politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First projection of new boundaries suggests that at GE2015

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Grimsby split in two and both are Conservative according to Anthony Wells' notionals:

Grimsby North and Barton CC:

Con 18,747
Lab 14,002
UKIP 8,702

Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC

Con 16,987
Lab 14,521
UKIP 9,409

I can believe that. Grimsby is one of those places (along with Scunthorpe along the M180) where traditional industries are departing and being replaced by food processing (Grimsby) and haulage and distribution (Scunthorpe). That has to happen if these towns aren't to slide into nothingness.

I was in both last week (Alkborough Flats to the north of Scunthorpe is hosting Britain's first Western Purple Swamphen). Both places are getting on with moving into the 21st century. Lots of new housing. They are moving away from Labour as places like Swindon have done in the south.

(And in Sunil mode, I completed travelling on all of the British motorways, with the short M181 into Scunthorpe...)

Well done! About 10 years ago I was really into roads, but rails have got me going since c.2008 (though a reversion to type, as I was really into rails since my Uni days in the mid-1990s).

IanB2 said:

BigRich said:

A question for anybody who may have knowledge in this area:

The last bit of the article above quotes: 'The Tories are helped massively by the fact that the constituency electorate sizes are based on what they were last December when there were about 2 million fewer names on the electoral register.'

The extra 2 million votes was, I understand, because of people registering to vote in the EU Referendum. would theses of not been relatively well distributed around the country? if not is their any evidence that they are disproportionally in Labour areas?

This may be the case, I don't know, I just have not seen any evidence of it, and while I can think of reasons why it might, I can think of just as good if not better reasons why the opposite might be the case.

Any way, love to have other thoughts?

The issue is that these follow on from the introduction of IER, prematurely in the opinion of some, which removed a lot of entries from the registers particularly in urban areas. Labour's argument is that many of these people were removed unreasonably and they re-registered in the run-up to the referendum. However it is also likely that many of the IER removals should never have been in the register in the first place, being people who had long since moved or died or who were never entitled to registration. The likelihood is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between, with the fact that the EUref late registrations appearing to be more evenly distributed than the IER removals being additional evidence.

The issue of the register totals is handy for Labour in providing an argument to disguise their essentially party self-interest in opposing the latest boundary proposals; the reality however is that, even if conceded, it would probably only gift Labour at most another three to five seats or so (or, rather, reduce their losses by this amount), which in the bigger scheme of things is at the margin.

Thanks Ian, I largely agree with you.

its worth noting though that there seems to be a general slow drift in population to conservative areas, meaning that the longer wait the from the redrawing of boundary's to an election the grater the advantage to labour, if we say there has been a 16 year gap from when this was last done, and these changes have 'net' moved the needle 30 seats, that's approximately 2 seats a year, so with a 4 year gap before the next GE, that would give Labour 8 extra seats, so if labour have missed out of 4 seats because of the timing of the move to IER, then this should have been cancelled out and overcompensated by 4 seats at the GE.

But we will not know for shore until May 2020 when we know how many votes were register in each constituency and which way it voted.

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

PlatoSaid said:

AndyJS said:

PlatoSaid said:

@AndyJS

What's happened to Wealden? Eastbourne looks about 300 votes less marginal.

48.19% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Lewes & Uckfield.
35.53% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to High Weald.
16.29% of the current Wealden seat is transferred to Bexhill & Battle.

Lewes & Uckfield: 49.13% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
High Weald: 37.65% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.
Bexhill & Battle: 17.41% of the new seat would comprise voters from the current Wealden seat.

Fab - thanx v much

No boundary changes in Eastbourne as far as I can see.

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

We are entering unspoofable territory.

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.

Mr. D, equality = white privilege.

Only a [patriarchal enemy of the people wouldn't see that.

Mel and Sue to quit as Bake Off hosts

MTimT said:

This is a potentially interesting EU development:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37347352

So, while the EU has some senior officials seeking to make an example of the UK in order to discourage other 'leavers', other senior officials are wondering about kicking out a member state who has shown no signs of wanting to leave.

On the serious point about what to do with a member who continues to flout fundamental laws and values of the club, the EU has a real headache.

