politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DUP lose 3 seats in new boundary proposals to put it behind SF

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » DUP lose 3 seats in new boundary proposals to put it behind SF

Well done to Martin Baxter for getting his boundaries projection out so fast. His figures showing what would happen if they’d been in force on June 8th have the Tories just into majority territory but with the DUP suffering in Northern Ireland.

Read the full story here

dixiedean

First!

BigRich

second

FrancisUrquhart

Oh harry kane..How did you not bury that chance...

Philip_Thompson

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

IanB2

I can't see this happening now. There is no longer a majority for whom it is in their interest.

TheScreamingEagles

Mrs May really did shit the bed for the Tories in June.

If she had any sense of shame or decency, she would have gone.

Sunil_Prasannan

SF got fewer votes than the DUP so these new boundaries are a little rubbish.

Mexicanpete

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Sunil_Prasannan

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

rpjs

I thought the Norn Iron Boundaries Commission wasn't due to report for another month though?

RobD

Liberal party on seven seats? They'll be happy!

SandyRentool

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

Sunil_Prasannan

RobD said:

Liberal party on seven seats? They'll be happy!

"DO NOT WAAANT!"

RobD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Increase the number of hereditary peers!

TheScreamingEagles

Spurs are an embarrassment in the Champions League.

Away from home they score one to get a draw.

While score Liverpool 7 (seven) away from home whilst Liverpool don't even concede one.

justin124

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

No_Offence_Alan

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

To zero, and give England parity with the other UK nations by having its own parliament.

Sunil_Prasannan

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

Sunil_Prasannan

RobD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Increase the number of hereditary peers!

"Hopeless situation parliament"

SandyRentool

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

We'll have to have a PB meet in Manchester to do the new Ordsall Curve! Correction - Ordsall Chord!

Philip_Thompson

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Seats aren't meant to correlate to a percentage ratio and no it doesn't mean that the Tories have an inbuilt advantage it just removes an inbuilt disadvantage they had with the unequal sized constituencies.

If another party won the election by nearly a million extra votes than their nearest rival then the result would have been different.

Pulpstar

The current 650 seats are almost perfectly balanced in terms of bias

A 1.2% swing to Labour yields (Lab and Tory both at 41.2%) on UNS yields..

(Effective Forces of the right)
Con Speaker DUP 1/2 SF
300 1 10 3.5


(Effective Forces of the centre)
North Down LD
1 12

(Effective forces of the left)
1/2 SF Plaid SNP Green Labour
3.5 3 29 1 286

I think Sylvia Hermon would probably prefer the Tories, though she'd be more open to Labour if Corbyn wasn't in charge.
Sinn Fein splits half left, half right due to abstention - they won't make a choice as the Lib Dems may well do.
The SNP, Plaid & Greens will always split left I believe.
And it means Vince Cable gets to swan about like Winston Peters is doing in New Zealand right now . In reality Vince's window is very narrow to be perfectly honest.

Sunil_Prasannan

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

We'll have to have a PB meet in Manchester to do the new Ordsall Curve! Correction - Ordsall Chord!

Only bit of Greater Manchester I need to do, save for Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday mornings only)

Sunil_Prasannan

No_Offence_Alan said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

To zero, and give England parity with the other UK nations by having its own parliament.

Nothing wrong with an English Parliament.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May really did shit the bed for the Tories in June.

If she had any sense of shame or decency, she would have gone.

[after allowing the simulated Tory Majority to be destroyed]

Theresa: Permission to speak freely, sir?

TSE: Granted.

Theresa: I do not believe this was a fair test of my Prime Ministerial abilities.

TSE: And why not?

Theresa: Because... there was no way to win.

TSE: A no-win situation is a possibility every PM may face. Has that never occurred to you?

Theresa: No, sir, it has not.

TSE: And how we deal with Brexit is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?

Theresa: As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.

TSE: Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.

Pulpstar

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

dixiedean

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.
Meanwhile, my new coonstituency of Hexham and Cramlington is a right pig's ear.

Danny565

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

An "independent" commission which had its hands tied by government legislation to rig the boundaries.

