politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First projection of new boundaries suggests that at GE2015

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First projection of new boundaries suggests that at GE2015 the CON vote share of 36.9% would have given it a majority of 40

Based on ward by ward his computation of the proposals Wells projects the above changes in the reduced size parliament. As can be seen LAB are the biggest losers and in relative terms the Tories are the big winners. The LDs would lose half their GE2015 seats and out would go the only GRN MP in Brighton.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

First, like Great Western.

Sean_F

In practice, I think the Greens will hold their seat.

philiph

2 OK 3

The other 7 seats lost to make up 50 are from Scotland and NI ? Is the 40 Majority accounting for them too?

Sean_F

FPT Thanet South, surely the switches would benefit UKIP more than Labour? I don't think that Labour are now in contention anywhere in Kent.

dr_spyn

Population is rising, so Cameron wanted to reduce the number of MPs.

Perhaps culling the Lords ought to have been given more thought.

[Deleted User]

The planets are not aligning for Labour these days are they?

ojcorbs

philiph said:

2 OK 3

The other 7 seats lost to make up 50 are from Scotland and NI ? Is the 40 Majority accounting for them too?

No, those seats aren't out yet but in practice the Tories can only lose one Scottish seat and aren't likely to win more than one more so it won't change much.

Barnesian

FPT Pulpstar

To see the proposed boundaries, click on the visible layers button at the top (it is greyed out so you might miss it) then click on proposed boundaries.

http://election-data.co.uk/boundary-commission-proposals

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

SimonStClare

Don’t see Greens losing their only MP, Ms Lucas has a majority of 7,967 and the boundary changes for Brighton are not that great imho, but then who am I to argue with Anthony Wells.

AndyJS

SimonStClare said:

Don’t see Greens losing their only MP, Ms Lucas has a majority of 7,967 and the boundary changes for Brighton are not that great imho, but then who am I to argue with Anthony Wells.

Anthony Wells isn't saying that Lucas will lose her seat, he's simply done a numerical exercise using the 2015 results and the new proposed boundaries. It doesn't and cannot take personal votes into account.

DavidL

The maths assumes that the Tories go from 330 to 320, hence a majority of 40 but does that not ignore the Speaker. Is it not 42 in the same way as it is currently 12?

AndyJS

DavidL said:

The maths assumes that the Tories go from 330 to 320, hence a majority of 40 but does that not ignore the Speaker. Is it not 42 in the same way as it is currently 12?

That's right. Some people include the Speaker, some don't, but you have to include him if you want to get the right majority figure.

DavidL

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

AndyJS

If the Tories only lose 10 seats those can easily be accommodated by retiring MPs, which means there probably won't be many Tory rebels.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

foxinsoxuk

Interesting that the voters who registered for the referendum do not count. Anyone have an idea of the geographical spread of these?

SimonStClare

SimonStClare said:

Don’t see Greens losing their only MP, Ms Lucas has a majority of 7,967 and the boundary changes for Brighton are not that great imho, but then who am I to argue with Anthony Wells.

Doffs cap, much obliged Mr JS.

Moses_

Corbyn ITV news

"We say to the commission you are using the wrong figures. You cannot deliver a fair system based on figures that are a YEAR out of date."

You really truly couldn't make this guy up.

notme

foxinsoxuk said:

Interesting that the voters who registered for the referendum do not count. Anyone have an idea of the geographical spread of these?

The cut off is in law for october last year. This is how the process works. They have a date, and from that date they redraw the boundaries.

DavidL

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

AndyJS

Moses_ said:

Corbyn ITV news

"We say to the commission you are using the wrong figures. You cannot deliver a fair system based on figures that are a YEAR out of date."

You really truly couldn't make this guy up.

But he's fine with the current seats which were drawn up using data from the year 2000.

Richard_Nabavi

As a matter of practical politics, it would have been much more sensible for Cameron to have kept the number of constituencies unchanged. That at least would have removed one spurious argument against the plan.

Still, it's amusing to see the extraordinary contortions of logic being used by the left to justify the current manifest unfairness. I particularly enjoyed this little gem:

However, the evidence is that the register is less complete in urban areas (especially within London), among recent movers and private renters, Commonwealth and EU nationals, non-white ethnicities, lower socioeconomic groups, citizens with mental disabilities and young people. This means that these groups will receive less representation in Parliament. Political inequality will be hard wired into the composition of the House of Commons.

