lab gain 42.7%
Hampstead and Kilburn Lab hold 42.3%
Harrow West Lab hold 42.2%
Tooting Lab hold 41.9%
Westminster North Lab hold 41.8%

The highest SNP 2nd was 38.3% in DCT, and the highest LD 2nd was Eastbourne @ 38.2%

SimonStClare

Sandpit said:

Oh, and yet another insightful and well written article from Mr Antifrank. He is rather good at this.

Indeed, he appears to have blossomed over the past couple of years – certainly enough to justify bringing back POTY (imho).

Flightpathl

Sean_F said:

JonCisBack said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1

So it would look fecking stupid is the answer

Two-member borough constituencies (sometimes even three member constituencies) were the norm for hundreds of years. And, of course, multi-member wards are still the norm in local elections.

But the suggestion was two member constituencies with 1 candidate per party. Thats stupid.

Philip_Thompson

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Indigo said:

Well that's all right then, lets not worry about them being able to out vote us in QMV. .

Well done, you've worked out why it is so important in the renegotiation to put in institutional protection for the non-Eurozone countries - one of Cameron's key demands.

I have also worked out that he wont get it. You mean while appear to be deafened to what is going on by your adoration for the apparently infallible Cast Iron Dave.

You have a crystal ball do you? Or a Tardis?

I thought I might borrow yours since you appear to know what the EU is going to be like in the future if we stay in. The IN campaign is busy letting people believe the only answer which is definitely not true, that it will be the same as now. Stay in or jump out, its a leap in the dark either way.

No I know the state of the EU today and by the end of the negotiations we'll have an idea about those. Changes in the future will have future referenda, so if a line is crossed I disagree with then I'll wait until then rather than be paranoid today about possible future changes.

Changes in the future will not have referenda if they're done by QMV votes. That why we need protection from them.

Treaty changes can't be done via QMV.

JEO

Sean_F said:

JonCisBack said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

It would look like 325 proper MPs and 325 also-rans with automatic inferior status from day 1

So it would look fecking stupid is the answer

Two-member borough constituencies (sometimes even three member constituencies) were the norm for hundreds of years. And, of course, multi-member wards are still the norm in local elections.

If we had two MPs per constituency, wouldn't STV make more sense?

SirBenjamin

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

I know Dan Watkins was well North of 40%, having worked the Tooting seat on Election Day.

I'd imagine Lee Scott and Nick de Bois were right up there as well. Also McVey.

On the Labour side, I've less of an idea. Balls? Lab candidate in Gower?

The highest 2nd places were all, unsurprisingly, in Lab-Con marginals, most in London, where there was little UKIP effect:

Wirral West Lab gain 44.2%
City Of Chester Lab gain 43.1%
Brentford and Isleworth Lab gain 42.9%
Ealing Cent and Acton Lab gain 42.7%
Croydon Central C hold 42.7%
Ilford North Lab gain 42.7%
Hampstead and Kilburn Lab hold 42.3%
Harrow West Lab hold 42.2%
Tooting Lab hold 41.9%
Westminster North Lab hold 41.8%

The highest SNP 2nd was 38.3% in DCT, and the highest LD 2nd was Eastbourne @ 38.2%

Fascinating stuff. Any chance you can do the most distant second places?

logical_song

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Jonathan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Jonathan said:

Wonder what 325 larger constituencies with the first two elected would look like. One candidate per party.

Where's the justification for the "one candidate" criterion?

Diversity. Makes almost all constituencies competitive.

wouldn't that create an awful lot of very safe seats? To get rid of someone you would not only have to have someone beat them, you would need two people to beat them.

Yes, and it would have produced a very different Parliament now to the one we have if the two seats rule was applied to the same results.

With possibly 100 UKIP MPs, half a dozen greens and many fewer from the SNP. Lab and Con would both be down also, the result probably being either Con/Lib Coalition again or Con/UKIP.

Difficult to say UKIP seats.

Would you vote for a single candidate?

UKIP benefitted from being the challenger, which wouldn't apply the same way.

I was looking at @Jonathan's original idea of 325 double-size constituencies, with two Members elected from different parties. I make the assumption of one vote per person as now.

Obviously the behaviour of the electorate can and will be very different based on the voting system (not going down that route again!) but UKIP were well into the three figures for second places last month.

Seems a particularly bad idea, many would be tempted to play the system. (e.g. I'll assume that the Tory will be elected, so I'll vote for (choose party) to get the 2nd place MP.)
STV or similar would mean no need to game the system just vote in order of preference.

Morris_Dancer

A Greek Tragedy, chapter 317:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33265923

Alistair

SirBenjamin said:

In some very tight seats the second place candidate can get 20k+ votes and come within a whisker of the winner. In uber safe seats, 2nd place can be miles behind on ~10% of the vote.

Treating these two second places equally is ridiculous and would in poor second places being elected but not very close thirds in multi-way marginals and other anomalies.

No more ridiculous than how we select the first place.

calum

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Mr. Calum, a fair point. If the SNP and Conservatives had done worse, the Lib Dems would have more seats.

Agree that these were 2 of the factors - Clegg's answer below:

" He put defeat solely down to Tory scaremongering about SNP and SNP surge in Scotland "

I think there is the minor issue of a backlash by the electorate because of the small matter of them being in coalition with the Tories.

JEO

Philip_Thompson said:

Treaty changes can't be done via QMV.

No, but large changes to the state of the EU can be done by QMV without treaty changes.

TheWhiteRabbit

How many unions have to join the RMT and back BOO before it becomes uncomfortable for the Labour Party to oppose? (I know the RMT isn't affiliated but obviously many others are.)

Flightpathl

antifrank said:

JonCisBack said:

Very good article, clearly written with clear examples antifrank - thanks.

snip

As for MPs fighting over seats, how many typically retire every time? Must be more than the ~8% loss of MPs (OTBE) that the maths suggests. It therefore might mean fewer new MPs in 2020, but that is far less of a problem in the 2015 parliament for Cameron - there should still be enough seats to go around amongst those who don't want to retire.

I'm planning to look at some worked examples in a part two article, where I hope to give a fuller explanation of my thinking on some of the points in this article.
I had to call a halt somewhere: it's already a ridiculously long thread header.

Yes, congratulations on a thoughtful piece. My understanding is that irrespective of local govt and ward boundaries, parliamentary boundaries have to be within county boundaries. Assuming this correct (and a LG expert told me this) - would it have some effect on seat boundaries? It might throw up some silly anomalies.
Local government organisation is a mess. If we could agree 50 sensible 'county' boundaries for the UK we could have a nice 100 seat senate and abolish the House of Lords. As it is the Lords give Cameron a nice get out for unlucky MPs.

Sunil_Prasannan

SirBenjamin said:

Tissue_Price said:

SirBenjamin said:

But, and it's a very big but, there might just possibly be a case for a system whereby the winners in every seat are elected plus, say, the 100 highest polling losers.

You'd need to address the issue of some seats having two (or possibly more) members and others having just the one, but they could be counted as de facto list or top-up members rather than specifically representing the seat, exactly as would happen under a hybrid FPTP/PR system anyway.

Quick quiz - who was the highest polling loser (in % terms) at the General Election?

I know Dan Watkins was well North of 40%, having worked the Tooting seat on Election Day.

I'd imagine Lee Scott and Nick de Bois were right up there as well. Also McVey.

On the Labour side, I've less of an idea. Balls? Lab candidate in Gower?

Lee Scott got 42.7% so a bit less than McVey.