Casino_Royale

Think WilliamGlenn is the pseudonym of Jeremy Cliffe:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/920357950350417920

dixiedean

Pulpstar said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

282 Con 260 Lab leaving the rest unchanged.

Pulpstar

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

Mexicanpete

Pulpstar said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

Worth Baxtering but I expect the Conservatives retain most seats.

steve_garner

Casino_Royale said:

Think WilliamGlenn is the pseudonym of Jeremy Cliffe:

https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/920357950350417920

Tweets like this are an insult to everyone's intelligence.

MikeL

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

MikeL

There is an error in the thread header:

The NI Boundary Commission has not yet issued its revised recommendations - only England, Scotland and Wales came out today.

Baxter has presumably used the initial proposals for NI.

Mexicanpete

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Seats aren't meant to correlate to a percentage ratio and no it doesn't mean that the Tories have an inbuilt advantage it just removes an inbuilt disadvantage they had with the unequal sized constituencies.

If another party won the election by nearly a million extra votes than their nearest rival then the result would have been different.

Without wishing to state the obvious, it all depends on where those extra votes are distributed.

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

MikeL

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

This is absolutely spot on.

Govt should be introducing a new Bill immediately.

But problem is that primary legislation is required - unless they slip it in as an amendment to another Bill. This might be possible given that that is how the 2013 Review was abandoned.

Pulpstar

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

282 Con 260 Lab leaving the rest unchanged.

Lab + SNP + Plaid + Green + (1/2 SF) = 298.5 vs

Con + DUP + North Down + (1/2 SF) = 294.5.

So a VERY marginal left bias if anything.

Sean_F

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

A delay may no longer hurt the Tories as it used to, for after decades of depopulation, inner city areas are seeing their population rise.

Pulpstar

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

282 Con 260 Lab leaving the rest unchanged.

Lab + SNP + Plaid + Green + (1/2 SF) = 298.5 vs

Con + DUP + North Down + (1/2 SF) = 294.5.

So a VERY marginal left bias if anything.

On 'balanced' UNS shares (This is all we can work with)

We get left 322.5 -> 298.5 (Of 650 -> 600 seats) so 49.6% -> 49.75%

Right 312.5 -> 294.5 48.1% -> 49.1%

So it doesn't make a great deal of difference to electoral bias.

The party the changes are bad for are the Lib Dems, they are very slightly positive for both Labour and the Tories.

Mexicanpete

Hats off to Mr Smithson! A great thread and everyone playing nicely!

Philip_Thompson

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

An "independent" commission which had its hands tied by government legislation to rig the boundaries.

How are they rigged?

Sean_F

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Seats aren't meant to correlate to a percentage ratio and no it doesn't mean that the Tories have an inbuilt advantage it just removes an inbuilt disadvantage they had with the unequal sized constituencies.

If another party won the election by nearly a million extra votes than their nearest rival then the result would have been different.

Without wishing to state the obvious, it all depends on where those extra votes are distributed.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, a 2% lead would give you a working majority, but the Unionists took the Conservative whip, and the SNP were a fringe party.

If both conditions applied today, there'd probably be about 334 Con to 280 Lab, similar to 1970.

HarryHayfield

Northern Ireland's revised proposals are not going to be published until the end of the year at the earliest, therefore these are still the initial proposals

MikeL

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

A delay may no longer hurt the Tories as it used to, for after decades of depopulation, inner city areas are seeing their population rise.

Indeed - and that's why this review only helps Con (vs Lab) by a relatively small amount - ie

Con -16
Lab -22

All it needs is for 3 marginals to swing from Con to Lab to offset the effect of the review - which is pot luck really.

Mortimer

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

Pulpstar

A possible compromise for the Tories would be to reduce the parliament to 651 seats, leaving Nothern Ireland as is......

(It is of course conveniently seperate geographically, so this can certainly be done on a map).

Now that would be true gerrymandering - but it could pass the HoC albeit setting a horrible precedent.

