politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The planned new boundaries give CON 40 more seats than LAB for

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The planned new boundaries give CON 40 more seats than LAB for the same national vote shares

One of the big political developments that could have a huge impact on the outcome of the next general election will come in the next two or three months when the final report of the Boundaries Commission comes out.

Read the full story here

Torby_Fennel

I'm certainly not going to defend FPTP but Labour's problems here have far more to do with the distribution of their vote and how huge it is in their strongest areas than it has to do with the specific boundaries.

GE 2017:

Seats where either Con or Lab scored 50-60% of the vote:
Con 155
Lab 107

Seats where either Con or Lab scored 60-70% of the vote:
Con 88
Lab 78

Seats where either Con or Lab scored 70-80% of the vote:
Con 0
Lab 27

Seats where either Con or Lab scored over 80%+ of the vote:
Con 0
Lab 10

There are no possible FPTP boundaries that wouldn't give Labour problems while their vote is astonishingly badly distributed. Having said that, if they took back a good number of the Scottish seats that the SNP quite narrowly hold over them then they'd make things look considerably less uneven in relation to the Conservatives.

DecrepitJohnL

Deleted.

DecrepitJohnL

The new boundaries, and how Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering led to Brexit.

Convinced Labour had an unfair advantage that gave it more seats per vote -- which was in fact mainly due to differential turnout -- CCHQ borrowed a cunning plan from the American Republican Party.

Step 1: purge electoral rolls. Erase people who have left; move to individual registration to make it just a little bit harder for new voters to register. This will mainly impact urban areas with fleeting and mobile populations. and university towns for the same reason. Get rid of the Brown family, which moved out last year, and hope the Smith family which just moved in has not yet registered. The aim is not to lose actual voters (although that would be a nice bonus) but to reduce the size of the rolls.

Step 2: redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters. Thanks to step 1, towns with transient populations will have smaller rolls, fewer registered voters, than their populations would suggest.

Step 3: reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Tell the papers some old guff about reducing the cost of parliament and trust them not to ask how much the hundreds of new Tory peers will cost. The real reason is this forces every constituency to be re-evaluated. In blunt party terms, regions that tend towards Labour will qualify for fewer constituencies. This means that in future, there will be fewer Labour MPs.

So that's the plan: make Labour-leaning areas seem smaller than they really are, then redraw all the constituency boundaries.

So how did it lead to Brexit? Well, the young and transient Labour-leaning voters were also more likely to vote Remain.

Eventually, the problem dawned on Downing Street that it was about to be hoist by its own petard, so the government launched a voter registration drive. It even, to the outrage of Leave campaigners, extended the deadline to register. Two million voters were registered in the last couple of months.

Too late. The brilliant wheeze that was to have led to Cameron's ten or fifteen year reign before handing over to George Osborne led directly to losing the referendum and their banishment from Downing Street.

Sandpit

I think most current Con MPs could be given a notional seat if they wanted one, possibly with a few kicked upstairs to wear ermine and sit on red benches, if that’s what’s required to get them to vote the changes through.

Labour are suffering from the same problem as the US Democrats, that they’re racking up huge majorities in safe inner-city seats but losing out in more marginal areas.

swing_voter

The trouble with the thin majority is that it relies on all Tory MPs voting in agreement, I think quite a few tory MPs would lose their seats under the new provision (Scottish Tories and also some of the English midlands). so the arithmetic is harder to reach. At a time when the UK population has grown, the original plan to trim MPs looks quite dated as the UK is about to hit a peak population, the arguments for more than 600 MPs looks compelling.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

IanB2

We don't actually have the final boundaries, as yet. I don't expect the changes (which are normally modest at the final stage) to affect the above analysis, but it remains nevertheless an important point that we are waiting for the commission, and then to get a sniff of which way Parliament is likely to go.

IanB2

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

IanB2

Sandpit said:

I think most current Con MPs could be given a notional seat if they wanted one, possibly with a few kicked upstairs to wear ermine and sit on red benches, if that’s what’s required to get them to vote the changes through.

Labour are suffering from the same problem as the US Democrats, that they’re racking up huge majorities in safe inner-city seats but losing out in more marginal areas.

The Tories always had an inbuilt bias from FPTnP for that reason. This was counter-balanced during the 1990s by the rise in tactical voting, and in particular the greater ability of the LibDems to pick up Tory seats. The fall back of the LDs and of anti-Tory Lab/LD switiching has helped the Tories considerably.

IanB2

Ian Austin's article, concluding with "Under his leadership, we have become a different party from the one I joined as a teenager to fight racism"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/29/angry-labour-antisemitism-ian-austin

JosiasJessop

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

Nigelb

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

At what point do the politics of a second referendum change from the current ‘it would be an insult to democracy’ ?
55/35 ... 60/30 ...(I’m assuming around 10% DK) ?

Dura_Ace

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

It is challenging to identify the cohort for whom Brexit will be a net positive. Perhaps people who install automated car washes? As long as none of the bits have to come from Europe.

Nigelb

Dura_Ace said:

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

It is challenging to identify the cohort for whom Brexit will be a net positive. Perhaps people who install automated car washes? As long as none of the bits have to come from Europe.

People desperate to pick fruit seasonally, but only for much higher wages ?

Nigelb

This unpleasant story will have consequences for the November House elections:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/ohio-state-sexual-abuse-scandal-jim-jordan-implausibly-says-he-and-others-didnt-know.html

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

Nigelb

DecrepitJohnL said:

The new boundaries, and how Cameron and Osborne's gerrymandering led to Brexit.

