From the Telegraph article: Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.
Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?
Personally I think the starting point should be constituencies reflecting the number of people shown by the census to be entitled to vote (not the number who have registered, because frequent moves in urban areas depress registration). But really PR is the only way to resolve the issue.
I just wonder if Anthony Wells was quoted correctly.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
From the Telegraph article: Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.
Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?
Personally I think the starting point should be constituencies reflecting the number of people shown by the census to be entitled to vote (not the number who have registered, because frequent moves in urban areas depress registration). But really PR is the only way to resolve the issue.
I just wonder if Anthony Wells was quoted correctly.
Isn't his quote the thrust of the article? It'd be more balance if the boundary changes were made?
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
The difference this time is the way the electoral roll is compiled was changed in ways thought entirely by coincidence to favour the Conservative Party -- the move to individual registration and the purging of the rolls (against the advice of the Electoral Commission, btw).
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
It literally takes five minutes to register online these days, so I don't think that is a legitimate excuse any more.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.
Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
“Trying to implement”. The Tories did not get a majority of votes or seats. That was the will of the people.
We bought a majority. It only cost the UK £200m a year. Better value for money than decades of the Barnet formula, to keep Labour seats from going SNP.....
A few basic facts to cut through the guff from both sides:
1 National vote tallies and percentages are an irrelevance under FPTP. Complaining that party X gets seats Z despite votes Z misunderstands how our (utterly stupid) system works. This also means that complaints about vote counts vs votes for the government / opposition are also flawed
2 The boundaries are in desperate need of reform. The issue being the means being used for the reform. Both the failed attempt in the last parliament and the soon to fail attempt in the current parliament decided that people favour equivalence over communities. Seat boundaries have to respect geography, and in both cases there are swathes of seats where the proposed changes are fundamentally stupid to anyone who knows the area. Being less hell-bent on equal size has to be the way forward
3 The current review is already dead - it will not command a majority in the Commons. The government barely has a working majority (favouring abstaining over losing), the proposals ask its DUP partner to give seats up to Sinn Fein, the proposals ask Tory MPs to give up even more seats on top of the ones Mrs May lost them in June. It won't pass.
4 The Commission is non partisan. The criteria it is set for the review is partisan. The rules for boundaries (see point 2) were drawn up by Tories looking to favour their chances. That is the very definition of gerrymandering. The only solution has to be to remove party politics from the equation. Parliament empowers the Commission to draw up its own criteria independently, then make recommendations on a fixed period (every 10 years perhaps). Take meddling ministers of both parties out of the loop.
Point 2 - They should widen the criteria to 7.5% variance instead of 5% and allow routine splitting of wards with more than 10k electors (large wards in some authorities means the commission ends up with multiple cross-authority seats to make the numbers work) Point 3 - The NI commission has not yet reported its revised proposals. It's possible they may go back to a 4 seat Belfast which would be better for the DUP Point 4 - Parliament should set the criteria at the beginning of the process but then have no further say with the boundaries being automatically implemented at the end of the process.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
The difference this time is the way the electoral roll is compiled was changed in ways thought entirely by coincidence to favour the Conservative Party -- the move to individual registration and the purging of the rolls (against the advice of the Electoral Commission, btw).
Heaven forbid people have the responsibility for ensuring that they are registered to vote, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The problem is assuming such questions are answered honestly. I worked on the last census and that was a question that caused endless trouble. Obviously people in the country illegally were rather wary of answering it, although quite a number didn't fill in forms at all.
Mind you the entire form had issues. The question on religion was left in for some reason I never quite understood but made optional, negating the whole point of it. The daftest one was a question on sexuality, which was dropped after the person drafting it was asked, not having considered this, how many admissions to paedophilia or bestiality they were expecting.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
The difference this time is the way the electoral roll is compiled was changed in ways thought entirely by coincidence to favour the Conservative Party -- the move to individual registration and the purging of the rolls (against the advice of the Electoral Commission, btw).