MikeL

The big picture is that the Con vote is now quite a lot more efficient than the Lab vote - ie without this review (and with seats slightly unfair to Con - ie as in size) Con still gets quite a few more seats than Lab on an equal vote share.

However that advantage will reduce if Lab makes a comeback in Scotland. But even if they do, Lab still needs a lead of about 7% for a majority (per Wells advanced swingometer).

Mexicanpete

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

An "independent" commission which had its hands tied by government legislation to rig the boundaries.

How are they rigged?

There were, as I recall, issues regarding the timings of when the electoral roll was applied, which were supposed to be an advantage to the Tories. Although I could be wrong.

MikeL

Pulpstar said:

A possible compromise for the Tories would be to reduce the parliament to 651 seats, leaving Nothern Ireland as is......

(It is of course conveniently seperate geographically, so this can certainly be done on a map).

Now that would be true gerrymandering - but it could pass the HoC albeit setting a horrible precedent.

Indeed - for the record you mean 601, not 651.

dixiedean

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

Pulpstar said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

Where does the balance of power lie with a 1.2% swing to Labour from the Tories ?

That's the first question to determine whether there is bias in the new seats.

282 Con 260 Lab leaving the rest unchanged.

Lab + SNP + Plaid + Green + (1/2 SF) = 298.5 vs

Con + DUP + North Down + (1/2 SF) = 294.5.

So a VERY marginal left bias if anything.

Yes, but mine was based on Lab and Con 41.2% each with resr unchanged.
SNP PLaid Green =5.1%
DUP+ N Down =1.0%

So a Right bias on those figures.

Edit: Just saw you expanded further to your reply to me. Apologies.

Pro_Rata

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

We'll have to have a PB meet in Manchester to do the new Ordsall Curve! Correction - Ordsall Chord!

Only bit of Greater Manchester I need to do, save for Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday mornings only)

I can see and hear this being built from where I am (and listening to the construction is far better than being within earshot of those bloody trams all day) and my ticketing options mean I'll probably do the chord the first Monday morning after opening . If any group doing this want to DM me when the time comes, I'll happily join in if I can.

Ishmael_Z

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

In or not in an HS2 constituency?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/920402064454356993

HHemmelig

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

We'll have to have a PB meet in Manchester to do the new Ordsall Curve! Correction - Ordsall Chord!

Only bit of Greater Manchester I need to do, save for Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday mornings only)

I did the line from Stockport to Guide Bridge in the mid 80s, when the late lamented Harwich to Manchester boat train was routed that way. It was a huge train (usually 13 coaches), and looked quite a sight squealing around little used curves in Greater Manchester.

Sean_F

MikeL said:

The big picture is that the Con vote is now quite a lot more efficient than the Lab vote - ie without this review (and with seats slightly unfair to Con - ie as in size) Con still gets quite a few more seats than Lab on an equal vote share.

However that advantage will reduce if Lab makes a comeback in Scotland. But even if they do, Lab still needs a lead of about 7% for a majority (per Wells advanced swingometer).

I don't think it's more efficient, but any bias against the Conservatives has now gone.

Back in 2010, a 7% lead over Labour put the Conservatives 51 ahead of Labour. This time, a lead of 2.5% put them 66 ahead.

But, with third and fourth parties being squeezed, you should small leads in vote share to be translated into big leads in seats. If Labour were 2.5% ahead, I expect their lead would be similar.

By contrast, in 2001, a 9% lead put Labour 234 seats ahead of the Tories.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

A possible compromise for the Tories would be to reduce the parliament to 651 seats, leaving Nothern Ireland as is......

(It is of course conveniently seperate geographically, so this can certainly be done on a map).

Now that would be true gerrymandering - but it could pass the HoC albeit setting a horrible precedent.

Which is why MPs should really have nothing to do with the setting of boundaries, the Boundaries’ Commission should just be left to get on with it.

SandyRentool

HHemmelig said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

SandyRentool said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

Reduce the number to zero. Or fewer.

Incidentally - today's yellow pen - the curve from Strood towards Rochester. Also some red pen today, but that's not your thing.