Convinced Labour had an unfair advantage that gave it more seats per vote -- which was in fact mainly due to differential turnout -- CCHQ borrowed a cunning plan from the American Republican Party.

Step 1: purge electoral rolls. Erase people who have left; move to individual registration to make it just a little bit harder for new voters to register. This will mainly impact urban areas with fleeting and mobile populations. and university towns for the same reason. Get rid of the Brown family, which moved out last year, and hope the Smith family which just moved in has not yet registered. The aim is not to lose actual voters (although that would be a nice bonus) but to reduce the size of the rolls.

Step 2: redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters. Thanks to step 1, towns with transient populations will have smaller rolls, fewer registered voters, than their populations would suggest.

Step 3: reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600. Tell the papers some old guff about reducing the cost of parliament and trust them not to ask how much the hundreds of new Tory peers will cost. The real reason is this forces every constituency to be re-evaluated. In blunt party terms, regions that tend towards Labour will qualify for fewer constituencies. This means that in future, there will be fewer Labour MPs.

So that's the plan: make Labour-leaning areas seem smaller than they really are, then redraw all the constituency boundaries.

So how did it lead to Brexit? Well, the young and transient Labour-leaning voters were also more likely to vote Remain.

Eventually, the problem dawned on Downing Street that it was about to be hoist by its own petard, so the government launched a voter registration drive. It even, to the outrage of Leave campaigners, extended the deadline to register. Two million voters were registered in the last couple of months.

Too late. The brilliant wheeze that was to have led to Cameron's ten or fifteen year reign before handing over to George Osborne led directly to losing the referendum and their banishment from Downing Street.

While there might be some degree of justification for your complaints, the truth is that only PR would render the system fair. The biggest reason Labour is disadvantaged is differential voter distribution rather than gerrymandering.

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

DecrepitJohnL

Nigelb said:

This unpleasant story will have consequences for the November House elections:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/ohio-state-sexual-abuse-scandal-jim-jordan-implausibly-says-he-and-others-didnt-know.html

Perhaps. I'd class it under things people think ought to be important but turn out not to be. Most events fall into this group. One GOP congressman is on a sticky wicket but whether it will affect votes for candidates elsewhere in the country is open to doubt.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

RochdalePioneers

Boundary Review will arrive DOA. MPs have other things to concern themselves about, and when many would lose their seats to a review that the Boundary Review describes as flawed (not allowing the reregistered voters to count), it's not getting passed.

SquareRoot

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Constituency boundaries need to be based on something, and any 'something' can be biased by those of ill-will. You're not even able to propose an alternative system, just complain that you don't like the currently-proposed system.

I'd love a answer to this, as I can't see how constituency boundaries could currently be based on a population-based system (and especially one that might not have similar disadvantages to the current system).

BTW, I think you're being ridiculous to blame Brexit on the constituencies.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Smithson, you're not the only person who thought May might prove rather smarter than she is.

DecrepitJohnL

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

rkrkrk

The case for reducing the number of MPs is particularly weak.
I'd rather see us go the other way, have MPs representing smaller constituencies and therefore hopefully being closer to the people they represent. Having a larger talent pool to choose from when it comes to Ministerial appointments, select committees etc. could also be a good thing.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Constituency boundaries need to be based on something, and any 'something' can be biased by those of ill-will. You're not even able to propose an alternative system, just complain that you don't like the currently-proposed system.

I'd love a answer to this, as I can't see how constituency boundaries could currently be based on a population-based system (and especially one that might not have similar disadvantages to the current system).

BTW, I think you're being ridiculous to blame Brexit on the constituencies.

No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.

This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

I am far from convinced that IVR was 'gerrymandering'. Care to expand?

I'm also far far from convinced it had anything to do with Leave winning the Brexit referendum.

Perhaps, rather than shaking your fist at the sun, you should start at first principles and come up with an alternative workable scheme?

Pulpstar

The Tories are 40 ahead, but there are 40 SNP, PC and Greens in this scenario too.

anothernick

RochdalePioneers said:

Boundary Review will arrive DOA. MPs have other things to concern themselves about, and when many would lose their seats to a review that the Boundary Review describes as flawed (not allowing the reregistered voters to count), it's not getting passed.

No. There's no way this hung, not to say paralysed, parliament will agree to a boundary review - the losers will find a reason to kill it.

FF43

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

Employment shortages due to any reduced immigration might in the short term boost employment opportunities, despite a concurrent recession. Hedge fund managers, who backed Leave and fund the Conservative Party make their considerable profits from uncertainty.

But not many. Even double locked pensioners need to use healthcare.

rkrkrk

DecrepitJohnL said:

No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.

This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369

Another sub-plot was not giving 16 y/olds the vote in the Referendum, because of the worry that they would vote Labour if the principle were extended to give them the vote in a general election. But Brexit was lost for a number of reasons, and there were several things which could have swung it either way.

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

I am far from convinced that IVR was 'gerrymandering'. Care to expand?

I'm also far far from convinced it had anything to do with Leave winning the Brexit referendum.

Perhaps, rather than shaking your fist at the sun, you should start at first principles and come up with an alternative workable scheme?

Or rather, come up with an alternative workable scheme that gives Labour an inbuilt advantge again! Only then will his mewling abate.....