Heaven forbid people have the responsibility for ensuring that they are registered to vote, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
IVR was long overdue, the result of the previous system were seen in places like Tower Hamlets with 14 people registered to vote in a one bedroom apartment.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
The difference this time is the way the electoral roll is compiled was changed in ways thought entirely by coincidence to favour the Conservative Party -- the move to individual registration and the purging of the rolls (against the advice of the Electoral Commission, btw).
Heaven forbid people have the responsibility for ensuring that they are registered to vote, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
As OGH never fails to remind us, the GE isn't one contest but 650 simultaneous by-elections just as the US election is really 50 state contests rather then one election.
We live in a representative democracy - we derive comfort and ownership from the fact that we have a presence, whether we voted for them or not, in the national law-making sovereign body we call Parliament. You may like your representative, despise them or not give them a second thought but they are for you.
The current system that we use to choose that representative means that while every vote is counted, most votes don't actually count. Granted, I'm one of the minority who didn't vote for Stephen Timms in June (though less of a minority when taking into account non voters) but I know that if I ever needed him, my MP would treat me and my concerns as any other constituent. The relationship after the election is more Doctor-Patient if you like.
Some people like the current system - others don't. I've never considered it "fair" but over time I came to realise the representative system (if that's all you use) is inherently unfair. I'd like to think any MP will help anyone anywhere even if that person didn't vote for them and I'm sure that's true but the MP isn't just a constituency representative - he or she is a member of a political party with a programme of policies you either support wholly partly or not at all.
There's the problem - I can call on my MP if I have a problem and they will help but I can't make them choose the policies I support if they are a member of a Party taking a contrary view. In essence, my MP is my non-medical GP, a super-Councillor but he doesn't represent me or my idea of the country.
Freedom of Speech provides some comfort - the plurality and diversity of voices and opinion can be heard and if not accepted they cannot be ignored. The liberation of opinion that has come from Twitter and other social media means more voices are heard but still not enough and not often enough. Who speaks for me ? In the end, me, because I can. Who speaks for the homeless man begging for coins by the tube station ? Who speaks for the abused in a violent relationship ? Who speaks for those who have no voice ?
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
From the Telegraph article: Experts said reform was long overdue. Anthony Wells, YouGov’s director of Political and Social Research who runs the UK Polling Report website, said the changes would mean “the system is no longer skewed towards the Labour party”.
Are we saying we think Mr Wells is wrong? Surely the appropriate starting point should be constituencies of equal size, and working from there?
Personally I think the starting point should be constituencies reflecting the number of people shown by the census to be entitled to vote (not the number who have registered, because frequent moves in urban areas depress registration). But really PR is the only way to resolve the issue.
I always thought Blair should have introduced PR after obtaining a 179 majority in I997 .From a position of strength it would have been seen as magnanimous .Also would have respected the work of Roy Jenkins .
The biggest problem with the current system is not the advantage given to one of the major parties or the other but the number of safe seats where voting is practically pointless. Within its mandate (specifically the 5% limit on variance so that our votes have equal value) the EC should be seeking to create more marginal seats. If this involves some slightly odd looking constituencies which have a suburban or rural hinterland to an urban core so be it.
The consequence of more marginal seats would be to increase the winner's bonus and give the party winning the most votes across the country the best chance of forming a majority government. The Blair 2005 and SNP 2010 examples were extreme but the system should reward those that are able or try to win a plurality of votes across the country.
Personally, I always thought that the 600 seat idea was a ridiculously silly response to the HoC having a fair share of crooks and people dipping into the till. Resistance to that idea should not be allowed to derail (again) a realignment of the boundaries which is chronically overdue.
Quite a lot of safe seats shift over time, though.
I'd agree that increasing the number of marginals would be a sensible aim.
As OGH never fails to remind us, the GE isn't one contest but 650 simultaneous by-elections just as the US election is really 50 state contests rather then one election.
We live in a representative democracy - we derive comfort and ownership from the fact that we have a presence, whether we voted for them or not, in the national law-making sovereign body we call Parliament. You may like your representative, despise them or not give them a second thought but they are for you.