Well from a federalist perspective (ignoring other consequences like rejected states cozying up to Putin etc) it may be best in the long term to kick out most of the Eastern European states, and halt expansion. They have more chance to creating a USE between 'Western Europe' states long term, who still subscribe to the Ever Closer Union aspect. Visegrad countries are explicitly against that, and unlike Britain they contribute less overall to the EU.

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

They made three major rule changes.

1) MPs fixed at 600.
2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota
3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable

How are any of the above partisan?

Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.

No representation without registration!

justin124 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

RobD said:

According to the Telegraph, Lucas' Brighton seat may become a "Tory stronghold" with the proposed changes.

Oh deep joy if it came true.

Brighton Pavilion was formerly a Tory stronghold represented by Julian Amery. In fact the new Brighton North seat becomes a 3-way marginal on Anthony Wells figures with the Tories 550 ahead of Labour and circa 3000 ahead of the Greens.

Some marginal Lab are flipped to Con while some go the other way. Here are the top 50 predicted marginals with holding party, notional majority and challenger (where not Lab/Con):

Croydon Central BC Con 60
Bury BC Lab 71
Telford BC Con 139
Cambridge BC Lab 162 vs. LD
Southampton Itchen BC Lab 250
Cardiff North BC Lab 282
Barrow and Furness CC Lab 531
Thurrock BC Con 536 vs. Lab
Brighton North BC Con 556 vs. Lab with Greens in 3rd
Darlington BC Con 692
Eastbourne BC Con 733 vs. LD
City of Chester CC Con 757
Wrexham Maelor CC Lab 776
Carshalton and Wallington BC Con 790 vs. LD
Thanet East BC Con 899 vs. UKIP
Bedford BC Con 966
Halifax BC Con 1018
Stockport South and Cheadle BC Lab 1059
Harwich and Clacton CC UKIP 1077 vs. Con
Merton and Wimbledon Central BC Con 1118
Wakefield CC Lab 1213
Berwick and Ashington CC Lab 1215
Flint and Rhuddlan CC Lab 1281
Birmingham Selly Oak and Halesowen BC Con 1411
Dewsbury CC Lab 1420
Finchley and Southgate BC Lab 1467
Scunthorpe CC Lab 1531
Ceredigion a Gogledd Sir Benfro CC LD 1552 vs. Plaid
Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan West CC Con 1607
Enfield BC Con 1626
Spen BC Lab 1651
Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice BC Lab 1708
Corby CC Con 1798
Caerfyrddin CC PC 1842 vs. Lab with Con in 3rd
Southampton Test BC Con 1948
Newcastle-under-Lyme BC Lab 1951
Twickenham BC Con 2017 vs. LD
Calder Valley CC Con 2040
Littleborough and Saddleworth CC Lab 2056
Derby South BC Con 2066
Kenton BC Lab 2125
Leeds North West BC Lab 2127 vs. LD with Con in 3rd
Gower and Swansea West CC Lab 2144
Bolton West CC Lab 2166
Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC Con 2282
Ynys Mon ac Arfon CC PC 2365 vs. Lab
Waveney CC Con 2408
Plymouth North BC Con 2440
Peterborough BC Con 2463
Grimsby South and Cleethorpes BC Con 2467

3 seats unchanged in the North East:

North Tyneside.
Sunderland Central.
Tynemouth.

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.

Your facts are wrong. They're not changing it from population to electorate, it's always been based on the electorate and never on population. Labour wants to change it to population.

RobD said:

That doesn't mean Arricle 50 can't be declared using the prerogative power. It just means we'll have de facto left but not de jure.

It means that the PM is not going to give Lords the opportunity to try to thwart the result of the referendum. Once Article 50 is triggered, it's a fait accompli, there will be no going back. We'll be out of the EU in two years (de jure and de facto), whatever the Lords prevaricate over or try to block. Seems very wise to me.

AndyJS said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.

Your facts are wrong. They're not changing it from population to electorate, it's always been based on the electorate and never on population. Labour wants to change it to population.

Correct.

I'm amazed how this myth has built up so even knowledgeable people believe it.

Boundaries have always been done on the basis of electoral register. Always. Since Universal Suffrage anyway.

