Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest Slot: The art of changing boundaries
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest Slot: The art of changing boundaries
In my last post I spent some time looking at the likely impact of the impending boundary changes on the numbers of seats in different regions and the potential impact on the seat numbers of different parties. In this post I shall look at how the detail of the boundary review might assist or hinder the different parties.
0
Comments
@Chameleon
There are two mechanisms by which Grexit could lead to other countries leaving the Eurozone and/or the end of the whole "project".
1. If peripheral countries (Spain, Portugal and Italy) are no longer able to fund themselves in the market, it could force them to out of the Euro.
2. If Greece is successful outside the Euro, then it will inevitably increase the political pressure on periphery governments. This is a major, but longer term threat to the Eurozone. Imagine if you are sat in Portugal, and you see Greece going from strength-to-strength: hard not to see pressure to leave the Euro. And if Spain or Italy started heading for the exit, it could lead to the eventual destruction of the Eurozone.
The bonds of Spain, Italy and Portugal are all down today. However, the move is relatively modest: Italian and Spanish 10 year interest rates have moved out 0.2%, while Portugal has increased 0.3%. How much of this is due to ECB Quantitative Easing, and how much to improved fundamentals is another matter altogether. It is worth noting that government debt-to-GDP peaked in 2013 in Portugal, and has almost certainly peaked in Spain. Therefore, while those countries are undoubtedly still vulnerable, the issue is much less acute than in 2011. Furthermore, if investors believe that the ECB will backstop peripheral debt through QE, then they (the periphery) probably will have little difficulty in funding themselves. Therefore, in the near term at least, it would seem unlikely that Grexit would cause other to exit the Euro through being unable to fund themselves.
The second issue, to my mind, is the much more important one. A successful Greece would cause enormous problems for incumbent governments in Spain, Italy and Portugal. Conversely, of course, if Grexit is disastrous for the Greek people, then it will dramatically reduce the likelihood of others choosing to go down that route.
My personal belief is that if Greece was run by a sensible, economically literate, politically centre-right leader like (say) Margaret Thatcher, then it would prosper outside the Eurozone and probably mark the beginning of the end of the Eurozone. But Alex Tsipiras, as I've said many times before on this board, is not that man. SYRIZA is full of people that believe that Hugo Chavez and Christine Kirchner are the economic role models to follow. That hasn't worked out well for Venezuela and Argentina, and it won't work out well for Greece either.
This analysis could be completely wrong, but I don't see Grexit as bringing the end to the Eurozone much closer. Indeed, because - as you allude to - it increases integration and backstopping of debt, it may make it less likely.
Juncker = Xerxes
@Cyclefree
'What are the chances - if the Greeks vote yes - that the deal then offered to them is even worse - from their perspective - than the one they thought they were voting on?'
It'll be the same or better (there has already been some discussion about debt write-off), absolutely nothing will get in the way of the EU ideology.
If it's worse there will have to be another referendum as the Greeks will have voted on what was on offer last week.
Would mean Sturgeon Bennett and Farage in the HofC and I think the people who voted for their parties would feel better represented
I owe you £58.50 btw send me your details and i will pay pay
Where is @Neil???
Few people know who their MP is
I was a teller in Dagenham and a lot of the voters though I was the ukip candidate and were wishing me well!
Ukip would still only have 1% of MPs for 13% of the vote but it is at least a step in the right direction
It is already in use for the London Assembly (and I believe for a few other minor assemblies elsewhere the UK)
If it's good enough for Northern Ireland, why not the rest of the (supposedly) UK?
(and before I read antifranks post)
rcs1000 says ''2. If Greece is successful outside the Euro, ''
There is no reason why Greece should not continue to positively exist outside the euro. But that does not equate to successful. Will all the other weaker countries want to see the regularly devalued currency that the Greeks would have to deal with? Refusing to face up to economic facts of life and faced with ultra heavy borrowing costs would be a recipe for devaluation and financial difficulty for the Greeks.
Devaluation is just austerity by another name. Its not the euro or austerity which has caused the Greek problems - it is their ill disciplined, indeed corrupt, approach to financial affairs.
The key point is the blocks. Where the Tories have blocks (for example in the south east and, now in the south west) these constituencies tend to be underrepresented and oversized so a reduction in overall seats has a very modest effect. Labour seats, in contrast, seem to be undersized when one looks at registered voters. This perhaps reflects the more volatile electoral roll in cities and the number of people living in them who are not eligible to vote but whatever the reasons are on the current criterion Labour are significantly overrepresented and will lose out significantly.
The consequence for me is that Labour is likely to start the next election campaign more like 120 seats behind than the 98 they are currently, a situation almost as bad as Cameron faced in 2010 (he was in fact 158 seats behind ). Without a significant recovery in Scotland even getting to largest party is going to be a major ask for Labour.