In other words, people who aren't registered (or in some cases even eligible) to vote should be counted in the Labour column.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/13/boundary-review-corbyn-says-inner-city-seat-shouldnt-be-enlarged-politics-live

12.39

taffys

''I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether. ''

Some tories will retire in 2020, presumably.

Philip_Thompson

Moses_ said:

Corbyn ITV news

"We say to the commission you are using the wrong figures. You cannot deliver a fair system based on figures that are a YEAR out of date."

You really truly couldn't make this guy up.

LOL so lets keep those two decades out of date instead.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Well there must be 10MPs from Dave's administration who can be convinced to retire from house and move to the other place.

AndyJS

taffys said:

''I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether. ''

Some tories will retire in 2020, presumably.

38 Tories retired in 2015, so even if half that number retires next time the Tories will be able to accommodate the 10 lost seats:

http://parliamentarycandidates.org/data/mps-standing-down/

Danny565

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

Then there are the people (e.g. Philip Davies, Charles Walker) who think the broader point that a lower backbenchers:ministers ratio will be bad generally for democracy.

DavidL

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Well there must be 10MPs from Dave's administration who can be convinced to retire from house and move to the other place.

If she had just had the civility to invite Cameron around for a cup of tea a couple of times she would have been 10% of the way there. The way she is going the challenge might be to have them form an orderly queue.

Moses_

AndyJS said:

Moses_ said:

Corbyn ITV news

"We say to the commission you are using the wrong figures. You cannot deliver a fair system based on figures that are a YEAR out of date."

You really truly couldn't make this guy up.

But he's fine with the current seats which were drawn up using data from the year 2000.

Quite...using figures a year out of date is apparently undemocratic according to Labour and Corbyn but apparently using figures from 16 years ago is perfectly OK.

FFS the guy is a walking talking dipstick.

Cyclefree

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

DavidL

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

Then there are the people (e.g. Philip Davies, Charles Walker) who think the broader point that a lower backbenchers:ministers ratio will be bad generally for democracy.

So get rid of some Ministers. Anyone who read A view from the foothills will know that would not be hard.

Danny565

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Have you considered that some MPs might actually think politics is about more than what benefits their party?

Philip_Thompson

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

FrancisUrquhart

This seemed to slip under the radar with all the Clinton stuff...

A Sydney man is set to appear in court on Wednesday to face charges relating to a stabbing in an alleged Islamic State-inspired attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/11/man-charged-with-terrorist-attack-after-western-sydney-stabbing

notme

Danny565 said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Have you considered that some MPs might actually think politics is about more than what benefits their party?

It hasnt for the past thousand years.

MaxPB

Danny565 said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Have you considered that some MPs might actually think politics is about more than what benefits their party?

I take it you've not looked at the make up of the Tory and Labour parties lately.

DavidL

Danny565 said:

DavidL said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

Labour would be 232-28 =204, probably 203 if Lucas holds on, that is 113 seats behind the Tories and in serious danger of being too far behind to win in 2030 let alone 2025. If May is seriously thinking this is not worth the bother she is even dimmer than I fear.

I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether.

Tories lose 10 everyone else loses 40. The words "no" and "brainer" come to mind.

Have you considered that some MPs might actually think politics is about more than what benefits their party?

No.

AndyJS

Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.

Danny565

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

DavidL

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

AndyJS

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.

notme

Richard_Nabavi said:

As a matter of practical politics, it would have been much more sensible for Cameron to have kept the number of constituencies unchanged. That at least would have removed one spurious argument against the plan.

Still, it's amusing to see the extraordinary contortions of logic being used by the left to justify the current manifest unfairness. I particularly enjoyed this little gem:

However, the evidence is that the register is less complete in urban areas (especially within London), among recent movers and private renters, Commonwealth and EU nationals, non-white ethnicities, lower socioeconomic groups, citizens with mental disabilities and young people. This means that these groups will receive less representation in Parliament. Political inequality will be hard wired into the composition of the House of Commons.