I did Strood to Rochester back in 2011, however had to wait until this year to do Minster to Sandwich, and Kemsley to Newington.

We'll have to have a PB meet in Manchester to do the new Ordsall Curve! Correction - Ordsall Chord!

Only bit of Greater Manchester I need to do, save for Stockport to Guide Bridge (Friday mornings only)

I did the line from Stockport to Guide Bridge in the mid 80s, when the late lamented Harwich to Manchester boat train was routed that way. It was a huge train (usually 13 coaches), and looked quite a sight squealing around little used curves in Greater Manchester.

I did the line several times when there was a regular Stockport-Stalybridge shuttle. Also did it on the York - Shrewsbury overnight back in 1985. I have also done Man Vic to Stalybridge via some dubious bits of track on a diverted Glasgow - Bristol overnight. Happy days!

Night all...

Mortimer

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

In or not in an HS2 constituency?

Nowhere near - we're down in Dorset. He was chair of the HS2 select committee.

dixiedean

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Mexicanpete

MikeL said:

The big picture is that the Con vote is now quite a lot more efficient than the Lab vote - ie without this review (and with seats slightly unfair to Con - ie as in size) Con still gets quite a few more seats than Lab on an equal vote share.

However that advantage will reduce if Lab makes a comeback in Scotland. But even if they do, Lab still needs a lead of about 7% for a majority (per Wells advanced swingometer).

If it keeps Corbyn from achieving a majority that is no bad thing, however in the interests of longer-term fairness, which the update purports to be addressing, it is not appropriate.

Mortimer

Discussion on newsnight about safe spaces and trigger warnings makes me think that

A) we're sending too many people to Universities if people can't cope with free speech
too many students don't have enough work to do. And I say this as an Oxford historian who probably spent less than 30 hours a week working....

foxinsoxuk

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Surely any re-drawing should use the latest GE registers? It's not as if they haven't got 4.5 years to do it.

dixiedean

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

A possible compromise for the Tories would be to reduce the parliament to 651 seats, leaving Nothern Ireland as is......

(It is of course conveniently seperate geographically, so this can certainly be done on a map).

Now that would be true gerrymandering - but it could pass the HoC albeit setting a horrible precedent.

Which is why MPs should really have nothing to do with the setting of boundaries, the Boundaries’ Commission should just be left to get on with it.

As they were prior to the Sixth Review.

Sunil_Prasannan

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

In or not in an HS2 constituency?

Nowhere near - we're down in Dorset. He was chair of the HS2 select committee.

Still haven't advanced west of Newton Abbot in over a year now! Cornwall is the only English county I haven't visited by train...

Charles

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?

Mortimer

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

In or not in an HS2 constituency?

Nowhere near - we're down in Dorset. He was chair of the HS2 select committee.

Still haven't advanced west of Newton Abbot in over a year now! Cornwall is the only English county I haven't visited by train...

Have you done the Wareham to Swanage line now it has been reconnected (only ran during the summer)...

Mortimer

President of the European Parliament on newsnight seems to inhabit the same dream world as williamglenn.

And Comical Ali.

dixiedean

foxinsoxuk said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Surely any re-drawing should use the latest boundaries? It's not as if they haven't got 4.5 years to do it.

The problem is that the Act brought in 5 year reviews in line with FTPA. I would have no quibble if it used the register from the previous election.
This system means we are looking at a 2022 election fought on a 2015 (flawed) Register.
We will then have a 2023 Review based on a 2020 register, when there will be a 2022 up-to-date Register just used for the Election!
Gotta love Dave. He really did think things through!!

foxinsoxuk

Mortimer said:

President of the European Parliament on newsnight seems to inhabit the same dream world as williamglenn.

And Comical Ali.

Any deal needs to be signed off by the EP.

If it isn't going to pass, it is not worth bothering with!

Sunil_Prasannan

Mortimer said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

The reduction of our MEP number by 73 is both a convienient and real (increased workload) justification for keeping to 650 MPs.

