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.
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE we use to measure the number of non-voters in an area. What up to date, national register of non-voters exists in your fantasy?
But as far as I'm concerned, MPs' main job is NOT to "select which party gets to form the government".
In practice, it's their main job - the one which has the most effect on their constituents' lives.
In any case, this is a silly argument in the current circumstances, because the old boundaries were not based on equality of total population, or anything remotely like it. Your point would be a respectable one if you said 'I fully support this equalisation, because it's better than the existing boundaries, and the sooner we bring the constituencies up to date the better. However for the next review I'd prefer changing the long-standing basis of the calculation from registered voters to total population.' But I don't think you are saying that. I wonder why?
Bassetlaw. Gainsborough. High Peak. Leicester East. Leicester South. Mansfield. South Holland & The Deepings.
Nottingham North also not much changed. But Broxtowe changes big time. The "Guardian/Telegraph" section splits off and joins Nottingham South, which on balance I would think make that seat more Labour. The "former mining/rural" part loses these and instead absorbs more former mining area from the north, and probably becomes more Tory. Both are finger-in-the-wind assessment - Anthony Wells will have a better idea. The changes take no account of borough boundaries or the traditionally sacrosanct city/county split - they definitively break the link with local government.
Personally I share the view that constituencies should represent eligible population (assessed by the census or best local authority estimates) rather than the people who have actually registered at any given moment, but the Conservative advantage from taking the latter view is obvious (because inner cities are much more mobile and therefore have lower registration).
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.
Haven't Labour voted through plenty of boundary changes which disadvantaged them before? I don't know for sure, but I assume they voted through the 2010 election boundary review, even though that review reduced their notional majority by about 15 seats. So I'm not sure the argument that, when it comes to boundaries, Labour only acts in their own interests, really follows.
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?
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.
Much more likely that party managers will decide to abandon the proposals on the basis that they will cause more trouble than they are worth.
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
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.
They are using the current register - as in the register when they started the review.
The review process runs from Jan 2016 to Sept 2018.
So they use the Dec 2015 Register - the register just out when they stared the process.
Presumably you'll say in 2018 that they should start again with the 2017 register?
It's a 3 year process. This is the only way of doing it to have new seats in place 18 months before next GE - which is required to select candidates and give them time to campaign in their new seats.
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.
"The House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)
Their conclusion: There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
But by saying that non-voters should be ignored from the process when drawing up constituencies, you are effectively saying they are entitled to less service and representation, since they will be in much bigger constituencies where the MP has to divide their time between much more people (and thus naturally will give a lower-quality service).
"The House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)
Their conclusion: There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.
Yes, but that's pretty far-fetched. The House of Lords commitee says:
The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial. Others argue that once triggered, Article 50 may not be unilaterally revoked by the member state concerned, although it could be reversed by the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
Participants at our seminar were also divided on this point. As one noted, “there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.” Should any attempt by the UK to unilaterally withdraw its notification under Article 50 be disputed by another member state, the matter would be decided by the European Court of Justice.
It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse
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.
They are using the current register - as in the register when they started the review.
The review process runs from Jan 2016 to Sept 2018.
So they use the Dec 2015 Register - the register just out when they stared the process.
Presumably you'll say in 2018 that they should start again with the 2017 register?
It's a 3 year process. This is the only way of doing it to have new seats in place 18 months before next GE - which is required to select candidates and give them time to campaign in their new seats.
But the register used is already outdated by million of voters within just a few months after they started because of the referendum.
If it only took 9 months of work to produce the new boundaries based on the old register, it won't take much longer to produce boundaries based on the new register, that would put it at around June 2017.
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
But by saying that non-voters should be ignored from the process when drawing up constituencies, you are effectively saying they are entitled to less service and representation, since they will be in much bigger constituencies where the MP has to divide their time between much more people (and thus naturally will give a lower-quality service).
It's not non-voters who are being ignored, it's those who haven't bothered to register to vote despite being constantly cajoled to do so.
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.
So if the Lords cause trouble present a one line act in Feb 2019- Statutory instrument 2018/xxx is hereby now deemed a primary act of parliament and if the lords throw it out then re present it under the parliament act in June 2019.
@MikeL or someone - did the 2010 boundary review have a vote in parliament?
What do you mean?
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
2) The boundary review cancelled in the last Parliament?
Amendment to Electoral Registration Act passed in 2013 to cancel the review. Lab + LD outvoted Con in Lords and Commons. Review thus abandoned before Commissions finished their work.
