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...)
Well done! About 10 years ago I was really into roads, but rails have got me going since c.2008 (though a reversion to type, as I was really into rails since my Uni days in the mid-1990s).
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
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.
Thanks Ian, I largely agree with you.
its worth noting though that there seems to be a general slow drift in population to conservative areas, meaning that the longer wait the from the redrawing of boundary's to an election the grater the advantage to labour, if we say there has been a 16 year gap from when this was last done, and these changes have 'net' moved the needle 30 seats, that's approximately 2 seats a year, so with a 4 year gap before the next GE, that would give Labour 8 extra seats, so if labour have missed out of 4 seats because of the timing of the move to IER, then this should have been cancelled out and overcompensated by 4 seats at the GE.
But we will not know for shore until May 2020 when we know how many votes were register in each constituency and which way it voted.
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.
38 retired in 2015.
Priti Patel is likely to take Saffron Walden if Alan Haselhurst retires. Greg Knight has been an MP since 1983 (with a short break after 1997) so he may step down in East Yorkshire which would give David Davis somewhere to stand.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
So, while the EU has some senior officials seeking to make an example of the UK in order to discourage other 'leavers', other senior officials are wondering about kicking out a member state who has shown no signs of wanting to leave.
On the serious point about what to do with a member who continues to flout fundamental laws and values of the club, the EU has a real headache.
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.
Fab - thanx v much
No boundary changes in Eastbourne as far as I can see.
That is a seriously depressing piece. I thought we had problems.
France seems to be having a massive identity crisis at the moment - I don't see the economy being of much focus in the next elections - issues around what it means to be french, islam in france etc will be what decides the next president. It seems to be all you see in the news here these days. Burkini ban being only the most recent example.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
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)?
Strangely, the two Parties that benefit most from the current system continue to find it most democratic and fair. In completely objective consideration, of course.
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
1) It's green 2) Going ahead will be a blow to the Tory Government 3) Our partners will be socialist France and Communist China 4) Lots of money will be spent on it.
So, while the EU has some senior officials seeking to make an example of the UK in order to discourage other 'leavers', other senior officials are wondering about kicking out a member state who has shown no signs of wanting to leave.
On the serious point about what to do with a member who continues to flout fundamental laws and values of the club, the EU has a real headache.
Well from a federalist perspective (ignoring other consequences like rejected states cozying up to Putin etc) it may be best in the long term to kick out most of the Eastern European states, and halt expansion. They have more chance to creating a USE between 'Western Europe' states long term, who still subscribe to the Ever Closer Union aspect. Visegrad countries are explicitly against that, and unlike Britain they contribute less overall to the EU.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
They made three major rule changes.
1) MPs fixed at 600. 2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota 3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
What utter tosh. How can you write such obvious garbage, apparently with a straight face?
"the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP"?? Really? I mean, really?
On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?
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.
Some marginal Lab are flipped to Con while some go the other way. Here are the top 50 predicted marginals with holding party, notional majority and challenger (where not Lab/Con):
Croydon Central BC Con 60 Bury BC Lab 71 Telford BC Con 139 Cambridge BC Lab 162 vs. LD Southampton Itchen BC Lab 250 Cardiff North BC Lab 282 Barrow and Furness CC Lab 531 Thurrock BC Con 536 vs. Lab Brighton North BC Con 556 vs. Lab with Greens in 3rd Darlington BC Con 692 Eastbourne BC Con 733 vs. LD City of Chester CC Con 757 Wrexham Maelor CC Lab 776 Carshalton and Wallington BC Con 790 vs. LD Thanet East BC Con 899 vs. UKIP Bedford BC Con 966 Halifax BC Con 1018 Stockport South and Cheadle BC Lab 1059 Harwich and Clacton CC UKIP 1077 vs. Con Merton and Wimbledon Central BC Con 1118 Wakefield CC Lab 1213 Berwick and Ashington CC Lab 1215 Flint and Rhuddlan CC Lab 1281 Birmingham Selly Oak and Halesowen BC Con 1411 Dewsbury CC Lab 1420 Finchley and Southgate BC Lab 1467 Scunthorpe CC Lab 1531 Ceredigion a Gogledd Sir Benfro CC LD 1552 vs. Plaid Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan West CC Con 1607 Enfield BC Con 1626 Spen BC Lab 1651 Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice BC Lab 1708 Corby CC Con 1798 Caerfyrddin CC PC 1842 vs. Lab with Con in 3rd Southampton Test BC Con 1948 Newcastle-under-Lyme BC Lab 1951 Twickenham BC Con 2017 vs. LD Calder Valley CC Con 2040 Littleborough and Saddleworth CC Lab 2056 Derby South BC Con 2066 Kenton BC Lab 2125 Leeds North West BC Lab 2127 vs. LD with Con in 3rd Gower and Swansea West CC Lab 2144 Bolton West CC Lab 2166 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC Con 2282 Ynys Mon ac Arfon CC PC 2365 vs. Lab Waveney CC Con 2408 Plymouth North BC Con 2440 Peterborough BC Con 2463 Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC Con 2467
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
Your facts are wrong. They're not changing it from population to electorate, it's always been based on the electorate and never on population. Labour wants to change it to population.