AlastairMeeks

rkrkrk said:

The case for reducing the number of MPs is particularly weak.
I'd rather see us go the other way, have MPs representing smaller constituencies and therefore hopefully being closer to the people they represent. Having a larger talent pool to choose from when it comes to Ministerial appointments, select committees etc. could also be a good thing.

The long tail of politicians seems rather short. 200 MPs could be lost from Parliament without any noticeable deterioration in the quality of representation of the public. Actually, make that 300.

The problem is in the range of views represented. In a country where a minority believe that any political party represents them, we need to move to a more proportionate system to allow for much greater diversity of voices heard.

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.

This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369

Again, I am far from convinced that the changes would have come anywhere near overturning leave's win. Do you have any figures to back up your assertion (and that such voters would have been for remain)?

As for your second paragraph, you might want to read the link you gave:
"It comes after the government website for registering voters failed just before Tuesday's original deadline."

So the emergency legislation and extension was because of a system crash, rather than some nefarious plan. I can imagine if they had not done so, you'd be complaining that the government stopped people from voting!

IanB2

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

If?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

It's also worth noting that, whilst the transition to IVR did lose some genuine electors off the resister - people who for whatever reason didn't get their paperwork or onljjne registration in order in time - it also removed a lot of entries for people who weren't genuine electors. Or, mostly and more properly, people who had once been genuine electors at that address, but had moved away. Under the old system most councils left people on the register at an address unless they were explicitly deleted by a new registration for the same address; if no registration came in, eventually canvassers would be sent out to try and establish who lived there. And it wasn't uncommon, particularly for subdivided properties, to have the 'old' residents and 'new' residents all on the list together. Confusion on addressing was also common with entries for 49a and garden flat, 49 often being the same address.

Anyone who has ever canvassed in an urban area will know how many register entries there used to be for people who had gone away, as well as some for people who shouldn't have been on the register in the first place.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

I am far from convinced that IVR was 'gerrymandering'. Care to expand?

I'm also far far from convinced it had anything to do with Leave winning the Brexit referendum.

Perhaps, rather than shaking your fist at the sun, you should start at first principles and come up with an alternative workable scheme?

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

Foxy

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

The change that should be made to Registration is to include those foreign nationals with permanant residency, once the post Brexit process id defined. This should apply to Commonwealth citizens too. It is absurd that a Mozambique national can vote within weeks of arrival, while an EU citizen resident for decades cannot. I would suggest 5 year residency for both.

What Labour needs to do to counter the Tories in rural and suburban seats is to establish appeal to older voters, or for tacit electoral pacts with the LDs to reappear. There can be surprising Lab strength in shire areas, but not enough to win. I am thinking of my own Harborough constituency where Lab got 30%, or Huntington which was about the same.

Leverage works both ways, and there is a tipping point around 40% where a lot of seats flip. After the 2015 LD obliteration, Lab are second in a large swathe of Shire England. Corbyn needs to improve appeal to just a few more of these voters to gain his majority.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

This is gerrymandering, or one variant of it: temporarily and artificially reducing the number of qualified voters in your opponents' strongholds and then neutrally drawing constituency boundaries based on that. The reason for the reduction to 600 MPs is simply to ensure that every constituency is reviewed.

rkrkrk

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

The case for reducing the number of MPs is particularly weak.
I'd rather see us go the other way, have MPs representing smaller constituencies and therefore hopefully being closer to the people they represent. Having a larger talent pool to choose from when it comes to Ministerial appointments, select committees etc. could also be a good thing.

The long tail of politicians seems rather short. 200 MPs could be lost from Parliament without any noticeable deterioration in the quality of representation of the public. Actually, make that 300.

The problem is in the range of views represented. In a country where a minority believe that any political party represents them, we need to move to a more proportionate system to allow for much greater diversity of voices heard.

Agree on the voting system, but unfortunately I suspect the combination of losing the AV referendum and the weakness of the Lib Dems means that is off the table for a long time.

I've never met or even seen my MP and I think that would be true of the vast majority of people I know. If you increase constituency sizes to 100k then that would exacerbate the problem further.

There are what 80-100 Ministerial jobs? So a parliament of 350 could basically mean 1/2 the governing party are Ministers... that doesn't seem optimal to me.

rkrkrk

Also - my thanks to whoever it was who tipped Hamilton to win the GP at 4/1.
Don't normally bet on F1, but pleased I did this time...

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

You complain about the use of electoral rolls for setting constituency size, yet are unable to come up with an alternative system. You are being silly.

"As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU."

Is there evidence for that claim, and for the numbers thereof?

RochdalePioneers

You're arguong over something that is politically dead. Will not happen.

AlastairMeeks

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

The case for reducing the number of MPs is particularly weak.
I'd rather see us go the other way, have MPs representing smaller constituencies and therefore hopefully being closer to the people they represent. Having a larger talent pool to choose from when it comes to Ministerial appointments, select committees etc. could also be a good thing.

The long tail of politicians seems rather short. 200 MPs could be lost from Parliament without any noticeable deterioration in the quality of representation of the public. Actually, make that 300.

The problem is in the range of views represented. In a country where a minority believe that any political party represents them, we need to move to a more proportionate system to allow for much greater diversity of voices heard.

Agree on the voting system, but unfortunately I suspect the combination of losing the AV referendum and the weakness of the Lib Dems means that is off the table for a long time.

I've never met or even seen my MP and I think that would be true of the vast majority of people I know. If you increase constituency sizes to 100k then that would exacerbate the problem further.

There are what 80-100 Ministerial jobs? So a parliament of 350 could basically mean 1/2 the governing party are Ministers... that doesn't seem optimal to me.