Once again Labour, in choosing their leader, need to think about that. To gain sole power they will need to win nearly 100 Tory seats. A leader who might be able to do that is the priority. Getting a leader that is strong in the 232 seats they already hold is a survival strategy but not a winning one.
Wouldn't matter to me if ukip gained or lost, just seems ridiculous that so many people are not represented. this way it still grossly misrepresents the nations diversity of party choice but at least acknowledges it
I'm aware that I'm ridiculously long-winded in these posts.
For all the derisive comments about Tsipras and SYRIZA on here of late (and they seem to forget New Democracy governed Greece for a significant period in the noughties and seemed to have done nothing to alleviate the economic problems affecting the country) I'm curious as to the analogy with Cameron and the EU Referendum.
IF Cameron is unable to get a deal with the rest of the EU, he will presumably call the referendum as a straight in/out vote and propose we vote NO and therefore leave the EU.
Tsipras hasn't got a deal, he's having a referendum and he wants people to vote NO, to in effect leave the Eurozone.
To accentuate the parallels even further, there's a fair chance that in both cases the result will be YES thus leaving both leaders mortally wounded.
Are we going to see the likes of Douglas Carswell fly over to Athens and stand alongside Tsipras supporting a NO vote next Sunday ?
Where do you think Labour might claw seats back? Presumably on the outskirts of larger towns taking in some of the country/suburban areas but not enough to make the seat too marginal?
If we're voting for parties we should have fully fledged PR, but we're voting for local representatives so this is a bizarre sticking plaster.
Who would qualify for this list? The closest losers from the constituencies? A loser becomes a winner. Rejected face to face but propped up by being top of a party pecking order. Or party line toeing sycophants?
This is a strange 'good idea'. Like all PR notions it has feet of clay.
Except we know a popular opinion here is that Dave is the wrong'un and he needs to learn from everyone who lost instead.
Since Greece is a signatory of the treaties they would have to be amended with the consent of Greece which means she cannot be expelled against her wishes.
I posted a link to this paper yesterday but would strongly recommend people read it before talking about Grexit either from the Eurozone or the EU.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp10.pdf
I saw this and thought of you!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emerson_Park_stn_signage_2015.JPG?uselang=en-gb
Long term vote trend of the UK.
Amazing stuff at Durham. Yorks 510-6 so far with Johnny Bairstow 194no and old favourite Tim Bresnan 150 no
The push n pull
Americathe Tory Party!"I am particularly sad by what Europe saw last Saturday. In one night, Europe suffered a major blow, and goodwill was flown to the wind. Egotism, tactical gains, populist gains took precedence over other aspects."
BAZINGA
SpartaSYRIZA!the article makes the BC sound much more susceptible to influence than I thought. the York Outer/Central argument for example makes it sounds almost like LABOUR could decide whether it was split into two new seats or not - surely this is not the case?
I had always assumed parties could at best hope to tinker with a ward here or there, but that the vast majority of the BC's proposals would stand. Is this not the case?
Romford is now "TfL Rail"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romford_station_signage_2015.JPG?uselang=en-gb
No change at Upminster, though, still managed by c2c, with Underground sharing the platforms.
But the policies of SYRIZA/the PSUV/Peronists/and various communists have been tried before, and they have not been pretty.
Its far easier to cry foul and blame the system than accept that you lost fair and square, or show some proper introspection into what you did wrong.
god-kingEU President can bleed."First rumours going around that an opinion poll has NO with a 33% lead in the Greek referendum, specifically NO 52%, YES 29%, D/K 19%, it's just a rumour for now, if it exists it should be published tomorrow night at the latest.
Don't forget that the turnout has to be above 40% in order to be valid, I think that the opposition will try to discourage people from voting if they think they are going to lose.
PB ToriesPB HodgesPBers mentioning England in 2005, when Howard won the popular vote (just!), yet winning 92 seats fewer than Labour did.The votes will be counted, No will win but it won't be binding. So the government turns around and says no deal - we don't want it and those who voted don't want it and even though it doesn't bind us we agree.
...
Its far easier to cry foul and blame the system than accept that you (@Indigo)UKIP lost fair and square, or show some proper introspection into what you (@Indigo) UKIP did wrong.
But the only vote on the boundary changes (assuming it sticks at 600 - ie no law change) will be at the end of the process in 2018 - ie AFTER all the Con MPs will know what would happen to their own seats.
The only way there will be a vote before the process starts will be if the law is to be amended to go back to 650 - in which case there will be a vote to make that amendment and then another vote on the end result in 2018.
Don't know if that's a record, either nationally or Yorkshire-wise, but if it isn't I'd be surprised.
Ilford North was going to be expanded a bit, mostly at Ilford South's expense.