I dunno. Most of those 650 MPs are local social workers with a national media profile; precious few get involved in serious national debate and legislative legwork. Just parrot slogans, and what the whips tell them, with a bit of grandstanding on EDMs.

I'd far rather MPs had 2nd jobs again, so we had a more diverse range of expertise and real-world contact in the HoC, all fine as long as it's all declared, and they spent the rest of their time in Parliament being proper parliamentarians, leaving the local stuff to mayors and councillors.

I agree.

Our local MP has just been knighted. The local paper comments section is full of people saying why he shouldn't get it; almost exclusively thesesre council related matters.

Really sad. He is a dedicated public servant who has spent a long time getting HS2 through Parliament.

In or not in an HS2 constituency?

Nowhere near - we're down in Dorset. He was chair of the HS2 select committee.

Still haven't advanced west of Newton Abbot in over a year now! Cornwall is the only English county I haven't visited by train...

Have you done the Wareham to Swanage line now it has been reconnected (only ran during the summer)...

Back in Easter I did Norden to Swanage (having bussed it to Swanage from Wareham) - haven't done the link to Wareham yet.

MikeL

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

I'm not sure what you wanted the Govt to do.

The existing law from 2011 required use of the 2015 registers.

The Govt doesn't control the registers - each Local Authority does - a complete mixture of Con, Lab, LD, NOC etc.

Also there has been plenty of analysis to show that register growth between 2015 and 2017 was similar in Con + Lab areas so it wouldn't actually have made any significant difference in any case.

See BBC Reality Check - the conclusion of which states:

"So it is not clear that basing the boundary review on the June 2016 register would make things much better for Labour."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37351172

Pulpstar

One interesting point to note is that the number of is up for both Labour and the Tories.

Marginals within 10% for each party: (Is total number of seats if all marginals won)

Labour - 79 targets (341 tops)
Tories - 63 (380 tops)
SNP 16 (51)
Lib Dems 9 (21 within a 5% swing total)
SDLP 3
UUP 2
DUP 1
SF 1
Plaid 0
UKIP 0
Green 0
Alliance 0

2015 - 2017 Marginal targets:

Labour - 48 (280)
Tories - 48 (378)
Lib Dems 16 (25 within a 5% swing total)
SNP 3 (For a complete sweep mind !)
Green 1.

Labour's dominance over minor left wing parties can be emphasised by the fact Bristol West was a marginal for the greens (Labour with over 40,000 votes there right now), and Ynys Mons (Where Labour were a 12-1 shot for ages) requires a 7+% swing for the blue team; Plaid are now 3rd there.

foxinsoxuk

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

I'm not sure what you wanted the Govt to do.

The existing law from 2011 required use of the 2015 registers.

The Govt doesn't control the registers - each Local Authority does - a complete mixture of Con, Lab, LD, NOC etc.

Also there has been plenty of analysis to show that register growth between 2015 and 2017 was similar in Con + Lab areas so it wouldn't actually have made any difference.

See BBC Reality Check - the conclusion of which states:

"So it is not clear that basing the boundary review on the June 2016 register would make things much better for Labour."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37351172

Whether basing it on June 2016 helps one party or another is beside the point. It would be more up to date. The register is 2 million different and those 2 million matter.

brendan16

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

A delay may no longer hurt the Tories as it used to, for after decades of depopulation, inner city areas are seeing their population rise.

You might expect London to get more seats - but of course not all those moving to London to increase the population are eligible to vote in general elections. Do they base the boundaries on all electors or just UK, Commonwewlth and Irish nationals who can vote in general elections?

dixiedean

brendan16 said:

Sean_F said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

A delay may no longer hurt the Tories as it used to, for after decades of depopulation, inner city areas are seeing their population rise.

You might expect London to get more seats - but of course not all those moving to London to increase the population are eligible to vote in general elections. Do they base the boundaries on all electors or just UK, Commonwewlth and Irish nationals who can vote in general elections?

The latter.

MikeL

dixiedean said:

foxinsoxuk said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Surely any re-drawing should use the latest boundaries? It's not as if they haven't got 4.5 years to do it.