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SimonStClare said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mel and Sue to quit as Bake Off hosts

The BBC have a knack for losing their top audience shows and presenters. #BreakingSnooze

I hear Chris Evans is at a loose end :-)

Chris Evans is better at baking cakes than driving cars, according to the audience that is.

Hmmm...Not quite how it was first reported.

Man sets fire to UK Muslim's dress on NYC's Fifth Avenue

She turned and saw her arm on fire and a man with a cigarette lighter. She was able to pat out the fire with her hands and did not suffer any injury. The woman was left with a hole the size of a 25-cent coin (about the size of a 2p-coin) on her sleeve, police said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37345442

Sounds a lot like the sort of distraction robbery tactic. Given the photo, I don't think the media can pin this one on the deplorables.

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

2 years old is hardly "antiquated".

The current boundaries certainly are though..

There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.

A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

2 years old is hardly "antiquated".

The current boundaries certainly are though..

There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.

2 million leave voters that are potentially low hanging fruit for UKIP. I assume Carswell will be voting in favour of the proposals then

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:

Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.

Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?

David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.

Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.

Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.

Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/13/boundary-review-corbyn-says-inner-city-seat-shouldnt-be-enlarged-politics-live

15:12

That doesn't mean Arricle 50 can't be declared using the prerogative power. It just means we'll have de facto left but not de jure.

Parliament act if lords cause trouble

MikeL said:

RobD said:

MikeL said:

spudgfsh said:

MikeL said:

RobD said:

spudgfsh said:

Do these new boundaries have to go through the lords as well as the commons? If they were voted through by the Tories in the commons and vetoed by the lords it would be the epitome of a constitutional crisis.

to be honest I don't think that they should be voted on at all by either. Define the rules, yes. Agree the specifics, no.

No lords vote.

They do require a Lords vote.

It's a Statutory Instrument - must be passed by Commons and Lords.

Isn't the convention that the Lords does vote down statuary instruments? if it wasn't for the tax credits vote I'd say it should be a formality.

They voted down tax credits.

If Lab + LD are determined to stop this at all costs they'll try to block it in the Lords.

I actually think it may be easier to get it passed the Lords than Commons - because most Crossbenchers should support it.

Remember they got the Electoral Registration change through the Lords despite Lab + LD voting against. And they blocked the votes at 16.

And they have two more years of Lords appointments before the vote. Con will now be only 55 behind Lab + LD in the Lords in a few weeks time.

I thought it was clear the a Lords vote was not required at all?

No. It's definitely needed.

I specifically remember the last Boundary changes went through the Lords in 2007 - they were agreed without a vote - but Peers could have taken it to a vote and Lab + LD will do so this time.

I thought the Lords hurdle for this round has already been cleared?

MikeL said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

You want to use the 2016 Register.

But you would prefer to stick with the 2000 Register rather than use the 2015 Register?

The reason 2015 has to be used is because with the lengthy process of consultations and revising recommendations there isn't time to use 2016 and get it done in time for 2020.

The law - passed in 2011 - says they have to use the 2015 register. To change that would have needed a complete new Act of Parliament - everyone knows if you go down that route it is simply a delaying tactic to prevent any changes before 2020.

I think using the 2016 register would probably be even better for the Conservatives, most of the additions won't bother - and those that do will be choosing between UKIP and the Tories (As they are hard to turn out leavers methinks).

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.

But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.

Very much a case of wishful thinking!

Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?

It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.

On the contrary, the rebels will have illustrated their desire for their personal priorities to be above the good of the party. They'd lose the whip and not expect reselection.

Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.

Given the whole exercise is going to reduce the number of MPs, I'd say that any MP who doesn't get with the plan will be first in the firing line!

Not been looking here since this mornig. Can I summarise the days events up as those who will lose out on the boundary changes are bitching about it and those who will lose out on brexit are bitching about it.

Any more on climate change, daves resignation or anything else or is it just boundary and brexit bitching?

Danny565 said:

Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely.

Eh? I am saying that people who are not registered to vote don't get a vote. They are 100% irrelevant to the question of who becomes their MP and - most importantly given the currant systematic bias in the numbers - 100% irrelevant to which party gets to form the government. That's kinda the point about not being a registered voter, right?