In other words, people who aren't registered (or in some cases even eligible) to vote should be counted in the Labour column.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/13/boundary-review-corbyn-says-inner-city-seat-shouldnt-be-enlarged-politics-live

12.39

EU nationals cant vote in parliamentary elections.... Unless they also happen to fit another qualifying criteria, such as Irish or Commmonwealth citizenship

MaxPB

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Not just savvy investors IMO, ordinary people need to know about the security of their money and look at how well a nation is able to deal with adversity. Like it or not, but the full on bail out of RBS and Lloyd's has given the UK a reputation of putting depositor safety ahead of bondholders and shareholders. The EU have gone in the opposite direction with their bail-in rules they've forced on everyone and in the long term depositors and investors will need assurances that their money is safe.

Lennon

AndyJS said:

Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.

I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.

Philip_Thompson

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

foxinsoxuk

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

Philip_Thompson

Do the Lords get a say on the boundary reforms and if so is there any chance the Crossbenchers and Tories there (which combined have a majority) wouldn't pass them if the Commons does?

Danny565

AndyJS said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs.

But Australia (and most democratic countries, come to that) have more powerful local councils or equivalents, which can deal with the kind of problems that British MPs deal with. Here, because so much power is centralised, there is often no-one else to turn to but the MP if a constituent wants a solution to something.

AndyJS

Philip_Thompson said:

Do the Lords get a say on the boundary reforms and if so is there any chance the Crossbenchers and Tories there (which combined have a majority) wouldn't pass them if the Commons does?

It was in the Tory manifesto IIRC.

Danny565

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

Are you defining "much-needed" as "beneficial to my party"?

Cyclefree

MaxPB said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Not just savvy investors IMO, ordinary people need to know about the security of their money and look at how well a nation is able to deal with adversity. Like it or not, but the full on bail out of RBS and Lloyd's has given the UK a reputation of putting depositor safety ahead of bondholders and shareholders. The EU have gone in the opposite direction with their bail-in rules they've forced on everyone and in the long term depositors and investors will need assurances that their money is safe.

Agreed. The quality of regulation could be a competitive advantage for Britain post-Brexit, not in an "anything goes" way (perish the thought - though it would be very good for my team!) but rather in a "you can trust us" way.

Trust is fundamental to banking, to all financial services. Having learnt that lesson, very very painfully over the last few years, we'd be fools to throw it away now. (Though, in my more cynical moments, I think that's precisely what will happen..... )

notme

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

The casework of a rural tory MP is light, its the urban parts of their constituencies that take up most resource. Despite the perception of sharp shouldered middle class people getting access to things because they complain, the reality of case load is very different. In the rural areas and prosperous suburban areas the residents tend to just get on with it and come to the MP when all the other things have failed. Its the worse off urban areas in which learned helplessness has took over, instead of the last resort, an MPs office becomes the immediate destination when something doesnt go how they feel it should.

MP_SE

AndyJS said:

taffys said:

''I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether. ''

Some tories will retire in 2020, presumably.

38 Tories retired in 2015, so even if half that number retires next time the Tories will be able to accommodate the 10 lost seats:

http://parliamentarycandidates.org/data/mps-standing-down/

Won't safe seats becoming marginal seats be an issue with some Tory MPs?

DavidL

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

I was thinking about that the other day when it was being suggested that there was 250 miles of wiring in the Palace of Westminster. Putting aside the fact that figure is probably low I wonder how many miles there are in, say, Canada Tower.

But I suspect the bigger factor is that highlighted by Max. Most of them will want to continue working in London because they like the place. It is a good town to be rich in.

notme

FrancisUrquhart said:

This seemed to slip under the radar with all the Clinton stuff...

A Sydney man is set to appear in court on Wednesday to face charges relating to a stabbing in an alleged Islamic State-inspired attack.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/11/man-charged-with-terrorist-attack-after-western-sydney-stabbing

Possibly a mentally ill Norwegian.

MaxPB

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

Well I'd say staff as well. Finding 100k highly skilled ready to go financial workers who want to work in Paris or Frankfurt isn't going to be easy. You can't magic any of this up overnight, what might happen is that smaller offices are opened up in Frankfurt and the real work is done in London and then "finished" there. Eventually they may recruit locally so the work can be done locally, but by then one imagines the market will value passport work a lot less. Especially if the EU become arsey about it, London banks will cast the net towards Asia to replace any possible lost income.