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?
No. It's definitely needed.
I specifically remember the last Boundary changes went through the Lords in 2007 - they were agreed without a vote - but Peers could have taken it to a vote and Lab + LD will do so this time.
That doesn't mean Arricle 50 can't be declared using the prerogative power. It just means we'll have de facto left but not de jure.
It means that the PM is not going to give Lords the opportunity to try to thwart the result of the referendum. Once Article 50 is triggered, it's a fait accompli, there will be no going back. We'll be out of the EU in two years (de jure and de facto), whatever the Lords prevaricate over or try to block. Seems very wise to me.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
Your facts are wrong. They're not changing it from population to electorate, it's always been based on the electorate and never on population. Labour wants to change it to population.
Correct.
I'm amazed how this myth has built up so even knowledgeable people believe it.
Boundaries have always been done on the basis of electoral register. Always. Since Universal Suffrage anyway.
" A teenager appeared in court today (tues) charged with planning a mass casualty terror attack on landmarks including Buckingham Palace. Haroon Ali-Syed, 19, allegedly researched potential targets including Oxford Street in London’s West End and military bases between April 12 and September 9 this year.
Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue
She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury. The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
Under Currant Labour party rules, (I understand) any currant Labour MP is automatically selected for a new seat if over 40% of the votes in the new seat came from their old one, has anybody been though and checked how may Lab MPs how may have a seat to contest automatically and how may will need to be reselected, on currant?
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
Jeremy Corbyn MP We've announced plans to train & organise 1000s of activists for the next election. Find out more and sign up here → https://t.co/OZDFnG6cha
"the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP"?? Really? I mean, really?
Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely. There's a legitimate argument that that's the right way to go about it, even if I disagree with that argument ("if they can't be bothered to take part in democracy then they don't deserve the benefits of democracy such as an MP's service", etc.), but I genuinely don't see how you could disagree that the Tories' approach is saying non-voters are not entitled to representation.
"On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?"
I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
2 million leave voters that are potentially low hanging fruit for UKIP. I assume Carswell will be voting in favour of the proposals then
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
You want to use the 2016 Register.
But you would prefer to stick with the 2000 Register rather than use the 2015 Register?
The reason 2015 has to be used is because with the lengthy process of consultations and revising recommendations there isn't time to use 2016 and get it done in time for 2020.
The law - passed in 2011 - says they have to use the 2015 register. To change that would have needed a complete new Act of Parliament - everyone knows if you go down that route it is simply a delaying tactic to prevent any changes before 2020.
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
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?
No. It's definitely needed.
I specifically remember the last Boundary changes went through the Lords in 2007 - they were agreed without a vote - but Peers could have taken it to a vote and Lab + LD will do so this time.
I thought the Lords hurdle for this round has already been cleared?
Under Currant Labour party rules, (I understand) any currant Labour MP is automatically selected for a new seat if over 40% of the votes in the new seat came from their old one, has anybody been though and checked how may Lab MPs how may have a seat to contest automatically and how may will need to be reselected, on currant?
What happens if the new seat has more that 40% from 2 old seats?
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
You want to use the 2016 Register.
But you would prefer to stick with the 2000 Register rather than use the 2015 Register?
The reason 2015 has to be used is because with the lengthy process of consultations and revising recommendations there isn't time to use 2016 and get it done in time for 2020.