The current system that we use to choose that representative means that while every vote is counted, most votes don't actually count. Granted, I'm one of the minority who didn't vote for Stephen Timms in June (though less of a minority when taking into account non voters) but I know that if I ever needed him, my MP would treat me and my concerns as any other constituent. The relationship after the election is more Doctor-Patient if you like.
Some people like the current system - others don't. I've never considered it "fair" but over time I came to realise the representative system (if that's all you use) is inherently unfair. I'd like to think any MP will help anyone anywhere even if that person didn't vote for them and I'm sure that's true but the MP isn't just a constituency representative - he or she is a member of a political party with a programme of policies you either support wholly partly or not at all.
There's the problem - I can call on my MP if I have a problem and they will help but I can't make them choose the policies I support if they are a member of a Party taking a contrary view. In essence, my MP is my non-medical GP, a super-Councillor but he doesn't represent me or my idea of the country.
Freedom of Speech provides some comfort - the plurality and diversity of voices and opinion can be heard and if not accepted they cannot be ignored. The liberation of opinion that has come from Twitter and other social media means more voices are heard but still not enough and not often enough. Who speaks for me ? In the end, me, because I can. Who speaks for the homeless man begging for coins by the tube station ? Who speaks for the abused in a violent relationship ? Who speaks for those who have no voice ?
+1 5 seems, on occasion to create problems. If I write to my MP with a problem which is a non-poilitical matter, then he or she will, in my experience, deal with it fairly and resonably. Might even, if appropriate ‘go the extra mile’. However if I write with a problem to which there is a party political dimension then he or she may apply party policy to the way it is dealt with. Which isn’t always fair and reasonable. I’ve had experience of both.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Absolutely not. Legally they vote for an individual representative for their constituency. It is why MPs can quite rightly cross the floor. It is also something we should not change as we should do nothing that gives extra power to the parties.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, it's always based on electors on the electoral roll.
The difference this time is the way the electoral roll is compiled was changed in ways thought entirely by coincidence to favour the Conservative Party -- the move to individual registration and the purging of the rolls (against the advice of the Electoral Commission, btw).
Heaven forbid people have the responsibility for ensuring that they are registered to vote, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
The commission recommended against purging the rolls.
One interesting side-effect of the changes has been registration drives (perhaps for partisan reasons).
Isn't that done periodically anyway? And I recall seeing a piece on the Daily Politics about this saying that the council had to attempt to contact those who weren't automatically transferred eight times (by post/visits)..
As OGH never fails to remind us, the GE isn't one contest but 650 simultaneous by-elections just as the US election is really 50 state contests rather then one election.
We live in a representative democracy - we derive comfort and ownership from the fact that we have a presence, whether we voted for them or not, in the national law-making sovereign body we call Parliament. You may like your representative, despise them or not give them a second thought but they are for you.
The current system that we use to choose that representative means that while every vote is counted, most votes don't actually count. Granted, I'm one of the minority who didn't vote for Stephen Timms in June (though less of a minority when taking into account non voters) but I know that if I ever needed him, my MP would treat me and my concerns as any other constituent. The relationship after the election is more Doctor-Patient if you like.
Some people like the current system - others don't. I've never considered it "fair" but over time I came to realise the representative system (if that's all you use) is inherently unfair. I'd like to think any MP will help anyone anywhere even if that person didn't vote for them and I'm sure that's true but the MP isn't just a constituency representative - he or she is a member of a political party with a programme of policies you either support wholly partly or not at all.
There's the problem - I can call on my MP if I have a problem and they will help but I can't make them choose the policies I support if they are a member of a Party taking a contrary view. In essence, my MP is my non-medical GP, a super-Councillor but he doesn't represent me or my idea of the country.
Freedom of Speech provides some comfort - the plurality and diversity of voices and opinion can be heard and if not accepted they cannot be ignored. The liberation of opinion that has come from Twitter and other social media means more voices are heard but still not enough and not often enough. Who speaks for me ? In the end, me, because I can. Who speaks for the homeless man begging for coins by the tube station ? Who speaks for the abused in a violent relationship ? Who speaks for those who have no voice ?
