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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
David Frum Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow
I see Trump has now moved to +3% with the LA Times. In fact, of the most recent 13 polls, Trump has led in 5, Clinton in 7, and one tied. I think the candidates are now almost level-pegging.
Clinton has a 5 point lead with CNN, their last one showed a lead for Trump of 2%.
David Frum Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow
I see Trump has now moved to +3% with the LA Times. In fact, of the most recent 13 polls, Trump has led in 5, Clinton in 7, and one tied. I think the candidates are now almost level-pegging.
Clinton has a 5 point lead with CNN, their last one showed a lead for Trump of 2%.
A 7 point swing in one poll suggests an outlier (in either direction)
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?
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But all votes are supposed to be equal, so that's what their sizes are based on.
Not quite: for equal votes we should reapportion constituencies by turnout - Owen Jones et al would like that even less - "you're disenfranchising those who don't vote!"
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.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
The bit that sticks in my throat is that the biggest bank bail outs in the Eurozone (in Euro terms, rather than percent of GDP) were in Germany!
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
Yes, Hyporealestate was pretty massive, even bigger than our bailouts iirc.
What do you make of the Deutsche/Commerzbank merger rumours? Strikes me as a HP Compaq type of deal, two pieces of junk flying into each other.
I'm sceptical. I can't see how anyone could merge with the black book that is Deutsche's derivative exposure. It would fail even the most rudimentary of due diligence.
(Of course, Deutsche Bank - in extremis - could easily cost more to bail out than the entire Italian banking sector.)
Gabriel Debendetti Sometimes hard to fathom how far we are from the primary, when Clinton used to savage "trickle-down." Now her super PAC ads star Reagan.
David Frum Is Donald Trump the first ever Republican to endorse paid leave parental leave? I believe so … https://t.co/8ubo5ZAGow
I see Trump has now moved to +3% with the LA Times. In fact, of the most recent 13 polls, Trump has led in 5, Clinton in 7, and one tied. I think the candidates are now almost level-pegging.
Clinton has a 5 point lead with CNN, their last one showed a lead for Trump of 2%.
A 7 point swing in one poll suggests an outlier (in either direction)
In any case she still has a 3 point lead, enough for a EC landslide.
(the LA times poll is readjusted to show a 1% Clinton lead by 538).
I bow to few in my derision for pointless European conformity, but I have no particular fondness for the old passport. I just like the maroon one better. It's a nice colour and it also fits nicely in your trouser pocket. And I can also confirm that it comes to no harm when being accidentally put through the laundry after being left in your trouser pocket.
Jim Waterson Fake news beats real news again! There's no Harambe McHarambeface gorilla but everyone's written the story anyway! https://t.co/QvdeQhN0Q8
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
The bit that sticks in my throat is that the biggest bank bail outs in the Eurozone (in Euro terms, rather than percent of GDP) were in Germany!
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
Yes, Hyporealestate was pretty massive, even bigger than our bailouts iirc.
What do you make of the Deutsche/Commerzbank merger rumours? Strikes me as a HP Compaq type of deal, two pieces of junk flying into each other.
I'm sceptical. I can't see how anyone could merge with the black book that is Deutsche's derivative exposure. It would fail even the most rudimentary of due diligence.
(Of course, Deutsche Bank - in extremis - could easily cost more to bail out than the entire Italian banking sector.)
It has begun to feel like a Japanese accounting scandal to me, everyone knows what it going on but no one wants to face up to the losses because it might bring the company down.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But one vote should be worth more or less the same, whichever constituency you live in. It's unfair to the voters generally to award extra representation to voters in inner urban areas.
Again, that argument only works if you think MPs' only job is to make up the numbers in some Electoral College.
From my perspective, MPs' main and most important job is to provide help for their constituents - and on that basis, it's much more reasonable to base constituencies on total population, rather than electorate (so that more populated areas don't have to share an MP with more people than other areas do, and thus get a lower-quality service from their MP).
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But all votes are supposed to be equal, so that's what their sizes are based on.
Not quite: for equal votes we should reapportion constituencies by turnout - Owen Jones et al would like that even less - "you're disenfranchising those who don't vote!"
I don't like reapportioning by turnout, because if I'm a Conservative voter in a safe Labour seat that encourages me *not* to vote.
So how many PBers are now in a "new" constituency, how many live in the same constituency as before?