The law - passed in 2011 - says they have to use the 2015 register. To change that would have needed a complete new Act of Parliament - everyone knows if you go down that route it is simply a delaying tactic to prevent any changes before 2020.
I think using the 2016 register would probably be even better for the Conservatives, most of the additions won't bother - and those that do will be choosing between UKIP and the Tories (As they are hard to turn out leavers methinks).
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
Given the whole exercise is going to reduce the number of MPs, I'd say that any MP who doesn't get with the plan will be first in the firing line!
Not been looking here since this mornig. Can I summarise the days events up as those who will lose out on the boundary changes are bitching about it and those who will lose out on brexit are bitching about it.
Any more on climate change, daves resignation or anything else or is it just boundary and brexit bitching?
That doesn't mean Arricle 50 can't be declared using the prerogative power. It just means we'll have de facto left but not de jure.
It means that the PM is not going to give Lords the opportunity to try to thwart the result of the referendum. Once Article 50 is triggered, it's a fait accompli, there will be no going back. We'll be out of the EU in two years (de jure and de facto), whatever the Lords prevaricate over or try to block. Seems very wise to me.
Agreed, I think we were making the same point but yours was delivered far more eloquently!
Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely.
Eh? I am saying that people who are not registered to vote don't get a vote. They are 100% irrelevant to the question of who becomes their MP and - most importantly given the currant systematic bias in the numbers - 100% irrelevant to which party gets to form the government. That's kinda the point about not being a registered voter, right?
Quite how you manage to morph this completely non-controversial point - which, frankly, no-one of any integrity could conceivably disagree with, if they were being honest with themselves - into a statement that I am saying that people not registered to vote are not entitled to their MP's services is a mystery to which I don't expect a coherent answer. What in the name of sanity has being able to vote got to do with whether you can go to your MP with a problem?
"On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?"
I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what? If you mean they'd have more casework load, then the solution is very simple: they might need more admin staff. But other factors are more important in casework load anyway, so this is hardly an argument.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?
If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.
Hard choices, hard decisions.
Alan Yentob lunch bill...Gary Linekers personal taxi service...pissing about not wanting to shut BBC III, then spending £100,000's on a rebranded logo and still keeping it running online....running multiple news channels with different staff etc etc etc. £10 million a year out of £3bn, is like me deciding not to buy dessert this evening and eating an apple instead.
It is however claimed that Love Productions didn't really want to stay on the BBC regardless. How truth that is nobody will ever know.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?
They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.
Current position:
The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation
Future position The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation
Under Currant Labour party rules, (I understand) any currant Labour MP is automatically selected for a new seat if over 40% of the votes in the new seat came from their old one, has anybody been though and checked how may Lab MPs how may have a seat to contest automatically and how may will need to be reselected, on currant?
What happens if the new seat has more that 40% from 2 old seats?
A currant rule reminds me somehow of Dad's Army. Forget the episode, but it involved a currant bun and an errant currant being eaten with the pretence that it was a fly
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
Given the whole exercise is going to reduce the number of MPs, I'd say that any MP who doesn't get with the plan will be first in the firing line!
According to Laura Kuenssberg there is a distinct possibility that May will be happy to abandon the proposals! If that is remotely true , there is no way a Tory MP will be deprived of the Whip for opposing them.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
You want to use the 2016 Register.
But you would prefer to stick with the 2000 Register rather than use the 2015 Register?
The reason 2015 has to be used is because with the lengthy process of consultations and revising recommendations there isn't time to use 2016 and get it done in time for 2020.
The law - passed in 2011 - says they have to use the 2015 register. To change that would have needed a complete new Act of Parliament - everyone knows if you go down that route it is simply a delaying tactic to prevent any changes before 2020.
When updating boundaries it's best to update them with the latest register.
Since the current register and the register used are so different, the new boundaries will not have the desired effect of making constituencies roughly equal in size.
If you want to change the boundaries do them with the current register not the old one.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
2 million leave voters that are potentially low hanging fruit for UKIP. I assume Carswell will be voting in favour of the proposals then
The rules were set with the best of intentions. The theory is that the most accurate register is the one just after the general election. It was defined in law in the coalition. Long before the referendum added another bounce in registration. When the referendum was a possibility but not remotely likely. It would have taken a change in the law to change the electoral roll used. That would have been considered gerrymandering
If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.