Bassetlaw. Gainsborough. High Peak. Leicester East. Leicester South. Mansfield. South Holland & The Deepings.
Nottingham North also not much changed. But Broxtowe changes big time. The "Guardian/Telegraph" section splits off and joins Nottingham South, which on balance I would think make that seat more Labour. The "former mining/rural" part loses these and instead absorbs more former mining area from the north, and probably becomes more Tory. Both are finger-in-the-wind assessment - Anthony Wells will have a better idea. The changes take no account of borough boundaries or the traditionally sacrosanct city/county split - they definitively break the link with local government.
Personally I share the view that constituencies should represent eligible population (assessed by the census or best local authority estimates) rather than the people who have actually registered at any given moment, but the Conservative advantage from taking the latter view is obvious (because inner cities are much more mobile and therefore have lower registration).
Interesting summary, thanks.
Anthony Wells' notional calculations for each constituency:
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.
Alright, no need to be short! I misunderstood the current position is all.
"The House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)
Their conclusion: There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.
Yes, but that's pretty far-fetched. The House of Lords commitee says:
The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial. Others argue that once triggered, Article 50 may not be unilaterally revoked by the member state concerned, although it could be reversed by the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
Participants at our seminar were also divided on this point. As one noted, “there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.” Should any attempt by the UK to unilaterally withdraw its notification under Article 50 be disputed by another member state, the matter would be decided by the European Court of Justice.
It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse
In practice, it would be completely impractical even if it were legally possible, which no-one can be sure of.
That seems an eminently sensible reading by the Committee. The only way that it could possibly be a simple matter is that if there were huge political desire within the EU membership to keep the UK in. That seems lacking on the face of post-referendum statements ...
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.
Alright, no need to be short! I misunderstood the current position is all.
Apologies - didn't mean to be rude - but you had asked more than once and I couldn't think of any other way of saying the same thing.
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.
@MikeL or someone - did the 2010 boundary review have a vote in parliament?
What do you mean?
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
Yes, I meant that one.
So, contrary to the claims that Labour are only opposing this boundary review because it disadvantages them, they have in fact voted in the past for boundary reviews that saw them lose seats - when the reviews were based on decades-old consensus, rather than new rules drawn up to help the Tories' partisan advantage.
@MikeL or someone - did the 2010 boundary review have a vote in parliament?
What do you mean?
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
Yes, I meant that one.
So, contrary to the claims that Labour are only opposing this boundary review because it disadvantages them, they have in fact voted in the past for boundary reviews that saw them lose seats - when the reviews were based on decades-old consensus, rather than new rules drawn up to help the Tories' partisan advantage.
Actually, it mitigates Labour's partisan advantage.
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.
Alright, no need to be short! I misunderstood the current position is all.
Apologies - didn't mean to be rude - but you had asked more than once and I couldn't think of any other way of saying the same thing.
Ah, the reason I asked if the hurdle had been cleared this time was that I had thought your reply was based on the fact there was a vote in the Lords in 2007, as opposed to what was planned for this round. I had mistakenly thought that there had already been a vote in that place for this round.
@MikeL or someone - did the 2010 boundary review have a vote in parliament?
What do you mean?
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
Yes, I meant that one.
So, contrary to the claims that Labour are only opposing this boundary review because it disadvantages them, they have in fact voted in the past for boundary reviews that saw them lose seats - when the reviews were based on decades-old consensus, rather than new rules drawn up to help the Tories' partisan advantage.
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.
They are using the current register - as in the register when they started the review.
The review process runs from Jan 2016 to Sept 2018.
So they use the Dec 2015 Register - the register just out when they stared the process.
Presumably you'll say in 2018 that they should start again with the 2017 register?
It's a 3 year process. This is the only way of doing it to have new seats in place 18 months before next GE - which is required to select candidates and give them time to campaign in their new seats.
But the register used is already outdated by million of voters within just a few months after they started because of the referendum.
If it only took 9 months of work to produce the new boundaries based on the old register, it won't take much longer to produce boundaries based on the new register, that would put it at around June 2017.
Plenty of time till Sept. 2018.
Time constraints are not an excuse for this.
No - do you know how the review process works?
It's now Sept 2016.
This review will end in Sept 2018. There are 2 more years of work still to go - consultations, public meetings, revised recommendations, more consultations, re-revised recommendations.