Get rid of 30 non-jobs in government as well. They’re all rotated so much they don’t really get to make coherent decisions anyway.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.

This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369

Again, I am far from convinced that the changes would have come anywhere near overturning leave's win. Do you have any figures to back up your assertion (and that such voters would have been for remain)?

As for your second paragraph, you might want to read the link you gave:
"It comes after the government website for registering voters failed just before Tuesday's original deadline."

So the emergency legislation and extension was because of a system crash, rather than some nefarious plan. I can imagine if they had not done so, you'd be complaining that the government stopped people from voting!

The registration drive -- the one whose deadline was extended -- only existed because the government belatedly recognised it had shot itself in the foot. And Leave were opposed because they too realised what it meant.

IanB2

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

The case for reducing the number of MPs is particularly weak.
I'd rather see us go the other way, have MPs representing smaller constituencies and therefore hopefully being closer to the people they represent. Having a larger talent pool to choose from when it comes to Ministerial appointments, select committees etc. could also be a good thing.

The long tail of politicians seems rather short. 200 MPs could be lost from Parliament without any noticeable deterioration in the quality of representation of the public. Actually, make that 300.

The problem is in the range of views represented. In a country where a minority believe that any political party represents them, we need to move to a more proportionate system to allow for much greater diversity of voices heard.

Agree on the voting system, but unfortunately I suspect the combination of losing the AV referendum and the weakness of the Lib Dems means that is off the table for a long time.

I've never met or even seen my MP and I think that would be true of the vast majority of people I know. If you increase constituency sizes to 100k then that would exacerbate the problem further.

There are what 80-100 Ministerial jobs? So a parliament of 350 could basically mean 1/2 the governing party are Ministers... that doesn't seem optimal to me.

And it is important to recognise that MPs do get a lot of casework - internet and email make it much easier to identify and contact the local MP than heretofore - and already the amount of oversight MPs are able to give this (the actual grunt work being done by staff) is limited.

Reform hangs, as ever, on Labour, which should have kept its promise to sort this out last time. So long as Labour supports reform only when opposition (and, this time, not even then) then it is unlikely to happen.

JosiasJessop

Foxy said:

The change that should be made to Registration is to include those foreign nationals with permanant residency, once the post Brexit process id defined. This should apply to Commonwealth citizens too. It is absurd that a Mozambique national can vote within weeks of arrival, while an EU citizen resident for decades cannot. I would suggest 5 year residency for both.

What Labour needs to do to counter the Tories in rural and suburban seats is to establish appeal to older voters, or for tacit electoral pacts with the LDs to reappear. There can be surprising Lab strength in shire areas, but not enough to win. I am thinking of my own Harborough constituency where Lab got 30%, or Huntington which was about the same.

Leverage works both ways, and there is a tipping point around 40% where a lot of seats flip. After the 2015 LD obliteration, Lab are second in a large swathe of Shire England. Corbyn needs to improve appeal to just a few more of these voters to gain his majority.

I think that's a fair post.

NickPalmer

DecrepitJohnL said:

<

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

Yes, that's the best description I've seen so far, and a good analogy. A system that gives a party a 40-seat lead on identical vote share is prima facie unfair, but the effect is achieved quite subtly.

In my view, an appropriate Labour response will be to pledge that when elected (which will happen sooner or later), we will ask the Boundary Commission to define boundaries in accordance with the best estimate by the census of the number of people in each area entitled to vote. That avoids skewing the system to constituencies with settled populations (which tend to be rural and Tory).

rkrkrk

IanB2 said:

Reform hangs, as ever, on Labour, which should have kept its promise to sort this out last time. So long as Labour supports reform only when opposition (and, this time, not even then) then it is unlikely to happen.

Yes, agree 100%.

IanB2

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

No, you have misunderstood. Brexit was lost because of the reduction in electoral rolls caused by making registration harder -- this reduced voters in Labour areas but also, crucially for Brexit, excluded Remain-leaning voters. A measure taken for one reason (gerrymandering) blew back in EUref.

This is why the government, once it belatedly realised the implications of what it had done, set out on a registration drive which added two million voters in just a few weeks. It even passed emergency legislation to extend the registration deadline, which led to Leave threatening judicial review.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486369

Again, I am far from convinced that the changes would have come anywhere near overturning leave's win. Do you have any figures to back up your assertion (and that such voters would have been for remain)?

As for your second paragraph, you might want to read the link you gave:
"It comes after the government website for registering voters failed just before Tuesday's original deadline."

So the emergency legislation and extension was because of a system crash, rather than some nefarious plan. I can imagine if they had not done so, you'd be complaining that the government stopped people from voting!

The registration drive -- the one whose deadline was extended -- only existed because the government belatedly recognised it had shot itself in the foot. And Leave were opposed because they too realised what it meant.

I don't believe this, either. The people who didn't, for whatever reason, jump through the relatively easy IER hoops, despite multiple reminders, must be less likely to actually turn out than voters in general. And, whilst such people are probably more likely to be Labour (non-) voters, they are also more likely to be Labour leave voters, except perhaps for the ethnic minority proportion.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

You complain about the use of electoral rolls for setting constituency size, yet are unable to come up with an alternative system. You are being silly.

"As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU."

Is there evidence for that claim, and for the numbers thereof?

No I am not complaining -- I am *explaining* how a gerrymandering attempt cost the referendum.