I'm in Derby South. While it's named the same there is a large amount of changes. losing some (very labour) city centre wards to derby north and gaining a number of more suburban (tory) wards. Taking it from a very safe Labour seat (9k majority) to a Marginal Tory one (2k majority). conversely derby north would become a safe labour seat (with a majority of 10K).
I'm moving from what would have been a key marginal for Labour to hold (To avoid going sub 200) to an extremely safe Labour seat that not even Corbyn will lose.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
Exactly. There's a lot of work for the whips to do over the next two years, but when it's complete it will be agreed that *everyone* has to vote for it - and woe betide anyone who doesn't!
I bow to few in my derision for pointless European conformity, but I have no particular fondness for the old passport. I just like the maroon one better. It's a nice colour and it also fits nicely in your trouser pocket. And I can also confirm that it comes to no harm when being accidentally put through the laundry after being left in your trouser pocket.
The size of passports is a world-wide standard (ICAO I think), so if the UK were to "de-Europeanize" its passports, we wouldn't be able to go back to the old hard-covered larger size. We'd probably lose various privileges such as the US visa waiver if we tried.
A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But one vote should be worth more or less the same, whichever constituency you live in. It's unfair to the voters generally to award extra representation to voters in inner urban areas.
Again, that argument only works if you think MPs' only job is to make up the numbers in some Electoral College.
From my perspective, MPs' main and most important job is to provide help for their constituents - and on that basis, it's much more reasonable to base constituencies on total population, rather than electorate (so that more populated areas don't have to share an MP with more people than other areas do, and thus get a lower-quality service from their MP).
I think an MP's most important job is to scrutinise legislation, and to hold the executive to account. Providing help for constituents should more properly be the responsibility of local councillors and professional workers.
A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
Any way, love to have other thoughts?
Are all those 2 million new voters too, although were a large fraction registering despite already being on the register.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But one vote should be worth more or less the same, whichever constituency you live in. It's unfair to the voters generally to award extra representation to voters in inner urban areas.
Again, that argument only works if you think MPs' only job is to make up the numbers in some Electoral College.
From my perspective, MPs' main and most important job is to provide help for their constituents - and on that basis, it's much more reasonable to base constituencies on total population, rather than electorate (so that more populated areas don't have to share an MP with more people than other areas do, and thus get a lower-quality service from their MP).
Surely their job is to represent their constituents in Parliament?
A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
Any way, love to have other thoughts?
Are we also certain that these numbers are even accurate, as there were many reported attempts for people who were technically registered already trying to re register in the fear that they needed to.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But all votes are supposed to be equal, so that's what their sizes are based on.
Not quite: for equal votes we should reapportion constituencies by turnout - Owen Jones et al would like that even less - "you're disenfranchising those who don't vote!"
I don't like reapportioning by turnout, because if I'm a Conservative voter in a safe Labour seat that encourages me *not* to vote.
It's not a serious suggestion. But those who want "votes to count equally" often don't seem to realise that equalising constituency sizes doesn't achieve this. Of course, people would vote & turn out differently under different systems, so we shouldn't extrapolate too far.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
The most marginal Labour seats, with majorities of less than 5%, using Anthony Wells' spreadsheet:
Bury BC Cambridge BC Southampton Itchen BC Cardiff North BC Barrow and Furness CC Wrexham Maelor CC Stockport South and Cheadle BC Flint and Rhuddlan CC Berwick and Ashington CC Wakefield CC Finchley and Southgate BC Dewsbury CC Scunthorpe CC Spen BC Gower and Swansea West CC Leeds North West BC Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice BC Newcastle-under-Lyme BC Bolton West CC Kenton BC Littleborough and Saddleworth CC
A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
Any way, love to have other thoughts?
I've read that the greatest increases were in London - which would make sense given its transitory character. "Massively" is a bit strong, though.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No Lords; this is secondary legislation. I agree that ideally we would get to a point where the process is automatic - though clearly Parliament would still retain the right to repeal the legislation enabling that.
A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
Any way, love to have other thoughts?
The issue is that these follow on from the introduction of IER, prematurely in the opinion of some, which removed a lot of entries from the registers particularly in urban areas. Labour's argument is that many of these people were removed unreasonably and they re-registered in the run-up to the referendum. However it is also likely that many of the IER removals should never have been in the register in the first place, being people who had long since moved or died or who were never entitled to registration. The likelihood is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between, with the fact that the EUref late registrations appearing to be more evenly distributed than the IER removals being additional evidence.