If you're happy to abandon all that process then fine - but nobody else will be happy to do so - certainly not Lab MPs.
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
But by saying that non-voters should be ignored from the process when drawing up constituencies, you are effectively saying they are entitled to less service and representation, since they will be in much bigger constituencies where the MP has to divide their time between much more people (and thus naturally will give a lower-quality service).
I'm not saying non-voters should be ignored, I'm saying non-voters aren't on the register. They are physically not counted, their number does not exist on any database that can be used.
I have asked umpteen times but you fail to give a solution. How many non-voters existed in 2015 and what national register should have been used to show where they live?
I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?
That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.
Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.
In Australia they have just 150 MPs for a population of 23 million. On the same basis we would have about 430 MPs. Germany has 631 MPs for 81 million. That would be equivalent to 515 in the UK.
Both Australia and Germany have a much less centralised system with power devolved to states, as I suspect you well know.
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
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?
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.
Much more likely that party managers will decide to abandon the proposals on the basis that they will cause more trouble than they are worth.
I don't believe it's for the party managers to decide anything. The Electoral Commission are working to a timetable outlined in law. Their final proposals will be presented for a vote in 2018, unless legislation is passed in the intervening period that compels them to act otherwise - as happened in the last Parliament.
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.
They are using the current register - as in the register when they started the review.
The review process runs from Jan 2016 to Sept 2018.
So they use the Dec 2015 Register - the register just out when they stared the process.
Presumably you'll say in 2018 that they should start again with the 2017 register?
It's a 3 year process. This is the only way of doing it to have new seats in place 18 months before next GE - which is required to select candidates and give them time to campaign in their new seats.
But the register used is already outdated by million of voters within just a few months after they started because of the referendum.
If it only took 9 months of work to produce the new boundaries based on the old register, it won't take much longer to produce boundaries based on the new register, that would put it at around June 2017.
Plenty of time till Sept. 2018.
Time constraints are not an excuse for this.
Except that this procedure hasn't finished yet, there is two years left to go and it will end in 2018. Start from scratch and you will only be at this stage one stage next year and there will still be two more years of consultations needed with a procedure ending in 2019. Which is too late to be practical for a 2020 election - and we should by your logic be scrapping it again next year too.
@MikeL or someone - did the 2010 boundary review have a vote in parliament?
What do you mean?
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
Yes, I meant that one.
So, contrary to the claims that Labour are only opposing this boundary review because it disadvantages them, they have in fact voted in the past for boundary reviews that saw them lose seats - when the reviews were based on decades-old consensus, rather than new rules drawn up to help the Tories' partisan advantage.
Yes, you are right.
But possibly relevant that that was under Tony Blair - who maybe had a different attitude to this subject than other Lab leaders.
Maybe it was a coincidence but implementing the Boundary Review was almost the last thing Blair did before he resigned in 2007.
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
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.
Alright, no need to be short! I misunderstood the current position is all.
Apologies - didn't mean to be rude - but you had asked more than once and I couldn't think of any other way of saying the same thing.
Ah, the reason I asked if the hurdle had been cleared this time was that I had thought your reply was based on the fact there was a vote in the Lords in 2007, as opposed to what was planned for this round. I had mistakenly thought that there had already been a vote in that place for this round.
OK - thanks - many, many apologies for my previous comment.
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.
Agreed. I think it's a real problem that UKIP and the LibDems could easily end up with a quarter of the votes at the next general election but less than 1% of the seats.
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.
Alright, no need to be short! I misunderstood the current position is all.
Apologies - didn't mean to be rude - but you had asked more than once and I couldn't think of any other way of saying the same thing.
Ah, the reason I asked if the hurdle had been cleared this time was that I had thought your reply was based on the fact there was a vote in the Lords in 2007, as opposed to what was planned for this round. I had mistakenly thought that there had already been a vote in that place for this round.
OK - thanks - many, many apologies for my previous comment.
I was probably being a little delicate Profuse apologies not required!
A look at the proposals for Dorset/Bournemouth/Poole
Proposed Poole , South Dorset , West Dorset , Blandford and Wimborne seats should not in themselves be controversial . Proposed Dorset/Wilts seat Warminster and Shaftesbury will no doubt be controversial but there is little alternative to this . Proposed Bournemouth South in itself again not controversial Proposed Bournemouth North and Christchurch a pretty poor proposal , whilst there is a footbridge across the River Stour to connect the 2 halves there is no direct road connection Proposed Broadstone Ferndown and Kinson seat . Clearly the bits left over from Bournemouth Christchurch Poole and Poole North and Dorset Mid constituencies which the BC have just lumped together hoping that the review process will come up with something better .