CarlottaVance

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

At least its not the 'J-word'.....

rkrkrk

Foxy said:

What Labour needs to do to counter the Tories in rural and suburban seats is to establish appeal to older voters, or for tacit electoral pacts with the LDs to reappear. There can be surprising Lab strength in shire areas, but not enough to win. I am thinking of my own Harborough constituency where Lab got 30%, or Huntington which was about the same.

Agree on this - but I think with the current focus/worry about Labour members who have previously supported other parties, this kind of local pact may be very difficult to achieve.

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

You complain about the use of electoral rolls for setting constituency size, yet are unable to come up with an alternative system. You are being silly.

"As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU."

Is there evidence for that claim, and for the numbers thereof?

No I am not complaining -- I am *explaining* how a gerrymandering attempt cost the referendum.

No. You are talking rubbish. It was not a gerrymandering attempt, and it did not cost the referendum. Again, if you believe it to be the case, please show us the evidence.

Foxy

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023792652767186949

I would love to ask a supplementary question of those 31% who think Brexit "will be good for them personally". They can't all be deluded fishermen.

The most significant statistic in the poll is that Remain now leads Leave (hard and soft combined) by 48% to 40%.

I would say the 78% vs 10% split over whether the government is doing a bad/good job over Brexit is even more striking for a government that has few other policies. It is hard not to see that translating to votes against Con at the next GE.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).

williamglenn

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

DecrepitJohnL

rkrkrk said:

Also - my thanks to whoever it was who tipped Hamilton to win the GP at 4/1.
Don't normally bet on F1, but pleased I did this time...

And my thanks too to the pb F1 tipsters -- Hamilton on pole and Hamilton to win. Kerching, as they say.

AlastairMeeks

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

rkrkrk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. rkrkrk, not really a subplot. Schoolkids can't vote. They've never been able to vote (except in Scotland, where the SNP hoped they'd be more interested in leaving the UK).

There was a big discussion about it. I have no doubt Dave would have been cynical enough to give them the vote, had he not been concerned about the implications for general elections. And you can of course leave school at 16.

IanB2

NickPalmer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

<

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

Yes, that's the best description I've seen so far, and a good analogy. A system that gives a party a 40-seat lead on identical vote share is prima facie unfair, but the effect is achieved quite subtly.

In my view, an appropriate Labour response will be to pledge that when elected (which will happen sooner or later), we will ask the Boundary Commission to define boundaries in accordance with the best estimate by the census of the number of people in each area entitled to vote. That avoids skewing the system to constituencies with settled populations (which tend to be rural and Tory).

It's not a good analogy at all. The over-70s aren't analogous because, unlike the demographics who tend to be lost by IER, the over-70s have a very high propensity to vote. Certainly, everyone should be registered, but someone not registered who wouldn't have voted anyway cannot have affected the referendum result. Where are the reports of many people who wanted to participate but were turned away?

You're right that IER favours settled areas (although this is in part because the old system inflated electorates in transient areas). You are wrong that the 40-seat Tory lead is because of IER. It is mostly because there are more Labour (or more correctly non-Tory) voters in safe Tory seats than there are Tory (non-Labour) voters in safe Labour seats. Hence the unfairness of FPTnP "wastes" more Labour votes than Tory ones.

But the whole system is rotten to its core and you should have sorted this out when you had the chance.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

The change that should be made to Registration is to include those foreign nationals with permanant residency, once the post Brexit process id defined. This should apply to Commonwealth citizens too. It is absurd that a Mozambique national can vote within weeks of arrival, while an EU citizen resident for decades cannot. I would suggest 5 year residency for both.

What Labour needs to do to counter the Tories in rural and suburban seats is to establish appeal to older voters, or for tacit electoral pacts with the LDs to reappear. There can be surprising Lab strength in shire areas, but not enough to win. I am thinking of my own Harborough constituency where Lab got 30%, or Huntington which was about the same.

Leverage works both ways, and there is a tipping point around 40% where a lot of seats flip. After the 2015 LD obliteration, Lab are second in a large swathe of Shire England. Corbyn needs to improve appeal to just a few more of these voters to gain his majority.

Yes, there’s a definite tipping point. As others have pointed out that the majority of the Lab deficit can be explained by Scotland, where Lab have lost 40 seats since 2010.

You make a good point about registration of foreign residents. With the possible exception of Ireland there shouldn’t be any discrimination based on nationality, so you’d be either a Citizen or a Resident. I’m guessing that EU law led to the current complexities in this area.

I wonder how much appetite there is for a Lib/Lab pact from the Labour side, although as you say in certain areas it would definitely be beneficial. My parents live quite near you, they recently moved one villlage and two miles down the road, and in doing so went from a Con/Lab marginal (Corby) to a safe Con seat (Rutland and Melton). It would certainly make sense for the Libs to stand aside in the former, and historically for Lab to stand aside in the latter - although they came second last year as the LDs collapsed.

ydoethur

rkrkrk said:

And you can of course leave school at 16.

Depending on your definition of 'school.'

https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

Sandpit

rkrkrk said:

Also - my thanks to whoever it was who tipped Hamilton to win the GP at 4/1.
Don't normally bet on F1, but pleased I did this time...

That was @Nigelb’s tip. A very good price.

IanB2

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

You keep using the “G-word” without

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

The change that should be made to Registration is to include those foreign nationals with permanant residency, once the post Brexit process id defined. This should apply to Commonwealth citizens too. It is absurd that a Mozambique national can vote within weeks of arrival, while an EU citizen resident for decades cannot. I would suggest 5 year residency for both.