The problem is that the Act brought in 5 year reviews in line with FTPA. I would have no quibble if it used the register from the previous election.
This system means we are looking at a 2022 election fought on a 2015 (flawed) Register.
We will then have a 2023 Review based on a 2020 register, when there will be a 2022 up-to-date Register just used for the Election!
Gotta love Dave. He really did think things through!!

That's not a fair criticism.

The issue is that each review takes almost 3 years because of the consultation process.

If you want to use the latest register then you would have to ditch the consultation - which would be extremely unpopular and lead to even more criticism.

I think the balance is reasonable - proper and thorough consultation even though that means register is a couple more years out of date.

No_Offence_Alan

dixiedean said:

foxinsoxuk said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

Surely any re-drawing should use the latest boundaries? It's not as if they haven't got 4.5 years to do it.

The problem is that the Act brought in 5 year reviews in line with FTPA. I would have no quibble if it used the register from the previous election.
This system means we are looking at a 2022 election fought on a 2015 (flawed) Register.
We will then have a 2023 Review based on a 2020 register, when there will be a 2022 up-to-date Register just used for the Election!
Gotta love Dave. He really did think things through!!

Dave didn't call the 2017 election to increase his majority.

dixiedean

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The boundaries are decades out of date.

Parliament doesn't need to "deal with" the boundaries, an independent commission does that! Parliament just needs to ratify what the independent commission has come up with.

Looking at the 2017 voting percentages to seats ratio, this version looks equally out of date, unless providing the Tories with an inbuilt advantage is the purpose of the update.

That comes about partially because of the use of 2015 registers under new criteria. Using more up-to-date data from 2017 GE (after a registration drive for the referendum and GE), would partially correct that.
The use of that data was specifically done for Party Political purposes.

How could that possibly be the case given that the use of the 2015 register is required under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 - ie a law passed in 2011:

2013 Review to use 2010 register
2018 Review to use 2015 register

Parliamentary Electors: source ONS.
2015 GE register 46 354 197
Dec 2015 register (used for boundary review) 44 722 200
2017 GE register 46 843 896.

That is not a coincidence. The registers were culled. No attempt was made to get people to re-register. They declined most in Labour areas. They rose again in the same areas (by and large), due to registration drives.
Therefore, the Register was used for purely Party political purposes.
Unless you think the population fell then rose again.

I'm not sure what you wanted the Govt to do.

The existing law from 2011 required use of the 2015 registers.

The Govt doesn't control the registers - each Local Authority does - a complete mixture of Con, Lab, LD, NOC etc.

Also there has been plenty of analysis to show that register growth between 2015 and 2017 was similar in Con + Lab areas so it wouldn't actually have made any significant difference in any case.

See BBC Reality Check - the conclusion of which states:

"So it is not clear that basing the boundary review on the June 2016 register would make things much better for Labour."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37351172

Not set arbitrary controls on what the Booundary Commission could do. It used to be relatively uncontroversial.
I agree that the overall difference might be counted on one hand, but as we saw in June, that can make a lot of difference.
Using the previous GE register seems common sense.
The existing law from 2011.
Yes that was the one which made it a problem in the first place.

Scrapheap_as_was

TheScreamingEagles said:

Spurs are an embarrassment in the Champions League.

Away from home they score one to get a draw.

While score Liverpool 7 (seven) away from home whilst Liverpool don't even concede one.

Sunday at Wembley will be a fun trip for me then..... how many spurs players do you have in your fantasy team could you remind me?

MikeL

dixiedean said:

Not set arbitrary controls on what the Booundary Commission could do. It used to be relatively uncontroversial.
I agree that the overall difference might be counted on one hand, but as we saw in June, that can make a lot of difference.
Using the previous GE register seems common sense.
The existing law from 2011.
Yes that was the one which made it a problem in the first place.

I agree that using the previous GE register would be sensible.

Though I note that would generally mean (*) using an older register than the current law sets out - and we've got another poster strongly arguing they want a more up to date register.

The bottom line is that the whole thing is complex and whatever method is used there will be complaints.

(*) assuming 5 year Parliaments.