The issue of the register totals is handy for Labour in providing an argument to disguise their essentially party self-interest in opposing the latest boundary proposals; the reality however is that, even if conceded, it would probably only gift Labour at most another three to five seats or so (or, rather, reduce their losses by this amount), which in the bigger scheme of things is at the margin.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No Lords; this is secondary legislation. I agree that ideally we would get to a point where the process is automatic - though clearly Parliament would still retain the right to repeal the legislation enabling that.
Given that it's in the Tories interest to ensure that this happens I'm surprised that they didn't include it in the last set of changes. It would be difficult for Labour to change it once they'd lost that power.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No Lords; this is secondary legislation. I agree that ideally we would get to a point where the process is automatic - though clearly Parliament would still retain the right to repeal the legislation enabling that.
Given that it's in the Tories interest to ensure that this happens I'm surprised that they didn't include it in the last set of changes. It would be difficult for Labour to change it once they'd lost that power.
After the hyperbolic accusations of gerrymandering, I suspect the procedure may be changed so that reviews are automatic and periodic.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
Exactly. There's a lot of work for the whips to do over the next two years, but when it's complete it will be agreed that *everyone* has to vote for it - and woe betide anyone who doesn't!
Nonsense! There were Tory rebels on this in the last Parliament. Nothing befell them.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?
It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.
Surely their job is to represent their constituents in Parliament?
The same principle still stands, even in that case: if MPs are meant to gauge their constituents' opinions before voting on legislation in Parliament, then it is obviously much harder to do that if they have a lot more constituents to consult than other MPs do.
Again, the argument that constituency boundaries should be based on registered voters rather than total population only works if you think MPs are only there to serve as party representatives for an Electoral College, and that they then cease to have any purpose after a government has been chosen. If you think MPs are there to represent their constituents (whether in terms of dealing with their problems, or representing their opinions in Parliament), then it follows that boundaries should be based on population, since "representing their constituents" inevitably encompasses people who haven't registered to vote.
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.
Yes, because a MP represents all their constituents, not just registered voters.
But one vote should be worth more or less the same, whichever constituency you live in. It's unfair to the voters generally to award extra representation to voters in inner urban areas.
Again, that argument only works if you think MPs' only job is to make up the numbers in some Electoral College.
From my perspective, MPs' main and most important job is to provide help for their constituents - and on that basis, it's much more reasonable to base constituencies on total population, rather than electorate (so that more populated areas don't have to share an MP with more people than other areas do, and thus get a lower-quality service from their MP).
I think an MP's most important job is to scrutinise legislation, and to hold the executive to account. Providing help for constituents should more properly be the responsibility of local councillors and professional workers.
Very true. Sadly many are over paid social workers.
According to the Telegraph, Lucas' Brighton seat may become a "Tory stronghold" with the proposed changes.
Oh deep joy if it came true.
Brighton Pavilion was formerly a Tory stronghold represented by Julian Amery. In fact the new Brighton North seat becomes a 3-way marginal on Anthony Wells figures with the Tories 550 ahead of Labour and circa 3000 ahead of the Greens.
I'm there now, lots of armed police about. We're prepared for a slow process of getting into the parc des princes tonight. Everyone seems relaxed and in good spirits, but it's bloody hot!
On the boundary changes am I right in thinking these are net loses? I see Southampton Itchen goes Labour so there must be more current Labour MPs facing the chop?
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No lords vote.
They do require a Lords vote.
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
Exactly. There's a lot of work for the whips to do over the next two years, but when it's complete it will be agreed that *everyone* has to vote for it - and woe betide anyone who doesn't!
Nonsense! There were Tory rebels on this in the last Parliament. Nothing befell them.
Because it was doomed to failure last time without LD support.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
Exactly. There's a lot of work for the whips to do over the next two years, but when it's complete it will be agreed that *everyone* has to vote for it - and woe betide anyone who doesn't!
Nonsense! There were Tory rebels on this in the last Parliament. Nothing befell them.
I'm the absence of a Conservative majority, the vote in the last Parliament was purely symbolic. This time it isn't.
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.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Which bit is the wishful thinking? Sandpit didn't actually say the vote would be won, just that it will be the mother of all whipping operations, which is undoubtedly true.