What Labour needs to do to counter the Tories in rural and suburban seats is to establish appeal to older voters, or for tacit electoral pacts with the LDs to reappear. There can be surprising Lab strength in shire areas, but not enough to win. I am thinking of my own Harborough constituency where Lab got 30%, or Huntington which was about the same.

Leverage works both ways, and there is a tipping point around 40% where a lot of seats flip. After the 2015 LD obliteration, Lab are second in a large swathe of Shire England. Corbyn needs to improve appeal to just a few more of these voters to gain his majority.

Yes, there’s a definite tipping point. As others have pointed out that the majority of the Lab deficit can be explained by Scotland, where Lab have lost 40 seats since 2010.

You make a good point about registration of foreign residents. With the possible exception of Ireland there shouldn’t be any discrimination based on nationality, so you’d be either a Citizen or a Resident. I’m guessing that EU law led to the current complexities in this area.

I wonder how much appetite there is for a Lib/Lab pact from the Labour side, although as you say in certain areas it would definitely be beneficial. My parents live quite near you, they recently moved one villlage and two miles down the road, and in doing so went from a Con/Lab marginal (Corby) to a safe Con seat (Rutland and Melton). It would certainly make sense for the Libs to stand aside in the former, and historically for Lab to stand aside in the latter - although they came second last year as the LDs collapsed.

The problem here is that, whilst Labour is now second in many of these Tory shire seats, their effective vote ceiling is lower than the potential one for a third party, since there is a sizeable cohort of people who would consider switching from Tory to LibDem who would never ever vote Labour, and more of these than people who would vote Labour to the last, even if the seat become a LibDem target.

Mortimer

RochdalePioneers said:

You're arguong over something that is politically dead. Will not happen.

Disagree.

News from Westminister is that the Govt do have the votes for it.

And minority governments tend to make whips especially good at counting....

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

This is gerrymandering, or one variant of it: temporarily and artificially reducing the number of qualified voters in your opponents' strongholds and then neutrally drawing constituency boundaries based on that. The reason for the reduction to 600 MPs is simply to ensure that every constituency is reviewed.

The plan was to redraw the boundaries with 600 seats before the change to IVR. The reason it actually happened the other way round is that Nick Clegg got upset that his plans for reform of the Lords were crap and had no support.

It’s really not gerrymandering.

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

IVR was not in itself gerrymandering. Rather, it was one step in a chain that together was designed for gerrymandering. Make Labour areas seem smaller by the measure used for constituencies: the electoral rolls. Then cut the number of MPs to 600 so that every single constituency has to be reviewed -- increasing the number to 700 would have worked as well but would be harder to sell to the papers.

Suppose Labour had the same idea. They could have required everyone over 70 to re-register. In time, the over-70s would do this so no harm done, right? Now put a comprehensive boundary review in place before they'd had time to re-register and Surrey would qualify for fewer MPs. What the Conservatives did was not aimed primarily at voter suppression but artificially reducing the apparent population (or number of registered voters) in Labour-leaning areas.

As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU. That is why the government first launched and then extended its registration drive. That this drive added two million voters shows that at least that many were missing from the rolls beforehand. Downing Street knew that -- because that had been the plan all along.

You complain about the use of electoral rolls for setting constituency size, yet are unable to come up with an alternative system. You are being silly.

"As for the connection with Brexit, the problem for the Remain side was the same "missing" voters tended to favour staying in the EU."

Is there evidence for that claim, and for the numbers thereof?

No I am not complaining -- I am *explaining* how a gerrymandering attempt cost the referendum.

No. You are talking rubbish. It was not a gerrymandering attempt, and it did not cost the referendum. Again, if you believe it to be the case, please show us the evidence.

On gerrymandering: the mechanism is straight out of the GOP playbook; the provided rationale, cutting MPs to save money, was belied by creating hundreds of new Tory peers.

That it excluded voters: the late registration drive added two million, suggesting at least two million should have been on there already.

That excluded voters tended to be support leave. We know from polls and results that Labour areas were more likely to vote Remain, as were younger people (more likely to be mobile and not registered) and educated people (more likely to be students and not registered).

That it cost the referendum: HMG thought so, hence the registration drive. Leave thought so, hence it opposed the registration drive. See earlier links or Shipman's book.

And if you hang on till Christmas, we can see what David Cameron says in his memoirs.

Sandpit

IanB2 said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

.

Yes, there’s a definite tipping point. As others have pointed out that the majority of the Lab deficit can be explained by Scotland, where Lab have lost 40 seats since 2010.

You make a good point about registration of foreign residents. With the possible exception of Ireland there shouldn’t be any discrimination based on nationality, so you’d be either a Citizen or a Resident. I’m guessing that EU law led to the current complexities in this area.

I wonder how much appetite there is for a Lib/Lab pact from the Labour side, although as you say in certain areas it would definitely be beneficial. My parents live quite near you, they recently moved one villlage and two miles down the road, and in doing so went from a Con/Lab marginal (Corby) to a safe Con seat (Rutland and Melton). It would certainly make sense for the Libs to stand aside in the former, and historically for Lab to stand aside in the latter - although they came second last year as the LDs collapsed.

The problem here is that, whilst Labour is now second in many of these Tory shire seats, their effective vote ceiling is lower than the potential one for a third party, since there is a sizeable cohort of people who would consider switching from Tory to LibDem who would never ever vote Labour, and more of these than people who would vote Labour to the last, even if the seat become a LibDem target.