Quite how you manage to morph this completely non-controversial point - which, frankly, no-one of any integrity could conceivably disagree with, if they were being honest with themselves - into a statement that I am saying that people not registered to vote are not entitled to their MP's services is a mystery to which I don't expect a coherent answer. What in the name of sanity has being able to vote got to do with whether you can go to your MP with a problem?

Danny565 said:

"On the other side, perhaps you could explain why you think it's OK for voters in Wales to get so many more MPs per 100,000 voters - and therefore, more say in who forms the government - than voters in SE England?"

I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?

Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what? If you mean they'd have more casework load, then the solution is very simple: they might need more admin staff. But other factors are more important in casework load anyway, so this is hardly an argument.

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

2 years old is hardly "antiquated".

The current boundaries certainly are though..

There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.

A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.

And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

Treating everyone the same is "extremely partisan" how?

They're not treating everyone the same. On the contrary, by switching from basing boundaries to electorate rather than population, the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP - which goes against decades of cross-party consensus that MPs were there to represent everyone living in their area, regardless of whether or who they voted for.

Current position:


The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation

Future position
The number of constituencies in each of the four home nations is calculated in proportion to the electorate using a formula set out by legislation

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

2 years old is hardly "antiquated".

The current boundaries certainly are though..

There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.

2 million leave voters that are potentially low hanging fruit for UKIP. I assume Carswell will be voting in favour of the proposals then

The rules were set with the best of intentions. The theory is that the most accurate register is the one just after the general election. It was defined in law in the coalition. Long before the referendum added another bounce in registration. When the referendum was a possibility but not remotely likely. It would have taken a change in the law to change the electoral roll used. That would have been considered gerrymandering

Pulpstar said:

If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.

Hard choices, hard decisions.

Somewhat surprised the BBC don’t actually own the rights to GBBO, considering they’ve been plugging it like mad the past few years & can now no longer afford it due to its success.

AndyJS said:

Just noticed a new constituency called Broadstone, Ferndown and Kinson. I have no idea where any of these places are.

Basically on the line of the Castlemans Corkscrew railway line that ran from Brockenhurst to Poole via Ringwood, Ferndown, Wimborne and Broadstone avoiding Bournemouth and was shut by Beeching just as the builders moved in to build vast overspill housing estates for bournemouth in all of them.

I notice there is also a Lewes and Uckfield constituency whos MP will no doubt be very keen to see the railway between them reopened. Shutting the London to Lewes line south of Uckfield was one of the daftest closures of the lot and there was more than a hint of skulduggery.

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Mel and Sue to quit as Bake Off hosts

Woah.

That's serious.

What is so difficult about changing channel? Are some peoples TV's BBC1 only?

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ah, I think we can see why Theresa May is so adamant that she will invoke Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative:

Crispin Blunt, the committee chairs, starts.

Q: Will there have to be parliamentary ratification of the decision to leave the EU?

David Davis says there will have to be changes to the European Communities Act 1972. And they may be other legislative moves.

Q: There is a majority in the Commons for leaving. But that is not necessarily true of the Lords.

Davis says he hopes there will be a majority in both houses.

Blunt says he agrees with regard to the Commons, but it is an “open question” whether that applies in the Lords. Some peers, like Lady Wheatcroft, seem very determined to block Brexit, he says.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/13/boundary-review-corbyn-says-inner-city-seat-shouldnt-be-enlarged-politics-live

15:12

That doesn't mean Arricle 50 can't be declared using the prerogative power. It just means we'll have de facto left but not de jure.

Doesn't it depend on which de jure you are talking about. I am sure from the ECJ point of view it will be de jure.

not_on_fire said:

MikeL said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

They made three major rule changes.

1) MPs fixed at 600.
2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota
3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable

How are any of the above partisan?

Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.

The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.

I can understand Lib Dem, Green and even UKIP opposition....

But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

I think people are making a mistake to think it's ONLY the Tory MPs who are directly going to lose their seats who would be tempted to rebel. Remember, even if a Tory MP is projected to still have a safe seat on the new boundaries, most of them are still going to get a chunk of extra constituents moved into their constituency - that inevitably means a heavier workload in terms of constituency casework. Will all of them really be voting for that, when they already feel overworked as it is?

That would be a terrible reason to reject the proposals, besides given that on average their constituencies were already on the bigger side, will it really be that much extra work.