Hard choices, hard decisions.
Somewhat surprised the BBC don’t actually own the rights to GBBO, considering they’ve been plugging it like mad the past few years & can now no longer afford it due to its success.
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
Just noticed a new constituency called Broadstone, Ferndown and Kinson. I have no idea where any of these places are.
Basically on the line of the Castlemans Corkscrew railway line that ran from Brockenhurst to Poole via Ringwood, Ferndown, Wimborne and Broadstone avoiding Bournemouth and was shut by Beeching just as the builders moved in to build vast overspill housing estates for bournemouth in all of them.
I notice there is also a Lewes and Uckfield constituency whos MP will no doubt be very keen to see the railway between them reopened. Shutting the London to Lewes line south of Uckfield was one of the daftest closures of the lot and there was more than a hint of skulduggery.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
They made three major rule changes.
1) MPs fixed at 600. 2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota 3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
What is so difficult about changing channel? Are some peoples TV's BBC1 only?
I don't really get it myself, if it had gone to Sky Sport Ultra HD 1 and you had to pay £50 a month extra to get it, I would understand. But BBC1 -> CH4, shrugs shoulders...but then I don't really have any interest in baking shows.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
They made three major rule changes.
1) MPs fixed at 600. 2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota 3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.
I can understand Lib Dem, Green and even UKIP opposition....
But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.
Hard choices, hard decisions.
Alan Yentob lunch bill...Gary Linekers personal taxi service...pissing about not wanting to shut BBC III, then spending £100,000's on a rebranded logo and still keeping it running online....running multiple news channels with different staff etc etc etc. £10 million a year out of £3bn, is like me deciding not to buy dessert this evening and eating an apple instead.
It is however claimed that Love Productions didn't really want to stay on the BBC regardless. How truth that is nobody will ever know.
I believe Love Productions got into trouble with the BBC over product placement in their earlier shows. – However, I doubt ITV will baulk at the idea of a lucrative income stream.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?
There are no major elections or referendums next year for people to care to register.
If you want a compromise on this if you are concerned with any wild swings on the register, you could pick an average of some years.
But 2 million votes is too big of a mismatch to ignore, a compromise is definitely needed to update the boundaries whilst not ignoring the new figures.
If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.
Hard choices, hard decisions.
Somewhat surprised the BBC don’t actually own the rights to GBBO, considering they’ve been plugging it like mad the past few years & can now no longer afford it due to its success.
It is fairly common. Top Gear wasn't under its control under about 2 years before Clarkson lamped the producer.
There are a number of reasons but one that I one that the BBC are only just waking up to. A former controller of BBC said last night on Newsnight was that the unwritten rule in the tv biz if you made a show for the BBC you never took it anywhere else if the BBC still wanted it. Well when it was just BBC, ITV and CH4 the threat was obvious, the could easily freeze you out when it came to future projects.
Even in the early days of Sky, it didn't make that much original content, now there are loads of people willing to pay to make content, from Amazon to BT to YouTube.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
They made three major rule changes.
1) MPs fixed at 600. 2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota 3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.
I can understand Lib Dem, Green and even UKIP opposition....
But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............
It also increases the power of the executive relative to parliament, unless the payroll vote is limited to X percent of the H of C; the payroll vote can usually be relied on to do what the whips tell them. A very bad move.
"the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP"?? Really? I mean, really?
Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely. There's a legitimate argument that that's the right way to go about it, even if I disagree with that argument ("if they can't be bothered to take part in democracy then they don't deserve the benefits of democracy such as an MP's service", etc.), but I genuinely don't see how you could disagree that the Tories' approach is saying non-voters are not entitled to representation.
I addressed this earlier today but you pointblank ignored my reply so I will repeat it. The number of voters in an area is a known fact. The number of non-voters is not. What precise alternative measure of people do you propose from 2015 that we can use to determine the new constituencies?
People are complaining that 2015 is obsolete but of course that is a matter of the amount of time needed to do the work, but the electoral register from then is the only exact, consistent and up to date measure of people that we have. It isn't a matter of principle but one of being practical.
I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?
Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely.