Exactly. There's a lot of work for the whips to do over the next two years, but when it's complete it will be agreed that *everyone* has to vote for it - and woe betide anyone who doesn't!
Nonsense! There were Tory rebels on this in the last Parliament. Nothing befell them.
Because it was doomed to failure last time without LD support.
The Tory Whips still made a great effort - in fact it was suggested that quite a few potential rebels supported the Government safe in the belief that the proposals were likely to fall anyway. This time they may be more emboldened to defy openly!
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No Lords; this is secondary legislation. I agree that ideally we would get to a point where the process is automatic - though clearly Parliament would still retain the right to repeal the legislation enabling that.
Given that it's in the Tories interest to ensure that this happens I'm surprised that they didn't include it in the last set of changes. It would be difficult for Labour to change it once they'd lost that power.
Cameron tried to do just that.
When Lab + LD voted to cancel the last Boundary Review he tabled an amendment which said the PM could personally lay Boundary Review reports before the Queen in Council without a Commons or Lords vote.
That amendment was, not surprisingly, defeated by Lab + LD.
Equalizing constituencies is in itself a good idea. Labour have certainly benefited in the past from it so can't complain too much now. They should have based it on total population though, not registered voters or electorate. An MP is there to represent their constituents. A constituent is someone who resides in the area, regardless of whether they voted for that MP, voted at all, or are even eligible to vote.
This kind of change may just be enough to get Labour to come round to PR finally, a much better system if you want to make votes count equally. Coalition governments are not inherently unstable (see Germany), nor even inevitable (see Scotland). Parties don't get more power, because you can have open lists (STV for example, so the voter chooses the person not the party like in EU elections), and geographical links to constituencies can be maintained (hybrid systems like Scotland).
What is Labour's current official position on PR, and are Corbynista's generally in favour of it? I imagine most of the momentum younglings are, but the old guard in parliament are against it (Corbyn, McDonell, Abbott)?
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No lords vote.
They do require a Lords vote.
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
Isn't the convention that the Lords does vote down statuary instruments? if it wasn't for the tax credits vote I'd say it should be a formality.
Looks like a third of Labour's 204 seats would be vulnerable to a swing of 8%.
Sub-165 Tory 1997 levels?
It took them 13 years to get back to minority government from there. And David Cameron. Labour just have to pray that an alternative does not become viable.
Yes, but that's the fault of the EU's mad banking regulations. Italy would have bailed out its banking sector last year without the new regulations on bail outs.
It is extraordinary that the Italians failed to notice - when they signed up to the directive - that they were basically the only Eurozone country that had not bailed out their banks. Hmmm (they should have thought) perhaps we'd better do something proactively before the shit hits the fan.
I still don't understand why Renzi doesn't just bail them out and dare the EU to intervene or reverse the bailouts. If they try they will literally be clearing the way for an M5S victory and eventually Itexit. If they don't he might even win his referendum as it will lead to in improvement in economic conditions.
The bit that sticks in my throat is that the biggest bank bail outs in the Eurozone (in Euro terms, rather than percent of GDP) were in Germany!
I think Renzi is trying to be a "good European" and come up with a solution that satisfies the hawks in Berlin. Hence all the messing around with Aliante.
But you're right: if no compromise is reached, then I think he'll just bail them out and dare the EU to do something. Frankly, sticking two fingers up at the EU on the verge of the referendum might be just what he needs to win it
Yes, Hyporealestate was pretty massive, even bigger than our bailouts iirc.
What do you make of the Deutsche/Commerzbank merger rumours? Strikes me as a HP Compaq type of deal, two pieces of junk flying into each other.
I'm sceptical. I can't see how anyone could merge with the black book that is Deutsche's derivative exposure. It would fail even the most rudimentary of due diligence.
(Of course, Deutsche Bank - in extremis - could easily cost more to bail out than the entire Italian banking sector.)
It has begun to feel like a Japanese accounting scandal to me, everyone knows what it going on but no one wants to face up to the losses because it might bring the company down.
Amusingly, I'm actually at a Deutsche Bank conference right now.
Equalizing constituencies is in itself a good idea. Labour have certainly benefited in the past from it so can't complain too much now. They should have based it on total population though, not registered voters or electorate. An MP is there to represent their constituents. A constituent is someone who resides in the area, regardless of whether they voted for that MP, voted at all, or are even eligible to vote.