Yes. Have a look at the spreadsheet which details what % of old constituencies are going into the new ones -- outside of the South East, most Tory MPs' new seats are a fair bit bigger than their old ones. It doesn't usually put their jobs in danger, because it's usually just a chunk of another Tory seat which is being moved into their new one, but it still means more constituents and thus a heavier workload.

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.

But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.

Very much a case of wishful thinking!

Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?

It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.

On the contrary, the rebels will have illustrated their desire for their personal priorities to be above the good of the party. They'd lose the whip and not expect reselection.

Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.

Based on what?

@Danny565

'perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?'

Because Wales has another layer of government with devolved powers for health, education, transport etc.

SimonStClare said:

Pulpstar said:

If the BBC hadn't pissed the license fee money up the wall on Chris Evans' obviously obscene salary maybe they'd have been able to afford Bake Off.

Hard choices, hard decisions.

Somewhat surprised the BBC don’t actually own the rights to GBBO, considering they’ve been plugging it like mad the past few years & can now no longer afford it due to its success.

It is fairly common. Top Gear wasn't under its control under about 2 years before Clarkson lamped the producer.

There are a number of reasons but one that I one that the BBC are only just waking up to. A former controller of BBC said last night on Newsnight was that the unwritten rule in the tv biz if you made a show for the BBC you never took it anywhere else if the BBC still wanted it. Well when it was just BBC, ITV and CH4 the threat was obvious, the could easily freeze you out when it came to future projects.

Even in the early days of Sky, it didn't make that much original content, now there are loads of people willing to pay to make content, from Amazon to BT to YouTube.

@STJamesl: Looking forward to Jeremy Corbyn nailing the mood of the nation over #gbbo at #pmqs tomorrow

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

"the Tories are saying that non-voters are not entitled to service and representation from their MP"?? Really? I mean, really?

Why are you so puzzled by this? If you are saying that constituencies should be based on registered voters, rather than all people living there regardless of whether they're on the electoral register or not, then that obviously means that you're essentially saying those non-registrees are not entitled to their MP's services, because you're admitting to taking them out of the picture completely. There's a legitimate argument that that's the right way to go about it, even if I disagree with that argument ("if they can't be bothered to take part in democracy then they don't deserve the benefits of democracy such as an MP's service", etc.), but I genuinely don't see how you could disagree that the Tories' approach is saying non-voters are not entitled to representation.

I addressed this earlier today but you pointblank ignored my reply so I will repeat it. The number of voters in an area is a known fact. The number of non-voters is not. What precise alternative measure of people do you propose from 2015 that we can use to determine the new constituencies?

People are complaining that 2015 is obsolete but of course that is a matter of the amount of time needed to do the work, but the electoral register from then is the only exact, consistent and up to date measure of people that we have. It isn't a matter of principle but one of being practical.

Danny565 said:

I could turn this around and say that, as this isn't an Electoral College, and because MPs are there to represent all their constituents regardless of whether they vote or not, perhaps you could explain why it's fair that SE England would get more representation per 100,000 people than Wales would under the new boundaries?

Who says they will?

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

Speedy said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

I have no problem in updating the boundaries, but not on an antiquated register.

The new boundaries may not be gerrymandered but are based on an antiquated register, so this whole exercise can be said to be voter suppression.

2 years old is hardly "antiquated".

The current boundaries certainly are though..

There is a huge mismatch between the register used and the current register in the range of 2 million voters, that means that the old register is already outdated.

A compromise is needed in updating the boundaries but using the new register figures instead of the old ones.

And what happens if another million people register during the next 12 months? Would you delay the review again?

There are no major elections or referendums next year for people to care to register.

If you want a compromise on this if you are concerned with any wild swings on the register, you could pick an average of some years.

But 2 million votes is too big of a mismatch to ignore, a compromise is definitely needed to update the boundaries whilst not ignoring the new figures.

Is it actually 2 million new voters?

Pulpstar said:

not_on_fire said:

MikeL said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

RobD said:

Danny565 said:

Alternatively, their constituents would praise them for putting their constituency above their party's partisan interests.

Depends what the constituents think, many may indeed be pleased with the changes. Saying that, I doubt boundary changes ranks that highly.