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
It can get a bit dull. I have sympathy for those who are trying to generate revenue for their publications when the government is really not giving much away in terms of its position.
I've watched both David Davis sessions this week (Lords & Commons), and there's still not much substance. I take his point that they've only had around four weeks of substantive effort, but that's not cutting much ice with the Fourth Estate.
I do agree with your main point - I've lived and worked abroad and there's really nothing insuperable in the article.
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
But by saying that non-voters should be ignored from the process when drawing up constituencies, you are effectively saying they are entitled to less service and representation, since they will be in much bigger constituencies where the MP has to divide their time between much more people (and thus naturally will give a lower-quality service).
I'm not saying non-voters should be ignored, I'm saying non-voters aren't on the register. They are physically not counted, their number does not exist on any database that can be used.
I have asked umpteen times but you fail to give a solution. How many non-voters existed in 2015 and what national register should have been used to show where they live?
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
It also what's not in articles like that, because they only think of the issue from an EU-centric point of view.
Mrs Sandpit is a non-EU citizen, her chances of getting a British visa go up substantially because of Brexit.
Charter of fundamental rights vs ECHR. If it was the latter the government could probably get away with ignoring the ruling (the ruling may not have been the same either) but with the ECJ it is binding and the Home Office are unable to deport this would be terrorist and criminal.
I read somewhere (a national newspaper) that 3 out of 4 council houses that come available go to non British people. Perhaps MPs should spend a little more time on voters.
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.
"It hasn't happened so it won't happen"
But there is no evidence of any such intent. All the calls come from highly partisan Tory cheerleaders on here . I have not heard it from a single Tory MP or serious journalist.
Just noticed a new constituency called Broadstone, Ferndown and Kinson. I have no idea where any of these places are.
It's a bit of Bournemouth, bit of Poole and bit of East Dorset!
The East Dorset bits are currently in Christchurch Parliamentary constituency . By coincidence there will be a council by election next month in Broadstone , will be a Lib Dem gain from Conservative .
Mr. T, but is there any such mechanism for ejecting a member?
No.
This issue was discussed as regards Greece - could they be effectively kicked out of the Eurozone. And the de facto answer, for the Eurozone at least, is yes. If the ECB made the decision not to backstop banks through the TARGET-2 system, then it would essentially force someone out of the Eurozone.
Surely Love have played a blinder - they get £25m revenue per year (instead of £6m per year) for 3 years. Costs will be similar so they've just banked approx £56m.
C4 have made the big error - paying so much for a programme that won't now deliver the expected ratings.
Mr. T, but is there any such mechanism for ejecting a member?
No.
This issue was discussed as regards Greece - could they be effectively kicked out of the Eurozone. And the de facto answer, for the Eurozone at least, is yes. If the ECB made the decision not to backstop banks through the TARGET-2 system, then it would essentially force someone out of the Eurozone.
Hungary aren't in the EMU, would be tough to kick them out of a union they aren't in. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see the Eurocrats try anyway.
A teenager has appeared in court accused of planning to carry out a mass-casualty terror attack at London landmarks including Buckingham Palace.
Haroon Ali-Syed, 19, from Hounslow in west London, was arrested last week on suspicion of a terror offence.
It is alleged that between April 2016 and September 2016, Ali-Syed attempted to obtain weapons online, including an explosive device, with a view to launching an assault on a busy area of the capital.
If they can do just as good a job for the UK as Love Productions did (£12.5m to £25m) then that will be a very good result indeed.
Let's see how Love Productions handles the inevitable demands for more money from the stars of the show.
It's a popular show in that it depends on the goodwill of the guinea-pigs for its success. The thought that they are there simply to make the directors millions will turn people off.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?
?!?!?!?
So much for "treating everyone the same".
Every voter will be treated the same.
So you do think that non-voters are not entitled to representation and service from their MP?
No they're perfectly entitled to seek representation and service exactly the same as anyone else. Also perfectly entitled to register to vote as well.
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
But by saying that non-voters should be ignored from the process when drawing up constituencies, you are effectively saying they are entitled to less service and representation, since they will be in much bigger constituencies where the MP has to divide their time between much more people (and thus naturally will give a lower-quality service).