Eh? I am saying that people who are not registered to vote don't get a vote. They are 100% irrelevant to the question of who becomes their MP and - most importantly givent the currant systematic bias in the numbers - 100% irrelevant to which party gets to form the government. That's kinda the point about not being a registered voter, right?
But as far as I'm concerned, MPs' main job is NOT to "select which party gets to form the government". That would only be true if this was an Electoral College system like the US presidential elections, where MPs simply acted as party delegates who then ceased to have any purpose once the new government was selected.
In our system, an MP's main job is to serve and represent their constituents for a full 5-year term - to provide help when needed, to consult them on their views, to take their views into account when voting on legislation in Parliament. Non-voters are surely just as entitled to that service and representation as anyone else, and therefore, it surely follows that it's completely unjust to reduce the service offered by an MP in constituencies with lots of non-voters.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?
There are no major elections or referendums next year for people to care to register.
If you want a compromise on this if you are concerned with any wild swings on the register, you could pick an average of some years.
But 2 million votes is too big of a mismatch to ignore, a compromise is definitely needed to update the boundaries whilst not ignoring the new figures.
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.
That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.
I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.
They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.
They made three major rule changes.
1) MPs fixed at 600. 2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota 3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.
I can understand Lib Dem, Green and even UKIP opposition....
But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............
For the same reason the tories opposed the changes in 1832 that got rid of their rotten boroughs
I'd like one. A lot nicer. Also a lot more expensive to print. Die-cut. Leather style embossed. Weightier stock.
And don't fit in any pocket so far more likely to be lost during travel. I'd favour a return to the old colour and Royal Crest front, but using otherwise the same passport as the current one.
I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
2 years old is hardly "antiquated".
The current boundaries certainly are though..
There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?
There are no major elections or referendums next year for people to care to register.
If you want a compromise on this if you are concerned with any wild swings on the register, you could pick an average of some years.
But 2 million votes is too big of a mismatch to ignore, a compromise is definitely needed to update the boundaries whilst not ignoring the new figures.
Is it actually 2 million new voters?
That's what the government said back in May, if I remember correctly.
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
Given the whole exercise is going to reduce the number of MPs, I'd say that any MP who doesn't get with the plan will be first in the firing line!
According to Laura Kuenssberg there is a distinct possibility that May will be happy to abandon the proposals! If that is remotely true , there is no way a Tory MP will be deprived of the Whip for opposing them.
Today is Day 1 of a two year process, I'm not surprised that a few Tories are upset about what they've seen. That's why there's plenty of time for representations and alterations built into the work of the Electoral Commission, before the new boundaries are finalised.
The job of the whips is to co-ordinate everyone's comments and make sure as many objections are possible are overcome before the vote - but on the understanding that anyone who wants to be a Tory MP candidate in 2020 needs to get with the program for the greater good of the party. Hopefully the combination of the carrot and the stick will do the whips' job to the point that everyone votes in favour.
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.
Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.
Based on what?
There has not been the slightest hint of such a thing happening - in the same way that there is no precedent for it. When was the last time a Tory MP lost the Whip for opposing a policy in the Division Lobbies? It would need to be a Confidence Vote for such a thing to happen.
You know as well as I do that if the change helped Labour, they'd be all for it. The smell of hypocrisy is overwhelming, but they're politicians, so hypocrisy is their default position.
The electorate know that, and only the really committed will believe a word of the hyperbole. Why not call it ethnic cleansing or a murderous rape of democracy? or perhaps it's a thousand percent wrong? Only trying to be helpful.
Oh, and I've n doubt that if the position was reversed, the Tories would be saying the same thing (but probably less dramatically).
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?
No. It's definitely needed.
I specifically remember the last Boundary changes went through the Lords in 2007 - they were agreed without a vote - but Peers could have taken it to a vote and Lab + LD will do so this time.
I thought the Lords hurdle for this round has already been cleared?
Sorry, but no.
Not sure how many times you want me to repeat it.
Statutory Instrument will be tabled in Oct 2018 - it will require approval by Commons and Lords.