Cyclefree

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.

MaxPB

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.

Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?

Cookie

Lennon said:

AndyJS said:

Before the internet, boundary reviews used to attract the attention of hardly anyone apart from a few anoraks. I've got a feeling they're going to be totally inundated by Corbyn supporters this time, which is going to make their job very difficult compared to previous occasions.

I fear that your right - which will have the potential effect of diluting those relatively few but sensible suggestions and recommendations - which would be a shame if it means that some of the frankly shocking suggestions end up staying by default.

On the grounds that the boundary commission are now likely to be swamped by idiotic comments by the instantly furious, the unsympathetic and the misinformed, I've just submitted a generally supportive comment of the proposals (especially in the North West, which is the region I know best). To my eye, the boundary commission have carried out a difficult brief well. There are a few ungainly constituencies, but this is pretty much inevitable as anyone who has attempted such tinkering will know.

Danny565

Kevin Schofield ‏@PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago
Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.

notme

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

Are you defining "much-needed" as "beneficial to my party"?

Individual Voter Registration - Much needed
Tightening the variances in electorate - much needed
Reducing the number of MPs - not so much needed but a manifesto committment
2010 " We will also cut ministers’ pay and reduce the number of MPs in Parliament. "
2015 "In the next Parliament, we will address the unfairness of the
current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number
of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics and make votes
of more equal value We will implement the boundary
reforms that Parliament has already approved and make
them apply automatically once the Boundary Commission
reports in 2018."

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

They do, but it's really just in case the system goes bang. The BoE/Treasury can and will stand behind bank balance sheets until money markets resume their normal functions, it would mean a temporary expansion of UK government liabilities but it's not really anything to worry about. In Ireland or the Netherlands it would be something to worry about as those nations could be swamped were anything to go really badly in a Lehman Bros/RBS kind of way when the bank is actually insolvent, those liabilities are realised and real money needs to be poured in. In the case of Lehman Bros it wasn't and look at the result. (Un)Fortunately when you owe someone £200bn it does become their problem!

The other issue is the regulatory system. In theory regulation should be broadly the same across the EU. Same rules etc. In practice, regulators vary wildly: the German regulators are weak. Irish regulation is a joke. And so on.

The quality of regulation in the country where a bank is based is a factor which investors, clients and customers (the more savvy ones) do take into account. It is certainly something which the banks themselves take into account.

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.

Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

justin124

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

I doubt that very much. There were Tory rebels on this issue in the last Parliament - nothing happened to them. Moreover, it rather sounds as if some Ministers are happy to abandon them - possibly including May herself.
The problem is not so much Boundary changes per se as the reduction in the number of MPs.

PlatoSaid

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

FrancisUrquhart

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Time up fire up the Pink Battle Bus....

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Cyclefree said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

the Dutch or Irish wouldn't be able to stand behind the trillions in liabilities generated by the City in the same way the UK, France or Germany could.

I've always had to stand behind my own liabilities whilst gambling/investing, shouldn't Citicorp, JP Morgan and the other 'banks' ?

!

Quite so. The idea that the ESMA could provide a credible structure for the provision of financial services in the EU without any input from London looks quite far fetched to me. Even if they did it would rapidly fall behind practice as it develops in the dominant market of the time zone.

The other practical difficulty for banks planning a move is shortage of suitable office space:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-11/brexit-banks-risk-finding-no-offices-if-quitting-london-for-eu

The legal system, employment laws: there are lots of factors which affect where businesses locate themselves. French employment law is a total nightmare, for instance.

Didn't Kerviel just win a case against SocGen for wrongful dismissal?

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

That's really funny:
"A Paris employment tribunal on Tuesday ruled that the bank had no “serious or real reason” to fire Kerviel, regardless of the fact that he was convicted for the record trading loss."

Most people would have had 3.9bn reasons.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

SimonStClare

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

I thought Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred was against the law....

Cookie

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Well why didn't they register then, if they were so keen to be enfranchised? It isn't hard to do. It's not as if the state has put no effort into getting them to register, or made it difficult.

dr_spyn

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Did she not notice that the boundaries she defends are almost 20 years old?