I think it depends on how the opposition frames the issue. "Cut the number of MPs" on its own would be popular. "Make it harder for you to get help from your MP" would be much less popular.

That's before getting onto the regional dimension -- the fact that Wales and Northern England have been particularly hard hit leaves the Tories wide open to a "typical Tories singling us out for bad treatment and trying to give us less of a voice in Westminster" attack line.

I suspect that line would only work for people who had tried to get help from their MP. And those attacks are frankly unfair. The Boundary Commission is independent, and that line totally discredits them which is very unhealthy for democracy.

They may be independent, but they were legally required to base their review on extremely partisan rules set by the Coalition government, which ripped up decades of precedent on how boundary reviews should be conducted.

They made three major rule changes.

1) MPs fixed at 600.
2) Seat size can only vary up to 5% from electoral quota
3) Reviews every 5 years with fixed timetable

How are any of the above partisan?

Lots of people seem to think they switched from population to electoral register. That isn't true - it has always been done on electoral register.

The first change is very obviously partisan. Reducing the numbers of MPs benefits the large parties at the expense of the smaller ones, as it makes the system even less proportional.

I can understand Lib Dem, Green and even UKIP opposition....

But I'm curious as to why LABOUR are opposing this............

For the same reason the tories opposed the changes in 1832 that got rid of their rotten boroughs

Luckyguy1983 said:

RobD said:

First pint-sized champagne, now this. Brexit success confirmed!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/traditional-blue-british-passport-could-return-home-office-hints/

I'd like one. A lot nicer. Also a lot more expensive to print. Die-cut. Leather style embossed. Weightier stock.

And don't fit in any pocket so far more likely to be lost during travel. I'd favour a return to the old colour and Royal Crest front, but using otherwise the same passport as the current one.

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

justin124 said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Danny565 said:

And anyone who votes against the three line whip to pass these much-needed reforms should be told their case load will be reduced to zero ...

Absolutely. The work of the whips starts now, in moving the people around to make everyone happy. A complicating factor will be 19 MEPs, some of whom will want a job too. There will accommodation of key ministers out of marginals, of those who will retire and those who can be persuaded by a dimplmatic role or a kick to the red branches, etc. A bit of work to do but there's a couple of years and more revisions to come.

But anyone who dares vote against the result can expect to face deselection. This will be the most important vote of this Parliament and there will the mother of all three line whips on it.

Very much a case of wishful thinking!

Wishful thinking in what way, do you not think the Tories will put a three line whip on this vote?

It would not be a three line whip that Tory rebels would feel inclined to obey.

On the contrary, the rebels will have illustrated their desire for their personal priorities to be above the good of the party. They'd lose the whip and not expect reselection.

Highly unlikely any rebels would lose the whip over this.

Given the whole exercise is going to reduce the number of MPs, I'd say that any MP who doesn't get with the plan will be first in the firing line!

According to Laura Kuenssberg there is a distinct possibility that May will be happy to abandon the proposals! If that is remotely true , there is no way a Tory MP will be deprived of the Whip for opposing them.

Today is Day 1 of a two year process, I'm not surprised that a few Tories are upset about what they've seen. That's why there's plenty of time for representations and alterations built into the work of the Electoral Commission, before the new boundaries are finalised.

The job of the whips is to co-ordinate everyone's comments and make sure as many objections are possible are overcome before the vote - but on the understanding that anyone who wants to be a Tory MP candidate in 2020 needs to get with the program for the greater good of the party. Hopefully the combination of the carrot and the stick will do the whips' job to the point that everyone votes in favour.

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, if MPs do have very widely-different numbers of total populations in their constituences, so what?

?!?!?!?

So much for "treating everyone the same".

Every voter will be treated the same.

Mr 565,

You know as well as I do that if the change helped Labour, they'd be all for it. The smell of hypocrisy is overwhelming, but they're politicians, so hypocrisy is their default position.

The electorate know that, and only the really committed will believe a word of the hyperbole. Why not call it ethnic cleansing or a murderous rape of democracy? or perhaps it's a thousand percent wrong? Only trying to be helpful.

Oh, and I've n doubt that if the position was reversed, the Tories would be saying the same thing (but probably less dramatically).