Comments
its worth noting though that there seems to be a general slow drift in population to conservative areas, meaning that the longer wait the from the redrawing of boundary's to an election the grater the advantage to labour, if we say there has been a 16 year gap from when this was last done, and these changes have 'net' moved the needle 30 seats, that's approximately 2 seats a year, so with a 4 year gap before the next GE, that would give Labour 8 extra seats, so if labour have missed out of 4 seats because of the timing of the move to IER, then this should have been cancelled out and overcompensated by 4 seats at the GE.
But we will not know for shore until May 2020 when we know how many votes were register in each constituency and which way it voted.
Priti Patel is likely to take Saffron Walden if Alan Haselhurst retires. Greg Knight has been an MP since 1983 (with a short break after 1997) so he may step down in East Yorkshire which would give David Davis somewhere to stand.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37347352
So, while the EU has some senior officials seeking to make an example of the UK in order to discourage other 'leavers', other senior officials are wondering about kicking out a member state who has shown no signs of wanting to leave.
On the serious point about what to do with a member who continues to flout fundamental laws and values of the club, the EU has a real headache.
Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.
Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?
David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.
Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.
Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.
Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/13/boundary-review-corbyn-says-inner-city-seat-shouldnt-be-enlarged-politics-live
15:12
Mr. T, but is there any such mechanism for ejecting a member?
Only a [patriarchal enemy of the people wouldn't see that.
2) Going ahead will be a blow to the Tory Government
3) Our partners will be socialist France and Communist China
4) Lots of money will be spent on it.
1) MPs fixed at 600.
2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota
3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable
How are any of the above partisan?
Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.
That's serious.
"the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP"?? Really? I mean, really?
On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?
Croydon Central BC Con 60
Bury BC Lab 71
Telford BC Con 139
Cambridge BC Lab 162 vs. LD
Southampton Itchen BC Lab 250
Cardiff North BC Lab 282
Barrow and Furness CC Lab 531
Thurrock BC Con 536 vs. Lab
Brighton North BC Con 556 vs. Lab with Greens in 3rd
Darlington BC Con 692
Eastbourne BC Con 733 vs. LD
City of Chester CC Con 757
Wrexham Maelor CC Lab 776
Carshalton and Wallington BC Con 790 vs. LD
Thanet East BC Con 899 vs. UKIP
Bedford BC Con 966
Halifax BC Con 1018
Stockport South and Cheadle BC Lab 1059
Harwich and Clacton CC UKIP 1077 vs. Con
Merton and Wimbledon Central BC Con 1118
Wakefield CC Lab 1213
Berwick and Ashington CC Lab 1215
Flint and Rhuddlan CC Lab 1281
Birmingham Selly Oak and Halesowen BC Con 1411
Dewsbury CC Lab 1420
Finchley and Southgate BC Lab 1467
Scunthorpe CC Lab 1531
Ceredigion a Gogledd Sir Benfro CC LD 1552 vs. Plaid
Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan West CC Con 1607
Enfield BC Con 1626
Spen BC Lab 1651
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice BC Lab 1708
Corby CC Con 1798
Caerfyrddin CC PC 1842 vs. Lab with Con in 3rd
Southampton Test BC Con 1948
Newcastle-under-Lyme BC Lab 1951
Twickenham BC Con 2017 vs. LD
Calder Valley CC Con 2040
Littleborough and Saddleworth CC Lab 2056
Derby South BC Con 2066
Kenton BC Lab 2125
Leeds North West BC Lab 2127 vs. LD with Con in 3rd
Gower and Swansea West CC Lab 2144
Bolton West CC Lab 2166
Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC Con 2282
Ynys Mon ac Arfon CC PC 2365 vs. Lab
Waveney CC Con 2408
Plymouth North BC Con 2440
Peterborough BC Con 2463
Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC Con 2467
North Tyneside.
Sunderland Central.
Tynemouth.
I specifically remember the last Boundary changes went through the Lords in 2007 - they were agreed without a vote - but Peers could have taken it to a vote and Lab + LD will do so this time.
I'm amazed how this myth has built up so even knowledgeable people believe it.
Boundaries have always been done on the basis of electoral register. Always. Since Universal Suffrage anyway.
The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.
The current boundaries certainly are though..
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/teenager-accused-planning-mass-casualty-terror-attack/
Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue
She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury. The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37345442
Sounds a lot like the sort of distraction robbery tactic. Given the photo, I don't think the media can pin this one on the deplorables.