Cookie

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

Danny - do you have a link to that spreadsheet? Moderators - any chance such a link could be added to the header?

AndyJS

Danny565 said:

Kevin Schofield ‏@PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago
Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.

Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.

DavidL

Cookie said:

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Well why didn't they register then, if they were so keen to be enfranchised? It isn't hard to do. It's not as if the state has put no effort into getting them to register, or made it difficult.

I thought the better point is that apparently up to 2m did put themselves on the register for the referendum and these are not being taken into account. Given how long this has taken I am not really sure why. It may mean that cities are being unduly penalised this time around.

MaxPB

DavidL said:

Cookie said:

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Well why didn't they register then, if they were so keen to be enfranchised? It isn't hard to do. It's not as if the state has put no effort into getting them to register, or made it difficult.

I thought the better point is that apparently up to 2m did put themselves on the register for the referendum and these are not being taken into account. Given how long this has taken I am not really sure why. It may mean that cities are being unduly penalised this time around.

The freeze date was before the referendum so the proposals could come out in time for consultations and to get through Parliament given that the Bill is likely to face opposition in the Lords and possibly on the government benches as well.

Cookie

DavidL said:

Cookie said:

PlatoSaid said:

Hattie has one upped BLM

Harriet Harman
Tories contempt 4 democracy. 2m not on elec register more likely young & black. New Boundaries discriminatory @EHRC step in!

Well why didn't they register then, if they were so keen to be enfranchised? It isn't hard to do. It's not as if the state has put no effort into getting them to register, or made it difficult.

I thought the better point is that apparently up to 2m did put themselves on the register for the referendum and these are not being taken into account. Given how long this has taken I am not really sure why. It may mean that cities are being unduly penalised this time around.

Fair enough - I was pretty surprised the growth in Manchester in recent years didn't appear to be reflected in the growing number of electors - maybe they're hidden among that 2m.

PlatoSaid

DavidL said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

Then there are the people (e.g. Philip Davies, Charles Walker) who think the broader point that a lower backbenchers:ministers ratio will be bad generally for democracy.

So get rid of some Ministers. Anyone who read A view from the foothills will know that would not be hard.

Leylandii regulation amendments are very important!

TCPoliticalBetting

AndyJS said:

Danny565 said:

Kevin Schofield ‏@PolhomeEditor 59m59 minutes ago
Senior Conservative source says there a "60-40" chance the boundary changes WON'T happen.

Absolute tosh in my opinion. The idea the next election might be fought on boundaries 20 years out of date is unthinkable.

Agreed that it would be daft, but Mrs May's Government seems to be very reactive to known events. If she thought a reduction to 600 MPs was unsupportable, it should have been an early change rather than waiting for the Report.

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.

GarethoftheVale2

AndyJS said:

taffys said:

''I think they will ram them through, there will be enough safe seats and winnable seats to placate existing MPs who's seats have been lost to the ether. ''

Some tories will retire in 2020, presumably.

38 Tories retired in 2015, so even if half that number retires next time the Tories will be able to accommodate the 10 lost seats:

http://parliamentarycandidates.org/data/mps-standing-down/

3 Tories have already announced they are going: Ken Clarke, Oliver Letwin and Simon Burns

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.

Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.

So. Not Paris then.

Not sure why TSE thinks its a good idea to go there really.

TheWhiteRabbit

2 million must include a lot of relocations, reregistrations, and so forth. There wasn't a jump in turnout of 2M or anything like it.

RepublicanTory

Sean_F said:

FPT Thanet South, surely the switches would benefit UKIP more than Labour? I don't think that Labour are now in contention anywhere in Kent.

Sorry missed your post

It depends on whether UKIP will be viable at the next election+ a lot was based on the farage effect. If the boundaries had been as proposed in 2015 Farage would probably be an MP now.

But the new seat has a strong history of Labour support.
You can be certain Mcginlay will not be happy.

DavidL

PlatoSaid said:

DavidL said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

Then there are the people (e.g. Philip Davies, Charles Walker) who think the broader point that a lower backbenchers:ministers ratio will be bad generally for democracy.