But Ilford Town centre in Ilford South was going to be combined with parts of Newham to form what they termed "East Ham and Loxford". Going across the River Roding was bad enough, but they could have at least called it "East Ham and Ilford South/Ilford Town" or something. Loxford is only a tiny part of the current Ilford South, adjoining Barking. Ilford town centre is where the main shopping and cinema/library/town hall are.
During the last two reviews (including the aborted one) I've advised several associations on representations to the boundary commission during the review consultation period.
This has only a limited impact for several reasons:
1. The commission is (usually quite staunchly) predisposed towards their original recommendations - a compelling (and non partisan) reason for altering the proposals is required.
2. In a competitive seat there will be other parties making representations that will benefit them, so any proposals must not only be more compelling than the original proposal, but also better than any competing counter-proposals.
3. Even if beneficial proposals are adopted for one seat or in one area, it may have negative knock-on effects in others, so these must be considered when looking to make representations (e.g. you're not only competing with Labour, but possibly also with fellow Tories next door).
So, on balance, most counter-proposals will not be accepted and those that are will often be countered by an opposition counter-proposal adopted elsewhere that has a negative impact.
Finding compelling arguments that are prima face non-partisan can be difficult. As well as the interesting stuff like constituency shapes, electorate sizes and ward boundaries, It also involves a lot of rather dull work researching local commnity ties, access to resources, peoples shopping habits, how rivers, railways and big main roads can or can't be crossed, that sort of stuff. (And then quietly choosing to discard anything that isn't to our advantage...)
Approximately, of course.
They'd lose 6 and 3
So Tories who think they are popular and enjoy the support of the country had better start thinking again.
And lots of us look upon the last Labour government as illegitimate as well. You are quite right to mention the fact.
As a counterpoint to antifrank's excellent series, do you think you could make a header's worth of material about your experiences?
I think that would be worth serious consideration as a guest post.
"Fight Against VAT Fraud on eBay & Amazon in the UK"
http://www.vatfraud.org/
I'm surprised no MPs have picked this up - seems an easy way to improve tax receipts with a few rule changes.
HMRC won't move on this unless the politicians push them.
I do wonder if this proposal will end up going through. No reason it shouldn't, in and of itself.
Questions may arise over MPs having different tiers, though, with English votes for English laws. Of course, an English Parliament would resolve those permanently...
Is this an attempt at a meme? Don't make this a meme, it's silly.
But we're doing it for the good of the country!
Its an argument,.....not one I'd make personally.....
The alternative would be to let them be MPs for the constituencies they stood at; which would mean a few people would have two MPs, whilst most would have just one. It would also mean that they were 'shadow' MPs. I'm not sure that's democratic.
There are a fair few more issues, including the slightly ridiculous question of how they would be addressed (e..g how would they be referred to in the house: 'As the honourable loser for Derby South said ...')
There is also the issue that this might be detrimental to the nationalist parties, especially if the percentage was taken over the whole of the UK.
Also, would it be highest second-place in terms of votes, or percentage? The former means some smaller constituencies would rarely get a look-in, even if the boundary review goes through.
I'm dead-set against party-list systems, but this is an interesting idea that might get around some of the issues that party-lists have.
I don't have the time, but it should be possible to run the results of the last few general elections through such a scheme to see what they would have produced. It'd be interesting to see how it may have slightly changed things, seat reductions aside.
If the tories currently hold more seats then any pro rata reduction within their bigger 'blocks' will affect them just the same as Labour.
Within 'blocks' some seats are marginal so can be lost anyway.
To further repeat myself I understand that seats need to be grouped within 'county' boundaries.
People who make a big point of voting NOTA and spoiling papers can hardly complain if people who do not agree with the referendum or question refuse to back it. If a referendum is a political ploy then why support it?
The 'manipulations' argument is nonsense compared to the above reasonable point though - politics is about manipulating people into voting a certain way, and they did it better this time (or were lucky, or the people would have done it anyway). It's like the rather luducrous argument that debates would sway people and that it was not a good way for peopel to make up their mind( an argument we did see advanced) even as posters and leaflets with even less substance were apparently fine ways for people to make up their minds, as if there is only one proper way for people to do it.
People make up their minds for all sorts of reasons - if they are confinced by 'machinations' of foreigners, so long as no laws are broken then what is the problem? I might not agree with the reasons people decide how to vote, but that's their prerogative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33266223
I think they should get paid slightly less than a constituency MP but have the same voting rights... Maybe wages topped up by 'short money'?
I'd just say they were the 'representative member for 'party name' '
I said votes if the constituencies were equal size as I thought that's what the reduction to 600 was trying to achieve... If not then % of vote yes
Did we have a minute's silence for the victims of Harold Shipman?
Is it right in this instance? Y/N.