A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.
We've announced plans to train & organise 1000s of activists for the next election. Find out more and sign up here → https://t.co/OZDFnG6cha
"On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?"
I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?
But you would prefer to stick with the 2000 Register rather than use the 2015 Register?
The reason 2015 has to be used is because with the lengthy process of consultations and revising recommendations there isn't time to use 2016 and get it done in time for 2020.
The law - passed in 2011 - says they have to use the 2015 register. To change that would have needed a complete new Act of Parliament - everyone knows if you go down that route it is simply a delaying tactic to prevent any changes before 2020.
Chris Evans and loose ends are a match made in heaven..
Hard choices, hard decisions.
Any more on climate change, daves resignation or anything else or is it just boundary and brexit bitching?
Quite how you manage to morph this completely non-controversial point - which, frankly, no-one of any integrity could conceivably disagree with, if they were being honest with themselves - into a statement that I am saying that people not registered to vote are not entitled to their MP's services is a mystery to which I don't expect a coherent answer. What in the name of sanity has being able to vote got to do with whether you can go to your MP with a problem? Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what? If you mean they'd have more casework load, then the solution is very simple: they might need more admin staff. But other factors are more important in casework load anyway, so this is hardly an argument.
It is however claimed that Love Productions didn't really want to stay on the BBC regardless. How truth that is nobody will ever know.
The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation
Future position
The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation
Since the current register and the register used are so different, the new boundaries will not have the desired effect of making constituencies roughly equal in size.
If you want to change the boundaries do them with the current register not the old one.
Bournemouth
I notice there is also a Lewes and Uckfield constituency whos MP will no doubt be very keen to see the railway between them reopened. Shutting the London to Lewes line south of Uckfield was one of the daftest closures of the lot and there was more than a hint of skulduggery.
But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............
No.
'perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?'
Because Wales has another layer of government with devolved powers for health, education, transport etc.
If you want a compromise on this if you are concerned with any wild swings on the register, you could pick an average of some years.
But 2 million votes is too big of a mismatch to ignore, a compromise is definitely needed to update the boundaries whilst not ignoring the new figures.
There are a number of reasons but one that I one that the BBC are only just waking up to. A former controller of BBC said last night on Newsnight was that the unwritten rule in the tv biz if you made a show for the BBC you never took it anywhere else if the BBC still wanted it. Well when it was just BBC, ITV and CH4 the threat was obvious, the could easily freeze you out when it came to future projects.
Even in the early days of Sky, it didn't make that much original content, now there are loads of people willing to pay to make content, from Amazon to BT to YouTube.
A very bad move.
People are complaining that 2015 is obsolete but of course that is a matter of the amount of time needed to do the work, but the electoral register from then is the only exact, consistent and up to date measure of people that we have. It isn't a matter of principle but one of being practical. Who says they will?
In our system, an MP's main job is to serve and represent their constituents for a full 5-year term - to provide help when needed, to consult them on their views, to take their views into account when voting on legislation in Parliament. Non-voters are surely just as entitled to that service and representation as anyone else, and therefore, it surely follows that it's completely unjust to reduce the service offered by an MP in constituencies with lots of non-voters.
Bassetlaw.
Gainsborough.
High Peak.
Leicester East.
Leicester South.
Mansfield.
South Holland & The Deepings.
So much for "treating everyone the same".
The job of the whips is to co-ordinate everyone's comments and make sure as many objections are possible are overcome before the vote - but on the understanding that anyone who wants to be a Tory MP candidate in 2020 needs to get with the program for the greater good of the party. Hopefully the combination of the carrot and the stick will do the whips' job to the point that everyone votes in favour.
You know as well as I do that if the change helped Labour, they'd be all for it. The smell of hypocrisy is overwhelming, but they're politicians, so hypocrisy is their default position.
The electorate know that, and only the really committed will believe a word of the hyperbole. Why not call it ethnic cleansing or a murderous rape of democracy? or perhaps it's a thousand percent wrong? Only trying to be helpful.
Oh, and I've n doubt that if the position was reversed, the Tories would be saying the same thing (but probably less dramatically).
Not sure how many times you want me to repeat it.
Statutory Instrument will be tabled in Oct 2018 - it will require approval by Commons and Lords.