I'm not saying non-voters should be ignored, I'm saying non-voters aren't on the register. They are physically not counted, their number does not exist on any database that can be used.
I have asked umpteen times but you fail to give a solution. How many non-voters existed in 2015 and what national register should have been used to show where they live?
The latest census ?
There was no census in 2015, so that would be figures five years out of date already, far less accurate than the electoral register.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Except that it is reasonable to assumed that the last GE, with the LDs fresh out of government, was their rock bottom, and that the next GE has to be better. So they should stand a good chance of retaining most of their current redrawn seats and winning some back from the Tories, who will have to carry the unpopularity of being in government alone in 2020. Without such an assumption it is hard to map out a future for them anyway.
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
Actually there are many countries where you can't just move to retire (including, incidentally, the U.K. for non-EU citizens)
Just had a little sort through Anthony Wells' new constituency estimates. The Lib Dems are down to their last three seats (or perhaps four, if they can also keep hold of Orkney & Shetland,) and only Farron has a notional majority in excess of 3,000.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
Assuming a large chunk of the parliamentary labour party dont join them before the next election....
The fate of the liberals is horrible, if anything they were better governors than cameron, osborne and the liberal wets.
I guess that is what happens when you collect large numbers of protest votes from two duametrically opposed groups of people and then get power on the back of it - you piss off half of your voters.
UKIP would have the same problem if they went into coalition with Labour.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
This is important stuff, there’s an on-line petition and everything. - We need a new thread...
eff off
Seems though Channel 4 may have won the rights to a format without securing the presenters. Could be one of the broadcasting f-ups of all time.
It does seem that way. Channel 4 may well wonder about the ingratitude of Sue&Mel in that they gave the pair their start on tv (AFAIK) and the pair snub Channel4.
In the USA the usual approach with programmes heavily reliant on talent is to sign them up long term and many make them "producers" to share in the loot. It seems daft of the production company not to do that.
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
It also what's not in articles like that, because they only think of the issue from an EU-centric point of view.
Mrs Sandpit is a non-EU citizen, her chances of getting a British visa go up substantially because of Brexit.
Hmmm... I suspect that, given non-EU immigration has been running at twice the government's target for TOTAL immigration, that there will be more restrictions on non-EU immigration rather than less.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
This is important stuff, there’s an on-line petition and everything. - We need a new thread...
eff off
Seems though Channel 4 may have won the rights to a format without securing the presenters. Could be one of the broadcasting f-ups of all time.
It does seem that way. Channel 4 may well wonder about the ingratitude of Sue&Mel in that they gave the pair their start on tv (AFAIK) and the pair snub Channel4.
In the USA the usual approach with programmes heavily reliant on talent is to sign them up long term and many make them "producers" to share in the loot. It seems daft of the production company not to do that.
Spot the student who used to watch Light Lunch....
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
That seems an eminently sensible reading by the Committee. The only way that it could possibly be a simple matter is that if there were huge political desire within the EU membership to keep the UK in. That seems lacking on the face of post-referendum statements ...
No kidding - some tried to suggest the referendum itself was in effect triggering article 50, which was nonsense.
Must say I am pretty satisfied with the review in my area. Much more sensible, by and large,in respect of facts on the ground, although it does require a split across two counties which will probably go down very poorly.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I am with you on that. But my favourite programme at present is heavier stuff, Ray Donovan (Sky Atlantic), sadly one more left to watch in the series called Rattus Rattus.
BakeOff prog the main news item on BBC1 6pm news.... wtf...
No other news today....
The Beeb would sign up to Brexit in a heartbeat if they could only get Bake Off back...
Am I the only person on here who doesn't care about Bake Off and who is, in fact, a bit pissed off with the whole fairy cake, retro 1950's aprons, overpriced Cath Kidston meme.....?
I am with you on that. But my favourite programme at present is heavier stuff, Ray Donovan (Sky Atlantic), sadly one more left to watch in the series called Rattus Rattus.
Is that any good. I remember watching the pilot and think hmm perhaps could be, but then totally forgot about it.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37353801
In any case, this is a silly argument in the current circumstances, because the old boundaries were not based on equality of total population, or anything remotely like it. Your point would be a respectable one if you said 'I fully support this equalisation, because it's better than the existing boundaries, and the sooner we bring the constituencies up to date the better. However for the next review I'd prefer changing the long-standing basis of the calculation from registered voters to total population.' But I don't think you are saying that. I wonder why?