This kind of change may just be enough to get Labour to come round to PR finally, a much better system if you want to make votes count equally. Coalition governments are not inherently unstable (see Germany), nor even inevitable (see Scotland). Parties don't get more power, because you can have open lists (STV for example, so the voter chooses the person not the party like in EU elections), and geographical links to constituencies can be maintained (hybrid systems like Scotland).
What is Labour's current official position on PR, and are Corbynista's generally in favour of it? I imagine most of the momentum younglings are, but the old guard in parliament are against it (Corbyn, McDonell, Abbott)?
Sadly Labour's interest in reform is generally highly inversely correlated with their prospects of winning majority power under the current corrupt system.
What's happened to Wealden? Eastbourne looks about 300 votes less marginal.
48.19% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Lewes & Uckfield. 35.53% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to High Weald. 16.29% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Bexhill & Battle.
Lewes & Uckfield: 49.13% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat. High Weald: 37.65% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat. Bexhill & Battle: 17.41% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
Grimsby split in two and both are Conservative according to Anthony Wells' notionals:
Grimsby North and Barton CC:
Con 18,747 Lab 14,002 UKIP 8,702
Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC
Con 16,987 Lab 14,521 UKIP 9,409
I can believe that. Grimsby is one of those places (along with Scunthorpe along the M180) where traditional industries are departing and being replaced by food processing (Grimsby) and haulage and distribution (Scunthorpe). That has to happen if these towns aren't to slide into nothingness.
I was in both last week (Alkborough Flats to the north of Scunthorpe is hosting Britain's first Western Purple Swamphen). Both places are getting on with moving into the 21st century. Lots of new housing. They are moving away from Labour as places like Swindon have done in the south.
(And in Sunil mode, I completed travelling on all of the British motorways, with the short M181 into Scunthorpe...)
It will be interesting to see how local political parties, often more use to fighting local elections, organise themselves. My own constituency currently all falls within one local authority (although that LA does have a few wards in another constituency). Under these proposals I will now be in a constituency that is about 20% of one local authority, 20% of another and 60% of a third. This will certainly be a campaigning challenge (and no doubt heated discussions over funding) for all parties in the build up to the first elections under these new boundaries.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?
It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.
On the contrary, the rebels will have illustrated their desire for their personal priorities to be above the good of the party. They'd lose the whip and not expect reselection.
What's happened to Wealden? Eastbourne looks about 300 votes less marginal.
48.19% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Lewes & Uckfield. 35.53% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to High Weald. 16.29% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Bexhill & Battle.
Lewes & Uckfield: 49.13% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat. High Weald: 37.65% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat. Bexhill & Battle: 17.41% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
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.
While I realise that the Boundary Commission does indeed have a tricky job to satisfy all of the requirements, these requirements have led to some quite bizarre constituencies in Birmingham. I give you the Birmingham snake (aka Ladywood) - writhing its way from one side of the city to the other - and the Birmingham bone (aka Northfield) - 12 km long, and about 800m wide at its narrowest point.
Yeah, we've got one of those in W Yorks (and edging into N Yorks): Normanton, Castleford and Outwood. From its shape, it could be Wakefield Shark.
It's bad enough with London buildings; please don't extend the convention to constituencies..
It does though. Look at the constituency eating Wakefield from the northeast:
The Tory Whips still made a great effort - in fact it was suggested that quite a few potential rebels supported the Government safe in the belief that the proposals were likely to fall anyway. This time they may be more emboldened to defy openly!
Likewise the punishment this time will be far more severe, so it works both ways.
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 ...
Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.
But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.
Very much a case of wishful thinking!
Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?
It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.
On the contrary, the rebels will have illustrated their desire for their personal priorities to be above the good of the party. They'd lose the whip and not expect reselection.
Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No lords vote.
They do require a Lords vote.
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
Isn't the convention that the Lords does vote down statuary instruments? if it wasn't for the tax credits vote I'd say it should be a formality.
They voted down tax credits.
If Lab + LD are determined to stop this at all costs they'll try to block it in the Lords.
I actually think it may be easier to get it passed the Lords than Commons - because most Crossbenchers should support it.
Remember they got the Electoral Registration change through the Lords despite Lab + LD voting against. And they blocked the votes at 16.