AndyJS

Those who oppose any type of boundary review (even one that keeps the number of MPs at 650) are arguing in favour of sticking with boundaries that are based on electorates from February 2000. That means they would probably be more than 22 years out of date at the time of the next election.

dixiedean

AndyJS said:

Those who oppose any type of boundary review (even one that keeps the number of MPs at 650) are arguing in favour of keeping boundaries that are based on electorates from February 2000. That means they would probably be more than 22 years out of date at the time of the next election.

I am not sure anyone is arguing there should be NO boundary review.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/920414407309561857

AndyJS

Sunil_Prasannan said:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNELECTED PEERS!

They've been listening to you:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/17/peers-could-be-restricted-to-15-years-in-lords-in-drive-to-cut-numbers

dixiedean

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Not set arbitrary controls on what the Booundary Commission could do. It used to be relatively uncontroversial.
I agree that the overall difference might be counted on one hand, but as we saw in June, that can make a lot of difference.
Using the previous GE register seems common sense.
The existing law from 2011.
Yes that was the one which made it a problem in the first place.

I agree that using the previous GE register would be sensible.

Though I note that would generally mean (*) using an older register than the current law sets out - and we've got another poster strongly arguing they want a more up to date register.

The bottom line is that the whole thing is complex and whatever method is used there will be complaints.

(*) assuming 5 year Parliaments.

Indeed it is complex. I think we can agree on that. IF we support FPTP (that is another argument done to death on here and elsewhere), then surely even the suspicion of bias needs to be avoided at all costs.
It has not been in this case.

RobD

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe/status/920414407309561857

More splitters

kyf_100

FPT:

nielh said:

What is sexual harassment? If it involves unwanted touching, then surely it is sexual assault. If it is unwanted behaviour and communication, then it is something different and not necessarily a crime. In the workplace, companies need to have policies protecting workers from such activity. But it seems to me that, because of this, you can effectively make unlimited and endless accusations of sexual harrassment, anywhere, in any forum, without fear of retribution. You can ruin the perpetrators name and reputation and end their career, as we have seen with Weinstein, without any right of response. We've seen everyone from Hilary Clinton downwards destroy him in the course of about a week.

In my old job, a female colleague accused me of physical intimidation, saying I stood over her and raised my fist to her, threatening to hit her.

We had argued, sweary words were exchanged by both parties, but I remained seated at all times and was in no way physically threatening.

Luckily for me a) the accusation was not of a sexual nature and b) there was a witness who saw that I was seated and un-threatening at all times, despite the heated words. The case was dismissed.

But ever since that day I can't help but wonder what might have been, had said colleague accused me of sexual impropriety and there wasn't a witness present.

There is a fine line between calling out impropriety and a witch hunt turning into a license for people to ruin other people's careers.

Obviously bullies and pervs should be dealt with properly but the "guilty until proven innocent" in modern culture terrifies me.

justin124

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?

The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.

MikeL

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Not set arbitrary controls on what the Booundary Commission could do. It used to be relatively uncontroversial.
I agree that the overall difference might be counted on one hand, but as we saw in June, that can make a lot of difference.
Using the previous GE register seems common sense.
The existing law from 2011.
Yes that was the one which made it a problem in the first place.

I agree that using the previous GE register would be sensible.

Though I note that would generally mean (*) using an older register than the current law sets out - and we've got another poster strongly arguing they want a more up to date register.

The bottom line is that the whole thing is complex and whatever method is used there will be complaints.

(*) assuming 5 year Parliaments.

Indeed it is complex. I think we can agree on that. IF we support FPTP (that is another argument done to death on here and elsewhere), then surely even the suspicion of bias needs to be avoided at all costs.
It has not been in this case.

Well I think that's highly debatable.

I strongly suspect most Con supporters believe Lab supporters are objecting simply in order to delay the review.

And because it's complex, my view is there will always be scope for anyone to argue that the process is unfair in some way.

However the bottom line now is that it really just doesn't matter. Until a few years ago it was vital for Con to have boundary reviews. But population movements have now changed with most large cities increasing their population such that the boundaries are now pretty well back to being fair between Con and Lab without any review.