Personally I share the view that constituencies should represent eligible population (assessed by the census or best local authority estimates) rather than the people who have actually registered at any given moment, but the Conservative advantage from taking the latter view is obvious (because inner cities are much more mobile and therefore have lower registration).
And remind the new Tory Culture Secretary that Channel 4 is owned by the government.
@AndrewSteele: I'm in an Urban Outfitters in New York, looking at novelty t-shirts, and I just became an Olympic medallist. https://t.co/Udtacaldq7
@AndrewSteele: Congratulations to @goldiesayers! And to my fellow 4x400m legends, @MartynRooney @Rob_Tobin and Michael Bingham!
I'm 34 now so was 18 when the last boundary review happened, though I've moved constituency repeatedly since then. My wife is 32 and so wasn't even old enough to be counted last boundary review, which shows how obsolete the data is. Does that mean she is forbidden to representation and service from her MP?
If we don't update the boundaries there will be voters at the next general election who weren't even born when the last review happened.
The review process runs from Jan 2016 to Sept 2018.
So they use the Dec 2015 Register - the register just out when they stared the process.
Presumably you'll say in 2018 that they should start again with the 2017 register?
It's a 3 year process. This is the only way of doing it to have new seats in place 18 months before next GE - which is required to select candidates and give them time to campaign in their new seats.
"The House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)
Their conclusion: There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/189299/presidential-election-2016-key-indicators.aspx?g_source=POLITICS&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial. Others argue that once triggered, Article 50 may not be unilaterally revoked
by the member state concerned, although it could be reversed by the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
Participants at our seminar were also divided on this point. As one noted,
“there is nothing in Article 50 itself one way or another; it does not say
that you can retract or, once invoked, that you cannot retract. So it is left
to the lawyers to have those enjoyable disputes to sort it out.” Should any
attempt by the UK to unilaterally withdraw its notification under Article 50
be disputed by another member state, the matter would be decided by the
European Court of Justice.
It is unclear whether a notification under Article 50, once made, could
be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK without the consent of other
EU member states. In the light of the uncertainty that exists on this
point, and given that the uncertainty would only ever be resolved after
Article 50 had already been triggered, we consider that it would be
prudent for Parliament to work on the assumption that the triggering
of Article 50 is an action that the UK cannot unilaterally reverse
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/44.pdf
In practice, it would be completely impractical even if it were legally possible, which no-one can be sure of.
If it only took 9 months of work to produce the new boundaries based on the old register, it won't take much longer to produce boundaries based on the new register, that would put it at around June 2017.
Plenty of time till Sept. 2018.
Time constraints are not an excuse for this.
Or better still, just reinstate the hereditaries
Non voters have somehow managed since 1918.
1) The new boundaries actually brought in in 2010?
Yes - Statutory Instrument passed in 2007 - without a vote
2) The boundary review cancelled in the last Parliament?
Amendment to Electoral Registration Act passed in 2013 to cancel the review. Lab + LD outvoted Con in Lords and Commons. Review thus abandoned before Commissions finished their work.
Anthony Wells' notional calculations for each constituency:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15YjlKdqKFETupccZOYV19bIe75QlpnHUyzS9CZqFHO8/edit#gid=0
That's what's serious. I love Mel and Sue.
So, contrary to the claims that Labour are only opposing this boundary review because it disadvantages them, they have in fact voted in the past for boundary reviews that saw them lose seats - when the reviews were based on decades-old consensus, rather than new rules drawn up to help the Tories' partisan advantage.
It's now Sept 2016.
This review will end in Sept 2018. There are 2 more years of work still to go - consultations, public meetings, revised recommendations, more consultations, re-revised recommendations.
If you're happy to abandon all that process then fine - but nobody else will be happy to do so - certainly not Lab MPs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-37352326
I have asked umpteen times but you fail to give a solution. How many non-voters existed in 2015 and what national register should have been used to show where they live?
But possibly relevant that that was under Tony Blair - who maybe had a different attitude to this subject than other Lab leaders.
Maybe it was a coincidence but implementing the Boundary Review was almost the last thing Blair did before he resigned in 2007.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/zero-chance-eu-citizens-keep-same-rights-post-brexit-expert
Yes, this is an issue that should be addressed. Will it be the end of the world at the end of negotiations? No. Do Brits live and work oversees in other countries where there are not the same rights as Brits living in EU countries and can they do so successfully without due worry about their rights? Yes and Yes. And is this a bigger problem for the EU or the UK? The former, given the near 3:1 ratio of EUzens in the UK to Brits in the EU.