And they have two more years of Lords appointments before the vote. Con will now be only 55 behind Lab + LD in the Lords in a few weeks time.
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.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No lords vote.
They do require a Lords vote.
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
Isn't the convention that the Lords does vote down statuary instruments? if it wasn't for the tax credits vote I'd say it should be a formality.
They voted down tax credits.
If Lab + LD are determined to stop this at all costs they'll try to block it in the Lords.
I actually think it may be easier to get it passed the Lords than Commons - because most Crossbenchers should support it.
Remember they got the Electoral Registration change through the Lords despite Lab + LD voting against. And they blocked the votes at 16.
And they have two more years of Lords appointments before the vote. Con will now be only 55 behind Lab + LD in the Lords in a few weeks time.
I thought it was clear the a Lords vote was not required at all?
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.
In 1997 there were 659 MPs.
Since then they've invented national parliaments, assemblies, mayoralties etc etc.
A job creation scheme that Sir Humphrey would find most gratifying.
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.
I'm there now, lots of armed police about. We're prepared for a slow process of getting into the parc des princes tonight. Everyone seems relaxed and in good spirits, but it's bloody hot!
On the boundary changes am I right in thinking these are net loses? I see Southampton Itchen goes Labour so there must be more current Labour MPs facing the chop?
When I was there in June there were bands of armed soldiers patrolling the streets and Metro. Whatever one thinks of France or Paris it is appalling that it should have come to this.
French politicians such as Sarkozy may be coming out with belligerently impractical and illiberal proposals (see, for instance, this - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/sarkozys-tough-talk-islamic-radicalisation-lacks-conviction/) but given what France has gone and is going through in recent years it is not hard to understand why she is feeling both besieged and belligerent. Poor France.
Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.
Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.
I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular. Rebel Tory MPs could easily say they were sticking up for their constituents' right to get speedy and high-quality service from their MP.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been singled out for particularly bad treatment in this review leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster so that the South gets more yet again" attack line.
Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
No lords vote.
They do require a Lords vote.
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
Isn't the convention that the Lords does vote down statuary instruments? if it wasn't for the tax credits vote I'd say it should be a formality.
They voted down tax credits.
If Lab + LD are determined to stop this at all costs they'll try to block it in the Lords.
I actually think it may be easier to get it passed the Lords than Commons - because most Crossbenchers should support it.
Remember they got the Electoral Registration change through the Lords despite Lab + LD voting against. And they blocked the votes at 16.
And they have two more years of Lords appointments before the vote. Con will now be only 55 behind Lab + LD in the Lords in a few weeks time.
You never know. The tories might actually, you know, reform the Lords. On second thought maybe not
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/nov/17/norway-new-passport-design
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15YjlKdqKFETupccZOYV19bIe75QlpnHUyzS9CZqFHO8/edit#gid=0
Bristol North West
Bristol South
Exeter
North Devon
North Somerset
Taunton Deane
Torbay
Weston-super-Mare
What's wishful thinking is you assuming Blairites will troop into the lobbies behind Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.
Blairites who will be subject to even more concentrated campaigns of abuse and intimidation once Corbyn has reasserted his contol.
Who knows how many MPs will be shaken free of the labour whip by 2018? The tories might win this at a canter.
Con 18,603
UKIP 17,703
Lab 12,417
Green 1,268
LD 876
Others 702
(Of course, Deutsche Bank - in extremis - could easily cost more to bail out than the entire Italian banking sector.)
Sometimes hard to fathom how far we are from the primary, when Clinton used to savage "trickle-down." Now her super PAC ads star Reagan.
(the LA times poll is readjusted to show a 1% Clinton lead by 538).
Fake news beats real news again! There's no Harambe McHarambeface gorilla but everyone's written the story anyway! https://t.co/QvdeQhN0Q8
Grimsby North and Barton CC:
Con 18,747
Lab 14,002
UKIP 8,702
Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC
Con 16,987
Lab 14,521
UKIP 9,409
From my perspective, MPs' main and most important job is to provide help for their constituents - and on that basis, it's much more reasonable to base constituencies on total population, rather than electorate (so that more populated areas don't have to share an MP with more people than other areas do, and thus get a lower-quality service from their MP).
The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'
The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?
This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.
Any way, love to have other thoughts?
to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.