So no longer worth worrying about.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/920418158682476544

dixiedean

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

MikeL said:

dixiedean said:

Not set arbitrary controls on what the Booundary Commission could do. It used to be relatively uncontroversial.
I agree that the overall difference might be counted on one hand, but as we saw in June, that can make a lot of difference.
Using the previous GE register seems common sense.
The existing law from 2011.
Yes that was the one which made it a problem in the first place.

I agree that using the previous GE register would be sensible.

Though I note that would generally mean (*) using an older register than the current law sets out - and we've got another poster strongly arguing they want a more up to date register.

The bottom line is that the whole thing is complex and whatever method is used there will be complaints.

(*) assuming 5 year Parliaments.

Indeed it is complex. I think we can agree on that. IF we support FPTP (that is another argument done to death on here and elsewhere), then surely even the suspicion of bias needs to be avoided at all costs.
It has not been in this case.

Well I think that's highly debatable.

I strongly suspect most Con supporters believe Lab supporters are objecting simply in order to delay the review.

And because it's complex, my view is there will always be scope for anyone to argue that the process is unfair in some way.

However the bottom line now is that it really just doesn't matter. Until a few years ago it was vital for Con to have boundary reviews. But population movements have now changed with most large cities increasing their population such that the boundaries are now pretty well back to being fair between Con and Lab without any review.

So no longer worth worrying about.

Scotland was a really big factor in that. Lab was winning vast numbers of seats above the proportion of votes. The Cons now manage that in South (outside London). Now SLAB win far fewer seats than the votes would suggest (as do SCONS).
So, there is always a danger of fighting the previous battle.
Anyway, off to bed.
Thanks for engaging in constructive debate.

Danny565

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/920418158682476544

I give it 3 days before it fizzles out.

brendan16

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/920402064454356993

Perhaps they could just come together and call themselves the Waitrose party with my Waitrose membership cards.

Pro tech, pro EU, socially liberal and like free tea and coffee. A niche but superior (in more ways than one) market.

RobD

brendan16 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/920402064454356993

Perhaps they could just come together and call themselves the Waitrose party with my Waitrose membership cards.

Pro tech, pro EU, socially liberal and like free tea and coffee. A niche but superior (in more ways than one) market.

I’d like to know which parties are anti-tech

Charles

justin124 said:

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?

The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.

Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.

If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.

But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least

Danny565

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?

The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.

Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.

If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.

But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least

A previous Parliament made the decision, - and "no Parliament can bind the hands of its successor" or whatever the adage is.

PClipp

Charles said:

justin124 said:

The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.

Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.
If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.
But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least

The Boundary Commission is independent - yeah!!!! - but it has to follow the dictates of Parliament. Yeah!!! And Parliament decides to do whatever the majority of MPs decide - yeah!!! - and that is the Tory majority. Who naturally decide everything in the national interest, and not in the interest of the Conservative Party.... Yeah!!!!

Everything is rigged in favour of you Tories - which is why a lot of people are very cynical about our so-called democracy.

justin124

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Charles said:

justin124 said:

Surely the Government needs to act promptly to scrap this review and bring forward Legislation to facilitate a new Review based on 650 MPs. It usually takes three years so time is of the essence if the Tories wish to avoid fighting another election on unchanged boundaries.

So it's ok for MPs to continually frustrate an independent body in its attempts to implement the law?

The issue of contention is the reduction in the number of MPs rather than a Boundary Review per se. The latest Review is highly unlikely to command a majority so the obvious way forward is to return to the Status Quo Ante or something similar.

Sure it was controversial - and Parliament made its decision.

If MPs disagree they have every right to bring forward primary legislation to change the law.

But to frustrate the Commission in pursuit of its lawful obligations - for personal advantage in many cases - is unedifying the say the least

But the process has always required Parliamentary approval. The Boundary Commission has never been able to assume that its proposals would be accepted. This is paricularly likely to be the case given the highly contentious changes enacted by the Coalition Government.