Agreed. It’s going to be very difficult to get the party that came second last time to withdraw, especially given the fanatical nature of some of the new Lab supporters. Rutland is actually a really good example of this phenomenon, it could be an LD target but never a Lab target.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_and_Melton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

JosiasJessop

Sort of on-topic:

And we think we have problems with voter registration:

"Assam: Four million risk losing India citizenship"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45002549

IanB2

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

This is not the USA where the boundaries are drawn up by the parties for their own advantage, the impartial Boundaries Commission is responsible for the lines and they don’t care too much for what politicians think about their approach.

The change to IVR was long overdue, and came as a result of a number of court cases, one of which famously resulted in a judge describing the system as like “a banana republic” so endemic was the fraud perpetuated. Registration can be done online and takes only a couple of minutes, it’s not as if people have to travel to an office that’s only open for an hour every other Thursday.

The plan was for the 600 seat boundaries to be done before the IVR change, but due to coalition problems that never happened so we now have them the other way around.

This is gerrymandering, or one variant of it: temporarily and artificially reducing the number of qualified voters in your opponents' strongholds and then neutrally drawing constituency boundaries based on that. The reason for the reduction to 600 MPs is simply to ensure that every constituency is reviewed.

The plan was to redraw the boundaries with 600 seats before the change to IVR. The reason it actually happened the other way round is that Nick Clegg got upset that his plans for reform of the Lords were crap and had no support.

It’s really not gerrymandering.

IER was originally a cross-party proposal. The only thing that smells a little bit is that the Tories became very keen to press ahead faster than most experts thought sensible when it was clear that the first year of the new system could be the base that would be used for the latest boundary review.

Pulpstar

Mortimer said:

RochdalePioneers said:

You're arguong over something that is politically dead. Will not happen.

Disagree.

News from Westminister is that the Govt do have the votes for it.

And minority governments tend to make whips especially good at counting....

You have to remember that the 'normal' rebels (Soubry, Clarke, Hoey, Field etc) will vote with their party on this one (It isn't EU related !) - of course there might be other rebels BUT I think the Gov't will be able to get it through.
The changes favourable vis a vis the DUP probably carry it.

Nigelb

DecrepitJohnL said:

Nigelb said:

This unpleasant story will have consequences for the November House elections:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/ohio-state-sexual-abuse-scandal-jim-jordan-implausibly-says-he-and-others-didnt-know.html

Perhaps. I'd class it under things people think ought to be important but turn out not to be. Most events fall into this group. One GOP congressman is on a sticky wicket but whether it will affect votes for candidates elsewhere in the country is open to doubt.

‘One GOP congressman’ in contention for the House speakership, and at the forefront of the attacks on the Mueller investigation. The analogy would be a scandal involving a member of the cabinet rather than an anonymous backbencher.
This is a nasty story, and it looks likely to go on for months.

Gardenwalker

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

The Tories are 40 ahead, but there are 40 SNP, PC and Greens in this scenario too.

Which rather gives the game away as to where the "bias" is to be found. Pre-2015 the vast majority of SNP seats were Labour and had been for decades. If that was still the case then the gap between the main parties would be more like 10 than 40. The problem for Labour is that their collapse in Scotland means a lot of natural territory for them is no longer producing Labour MPs and unless that changes they will have a lot of "wasted" votes making the system work against them. Talk of gerrymandering is far off the mark.

JackW

CarlottaVance said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

You keep using the “G-word” without understanding its meaning.

At least its not the 'J-word'.....

JACOBITE ....

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

On gerrymandering: the mechanism is straight out of the GOP playbook; the provided rationale, cutting MPs to save money, was belied by creating hundreds of new Tory peers.

That it excluded voters: the late registration drive added two million, suggesting at least two million should have been on there already.

That excluded voters tended to be support leave. We know from polls and results that Labour areas were more likely to vote Remain, as were younger people (more likely to be mobile and not registered) and educated people (more likely to be students and not registered).

That it cost the referendum: HMG thought so, hence the registration drive. Leave thought so, hence it opposed the registration drive. See earlier links or Shipman's book.

And if you hang on till Christmas, we can see what David Cameron says in his memoirs.

Can I read this "GOP playbook", please? It sounds interesting.

So you have zero evidence for your assertions, just hand-wavium to back up what you want to believe. Tories gerrymander. The EU vote was stolen by the gerrymandering.

They're both rubbish, and you have no evidence. You also have no solutions.

NickPalmer

I understand that Anna Soubry's constituency association chair has resigned, saying that he is unable to resolve differences with AS.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anna-soubry-conservative-brexit-broxtowe-eu-nottinghamshire-john-doddy-a8423126.html

Nigelb

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer:

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

I've just seen in the news that the Cameroon/Goveite think tank Policy Exchange has called for ID cards, so that would be one way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45001916

Come to think of it, censuses might be a once-a-decade event but how often are boundaries reviewed?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

It’s hardly US style gerrymandering, though I’m entirely willing to accept the government put their thumb on the scale.
In any event, the only solution to the problem you complain about is PR. Are you willing to advocate that ?

There may have been some effect on the referendum, but I’m extremely sceptical that it tipped the balance.

IanB2

For those of you wanting an academic analysis of the question of electoral bias, this is a good read:


http://www.crickcentre.org/blog/electoral-bias-in-the-uk-after-the-2015-general-election/

CarlottaVance

Hunt in China:

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1023824997096345600

AlastairMeeks

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

ydoethur

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

If I were scrabbling for a positive in that, I would say at least Theresa May has united the country on something.

williamglenn

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

Since we've been getting polls based on Greening's referendum terms, I believe this is the highest first and second preference for Remain and the lowest for No Deal.