Proposed Poole , South Dorset , West Dorset , Blandford and Wimborne seats should not in themselves be controversial .
Proposed Dorset/Wilts seat Warminster and Shaftesbury will no doubt be controversial but there is little alternative to this .
Proposed Bournemouth South in itself again not controversial
Proposed Bournemouth North and Christchurch a pretty poor proposal , whilst there is a footbridge across the River Stour to connect the 2 halves there is no direct road connection
Proposed Broadstone Ferndown and Kinson seat . Clearly the bits left over from Bournemouth Christchurch Poole and Poole North and Dorset Mid constituencies which the BC have just lumped together hoping that the review process will come up with something better .
Basingstoke.
Beaconsfield.
Bracknell.
Eastbourne.
Eastleigh.
East Surrey.
East Worthing & Shoreham.
Epsom & Ewell.
Gosport.
Guildford.
Hastings & Rye.
Maidenhead.
Reigate.
Sittingbourne & Sheppey.
South West Surrey.
Witney.
I've watched both David Davis sessions this week (Lords & Commons), and there's still not much substance. I take his point that they've only had around four weeks of substantive effort, but that's not cutting much ice with the Fourth Estate.
I do agree with your main point - I've lived and worked abroad and there's really nothing insuperable in the article.
Mrs Sandpit is a non-EU citizen, her chances of getting a British visa go up substantially because of Brexit.
Charter of fundamental rights vs ECHR. If it was the latter the government could probably get away with ignoring the ruling (the ruling may not have been the same either) but with the ECJ it is binding and the Home Office are unable to deport this would be terrorist and criminal.
By coincidence there will be a council by election next month in Broadstone , will be a Lib Dem gain from Conservative .
C4 have made the big error - paying so much for a programme that won't now deliver the expected ratings.
Haroon Ali-Syed, 19, from Hounslow in west London, was arrested last week on suspicion of a terror offence.
It is alleged that between April 2016 and September 2016, Ali-Syed attempted to obtain weapons online, including an explosive device, with a view to launching an assault on a busy area of the capital.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3787560/London-teenager-19-plotted-carry-nail-bomb-attack.html
SE: Basingstoke, Beaconsfield, Bracknell, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, East Surrey, East Worthing & Shoreham, Epsom & Ewell, Gosport, Guildford, Hastings & Rye, Maidenhead, Reigate, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, South West Surrey, Witney.
EM: Bassetlaw, Gainsborough, High Peak, Leicester East, Leicester South, Mansfield, South Holland & The Deepings.
NE: North Tyneside, Sunderland Central, Tynemouth.
YH: Beverley & Holderness, East Yorkshire, Elmet and Rothwell.
SW: Bristol North West, Bristol South, Exeter, North Devon, North Somerset, Taunton Deane, Torbay, Weston-super-Mare.
E: Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Hitchin & Harpenden, Thurrock, Waveney, West Suffolk.
WM: Birmingham Hodge Hill, Burton, Cannock Chase, Coventry North East, North Shropshire, South Staffordshire, Sutton Coldfield.
NW: Blackley & Broughton, Chorley, Garston & Halewood, Knowsley, Leigh, Makerfield, Manchester Gorton, Manchester Withington, Salford & Eccles, St Helens North, St Helens South & Whiston, Wigan, Worsley & Eccles South, Wythenshawe & Sale East.
GL: Hornchurch & Upminster, Kingston & Surbiton, Richmond Park, Twickenham.
The old Liberal Party was down to its last six seats at the nadir of its fortunes. Looks like the yellows may be headed for a new record, and not one they would covet...
If Corbyn promised that GBBO on Channel 4 would have Mel, Sue, Mary, and Paul, I'd vote Labour.
The fate of the liberals is horrible, if anything they were better governors than cameron, osborne and the liberal wets.
I guess that is what happens when you collect large numbers of protest votes from two duametrically opposed groups of people and then get power on the back of it - you piss off half of your voters.
UKIP would have the same problem if they went into coalition with Labour.
In particular, a list of the 10 Con MPs whose seats would go?
In the USA the usual approach with programmes heavily reliant on talent is to sign them up long term and many make them "producers" to share in the loot. It seems daft of the production company not to do that.
Oh is he that former Cotswolds MP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37356235
Or in Clinton lexicography, he suffered a mild spell of dizziness.