Bury BC
Cambridge BC
Southampton Itchen BC
Cardiff North BC
Barrow and Furness CC
Wrexham Maelor CC
Stockport South and Cheadle BC
Flint and Rhuddlan CC
Berwick and Ashington CC
Wakefield CC
Finchley and Southgate BC
Dewsbury CC
Scunthorpe CC
Spen BC
Gower and Swansea West CC
Leeds North West BC
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice BC
Newcastle-under-Lyme BC
Bolton West CC
Kenton BC
Littleborough and Saddleworth CC
The issue of the register totals is handy for Labour in providing an argument to disguise their essentially party self-interest in opposing the latest boundary proposals; the reality however is that, even if conceded, it would probably only gift Labour at most another three to five seats or so (or, rather, reduce their losses by this amount), which in the bigger scheme of things is at the margin.
What's happened to Wealden? Eastbourne looks about 300 votes less marginal.
Hinkley Point: Four reasons the nuclear project will go ahead
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37352816
Again, the argument that constituency boundaries should be based on registered voters rather than total population only works if you think MPs are only there to serve as party representatives for an Electoral College, and that they then cease to have any purpose after a government has been chosen. If you think MPs are there to represent their constituents (whether in terms of dealing with their problems, or representing their opinions in Parliament), then it follows that boundaries should be based on population, since "representing their constituents" inevitably encompasses people who haven't registered to vote.
"Labour infighting like Lord of the Flies, says John McDonnell"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/labour-infighting-like-lord-of-the-flies-says-john-mcdonnell
On the boundary changes am I right in thinking these are net loses? I see Southampton Itchen goes Labour so there must be more current Labour MPs facing the chop?
It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.
When Lab + LD voted to cancel the last Boundary Review he tabled an amendment which said the PM could personally lay Boundary Review reports before the Queen in Council without a Commons or Lords vote.
That amendment was, not surprisingly, defeated by Lab + LD.
This kind of change may just be enough to get Labour to come round to PR finally, a much better system if you want to make votes count equally. Coalition governments are not inherently unstable (see Germany), nor even inevitable (see Scotland). Parties don't get more power, because you can have open lists (STV for example, so the voter chooses the person not the party like in EU elections), and geographical links to constituencies can be maintained (hybrid systems like Scotland).
What is Labour's current official position on PR, and are Corbynista's generally in favour of it? I imagine most of the momentum younglings are, but the old guard in parliament are against it (Corbyn, McDonell, Abbott)?
35.53% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to High Weald.
16.29% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Bexhill & Battle.
Lewes & Uckfield: 49.13% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
High Weald: 37.65% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
Bexhill & Battle: 17.41% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
I was in both last week (Alkborough Flats to the north of Scunthorpe is hosting Britain's first Western Purple Swamphen). Both places are getting on with moving into the 21st century. Lots of new housing. They are moving away from Labour as places like Swindon have done in the south.
(And in Sunil mode, I completed travelling on all of the British motorways, with the short M181 into Scunthorpe...)
Under these proposals I will now be in a constituency that is about 20% of one local authority, 20% of another and 60% of a third.
This will certainly be a campaigning challenge (and no doubt heated discussions over funding) for all parties in the build up to the first elections under these new boundaries.
http://www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6491
If Lab + LD are determined to stop this at all costs they'll try to block it in the Lords.
I actually think it may be easier to get it passed the Lords than Commons - because most Crossbenchers should support it.
Remember they got the Electoral Registration change through the Lords despite Lab + LD voting against. And they blocked the votes at 16.
And they have two more years of Lords appointments before the vote. Con will now be only 55 behind Lab + LD in the Lords in a few weeks time.
Since then they've invented national parliaments, assemblies, mayoralties etc etc.
A job creation scheme that Sir Humphrey would find most gratifying.
French politicians such as Sarkozy may be coming out with belligerently impractical and illiberal proposals (see, for instance, this - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/sarkozys-tough-talk-islamic-radicalisation-lacks-conviction/) but given what France has gone and is going through in recent years it is not hard to understand why she is feeling both besieged and belligerent. Poor France.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been singled out for particularly bad treatment in this review leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster so that the South gets more yet again" attack line.
If Con only lose 10 seats per Wells then surely the number retiring must be far, far higher than that?
With careful management surely they should be able to minimise the number of rebels.
Also note that two MPs most affected - ie Davis and Patel - cannot rebel as they are in the cabinet.