Sandpit

CarlottaVance said:

Hunt in China:

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1023824997096345600

I imagine he’ll be taken somewhat more seriously by the Chinese than his predecessor.

CarlottaVance

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-eu-judges-are-given-the-final-say-in-key-disputes-c8h8055mv

IanB2

Nigelb said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

@DecrepitJohnL

I think this has been discussed before

" redraw constituency boundaries based on the new rolls. Not on populations but on registered voters."

If you want to redraw constituency boundaries based on populations, on what basis do you get that up-to-date population data given a census is once every ten years?

The ID cards don't exist, so that's a non-starter at the moment and your proposed system cannot use them.

If you're proposing an alternative system to the electoral roll, you must have a clear idea of what you want so we can critique it.

I'm not proposing an alternative system. I'm saying the current system is part of the rationale for Cameron's gerrymandering. If constituencies are based on the rolls, then you can bias the result by reducing, even temporarily, the size of the rolls in Labour-leaning areas -- make them seem smaller and so qualify for fewer constituencies. So that is what they did.

And that is why Brexit won.

Were you whining about Labour's inbuilt bias when it was operating and giving Labour such an advantage??

Labour's supposed advantage was largely due to differential turnout. Tory voters in safe seats were more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe seats. John Major, for instance, racked up majorities of 30,000 or more when only one was needed.

Naive averaging might have convinced Conservatives they were unfairly treated but more interesting is the method of gerrymandering -- taken from the Republican Party in the United States -- and that it inadvertently led to losing the Brexit referendum.

It’s hardly US style gerrymandering, though I’m entirely willing to accept the government put their thumb on the scale.
In any event, the only solution to the problem you complain about is PR. Are you willing to advocate that ?

There may have been some effect on the referendum, but I’m extremely sceptical that it tipped the balance.

I doubt there was any bias, but insofar as any people did turn up on the day to find that they weren't on the register, my guess would be that this didn't harm Remain.

We need to recognise that both the main parties are arguing entirely from self interest, not principle, since the old loose registration system marginally favoured Labour.

The actual difference that a minor degree of under- or over-representation makes across the country by impacting on where boundaries are drawn is tiny, compared to the biases already hard-wired into the voting system by dint of its ignoring or "wasting" a majority of the votes that are cast.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1023824856440365056

IanB2

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

This is the reason why I have been pointing towards the second referendum since way back when it was generally considered inconceivable. And also, of course, why Leave managed to win the referendum, the lack of actual proposition allowing them to unite people who all wanted different things.

AlastairMeeks

Meanwhile, a contender for the tweet of the year:

https://twitter.com/LeslieCockburn/status/1023701334434959362

Sandpit

NickPalmer said:

I understand that Anna Soubry's constituency association chair has resigned, saying that he is unable to resolve differences with AS.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/anna-soubry-conservative-brexit-broxtowe-eu-nottinghamshire-john-doddy-a8423126.html

I’m sure that a number of her constituency party would at this point prefer their old Labour MP back. At least they knew where they stood with him, could argue against his views from the outside rather than inside their own party.

Slackbladder

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, a contender for the tweet of the year:

https://twitter.com/LeslieCockburn/status/1023701334434959362

Riggleman and Cockburn? are these real names in this context?

archer101au

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.

Nigelb

archer101au said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.

You are whistling in the dark. If public opinion shifts significantly, there could well be another referendum, and boycotting it is as much of a choice as voting - as your previous comments on remainers who failed to vote the first time round make abundantly clear.

IanB2

Also worth remembering that any "boundary bias" arising from non-registration of people who didn't make an IER application will be dwarfed by the (still small) effect of the many register entries that are, legitimately or otherwise, duplicates - students registered both at home and uni (which counter-intuitively probably favours the Tories), landlords (counter-intuitively probably favouring Labour) and second/holiday home owners.

Of all of these I suspect the last is the largest effect and surely favours the Tories - in some English coastal towns the number of properties that are empty in the winter can be around 25%, many with their owners on the register, leading to such Tory-leaning seats being over-represented compared to their permanent populations.

AlastairMeeks

archer101au said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.

Try and understand. At no point did I say there would be another referendum.

But there might be, if it was clear enough early enough that public opinion had decisively shifted.

IanB2

archer101au said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.

It is still probably less likely than not - but over the last year the chance has increased from tiny to not insignificant.

Your last point is wrong; boycotting a referendum wouldn't work in practice and would be ignored in principle.

williamglenn

For a second referendum to happen, I think we need to see No Deal fall into third place on first preferences, and then the referendum will be a straight Leave/Remain question where Leave = Deal.

Gardenwalker

AlastairMeeks said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

New poll - https://news.sky.com/story/public-opinion-is-shifting-sharply-against-brexit-sky-data-poll-reveals-11453220

First preferences:

Remain - 54%
Deal - 15%
No Deal - 30%

Second preferences:

Remain - 59%
No Deal - 41%

Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.

On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.

The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.

What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.

If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.

What’s a patriotic PM to do, looking at these figures?

A) Stall, hoping the trend will push more voters to Remain, setting up the conditions for another Ref?

Push towards a fudge (deal) with Europe despite a total lack of support in Parliament and country?

C) Let ERG and Corbyn take us over the edge to an economic crash?

D) Resign and let some other bugger deal with it?