So get rid of some Ministers. Anyone who read A view from the foothills will know that would not be hard.

Leylandii regulation amendments are very important!

That was hysterical.

SandyRentool

I have found one perfect constituency in the proposals:

Darlington will include the entire borough of Darlington, and nothing else.

Much of the rest of the north east is a dog's breakfast.

Pulpstar

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.

Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?

No, if Leeson or Kervier's "gambles" had paid off the consequences should be the same though. The "acts" would have been identical...

eek

SandyRentool said:

I have found one perfect constituency in the proposals:

Darlington will include the entire borough of Darlington, and nothing else.

Much of the rest of the north east is a dog's breakfast.

I think its got a tiny bit of Sedgefield as well (a posh bit from memory).

My suspicion is that Darlington was the starting point for the North East review

TGOHF

Remember any vote in parly is 2 years away : from the Telegraph :

:: September/October 2016 - publication of the commissions' initial proposals and start of 12-week consultation periods. Representations are invited in writing or at public hearings

:: Early 2017 - publication of representations received, followed by further four-week consultation periods. Commissions then start work on revisions

:: Late 2017/early 2018 - publication of commissions' revised proposals, followed by final eight-week consultation periods. Commissions then start finalising plans

:: September 2018 - commissions must submit their final reports and recommendations to the Government

:: Late 2018 - if the final proposals are approved by Parliament, councils start work on making the changes necessary to implement the plans ahead of the general election due in 2020

Richard_Nabavi

MaxPB said:

Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?

Actually, that is by no means unknown. Traders get sacked for exceeding their trading limits or going outside the permitted trading strategies. It doesn't make the news, obviously; quite apart from anything else, it will be covered by a confidentiality clause in the termination settlement.

MaxPB

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

Yep - madness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/07/societe-generale-fined-450000-for-firing-rogue-jerome-kerviel-wi/

I'm always curious as to why I've never heard of a Kerviel/Leeson that has made a genuinely extraordinary profit mind...

Try and find out who got the biggest bonus of the year. Thats who made the extraordinary profit!

Well yes but has there never been a trader that has stepped outside his or her remit and lucked out ?

I'm sure there has been, when the likes of Kerviel lose £3bn someone else is making £3bn. It's the kind of profit which gets you promotions though...

If you don't mind doing a bit of time in the clink, it sounds like the combination of French employment law and banks terrible attitude toward moral hazard puts you into a no lose situation.

Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?

No, if Leeson or Kervier's "gambles" had paid off the consequences should be the same though. The "acts" would have been identical...

Unfortunately what should happen and what does happen aren't usually aligned, especially when profits are concerned.

PlatoSaid

David Frum
Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow

Danny565

Cookie said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

Danny - do you have a link to that spreadsheet? Moderators - any chance such a link could be added to the header?

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IP_constituencies_changes.xlsx

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

MaxPB said:

Well think about it this way, have you ever heard of anyone getting fired for making too much money?

Actually, that is by no means unknown. Traders get sacked for exceeding their trading limits or going outside the permitted trading strategies. It doesn't make the news, obviously; quite apart from anything else, it will be covered by a confidentiality clause in the termination settlement.

Aside from maybe at Soc Generale

SandyRentool

TheWhiteRabbit said:

2 million must include a lot of relocations, reregistrations, and so forth. There wasn't a jump in turnout of 2M or anything like it.

It also included a lot of students who would have been auto-registered under the old rules at their term time addresses.

Sunil_Prasannan

Ilford North still exists = phew!

But Ilford South partitioned by Barking and a new cross-border seat stretching across into northern Newham.

SandyRentool

eek said:

SandyRentool said:

I have found one perfect constituency in the proposals:

Darlington will include the entire borough of Darlington, and nothing else.

Much of the rest of the north east is a dog's breakfast.

I think its got a tiny bit of Sedgefield as well (a posh bit from memory).

My suspicion is that Darlington was the starting point for the North East review

Not under the new boundaries - just all of the Darlo wards.

Sunil_Prasannan

SandyRentool said:

First, like Great Western.

A quick out and back to Lymington Pier yesterday afternoon ended up taking 90 minutes later than it should have done, as we were stuck at Micheldever due to a broken down freight train!