The answer to your problem (and mine) is to severely limit the power of the parties and make almost all votes free votes. Make sure that your MP is representing his constituency not his party.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.
Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
More accurately finance bills and Brexit.
It's too hard in the current parliament to do much else.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.
Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
More accurately finance bills and Brexit.
It's too hard in the current parliament to do much else.
The biggest problem with the current system is not the advantage given to one of the major parties or the other but the number of safe seats where voting is practically pointless. Within its mandate (specifically the 5% limit on variance so that our votes have equal value) the EC should be seeking to create more marginal seats. If this involves some slightly odd looking constituencies which have a suburban or rural hinterland to an urban core so be it.
The consequence of more marginal seats would be to increase the winner's bonus and give the party winning the most votes across the country the best chance of forming a majority government. The Blair 2005 and SNP 2010 examples were extreme but the system should reward those that are able or try to win a plurality of votes across the country.
Personally, I always thought that the 600 seat idea was a ridiculously silly response to the HoC having a fair share of crooks and people dipping into the till. Resistance to that idea should not be allowed to derail (again) a realignment of the boundaries which is chronically overdue.
Quite a lot of safe seats shift over time, though.
I'd agree that increasing the number of marginals would be a sensible aim.
Who'd want to work for the Boundaries Commission?
I feel for them. It must be one of the most morale sapping places to work in the country.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not in my experience, and there's been a lot of research on this - general view is that personal votes normally account for up to 5% of the total (10% in extreme cases of a particularly loved or hated individual), and 90-95% vote by party. People do often know who their local MP is and there is some cross-party respect, but the incumbency bonus in terms of actual votes is usually modest.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Absolutely not. Legally they vote for an individual representative for their constituency. It is why MPs can quite rightly cross the floor. It is also something we should not change as we should do nothing that gives extra power to the parties.
Up to (I think) about 1970 only the candidates name appeared on the ballot paper. I was once, as a teller ouside a polling station, approached by a voter, ballot paper in hand, who asked me which of the two was the Labour candidate. In fact there wasn’t one. Putting party names on ballot papers is a mixed blessing. Remember the Literal Democrat in Winchester (and I seem to recall, elsewhere.)
Here in Stockton-on-Tees we've done a great job at keeping people on the electoral roll, so the auto-purging of voters by the Tories against the Electoral Commission's advice (more Gerrymandering - set the criteria that the EC have to use, then remove Labour leaning voters from the roll which the EC have to use).
Elsewhere the current review is using the reduced electoral roll despite large numbers added back on after the cutoff. Another reason why ministers should have no part to play in the process - leave it to the Electoral Commission with a mandate to get the maximum number of people on the electoral roll.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
You have to register for council tax each and every time you move, normally within days, and that usually triggers a reminder for the electoral roll from the council. Not being on the roll affects things like credit scores so that's another incentive.
And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
As opposed to one party polling 12.6% of the votes and receiving only 1 MP being the work of all that is good?
We don't vote for parties. Nor should we. They really are the epitome of anti-democratic elitism.
Which of course is why, as a privately educated elitist, you like them so much.
So wrong.
I’ve stated many times, including on this thread, I prefer multi member STV.
As for attacking me personally, I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
I don't find it persuasive when Trump is shoehorned into our domestic debates, or indeed when US politics is generally.
If this were genuniely an example of copying something he has pioneered then fair enough. But actually UK parties have been arguing about boundaries in the obvious ways for as long as I can remember.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Absolutely not. Legally they vote for an individual representative for their constituency. It is why MPs can quite rightly cross the floor. It is also something we should not change as we should do nothing that gives extra power to the parties.
Up to (I think) about 1970 only the candidates name appeared on the ballot paper. I was once, as a teller ouside a polling station, approached by a voter, ballot paper in hand, who asked me which of the two was the Labour candidate. In fact there wasn’t one. Putting party names on ballot papers is a mixed blessing. Remember the Literal Democrat in Winchester (and I seem to recall, elsewhere.)
Personally I would remove them again as it gives a false impression to the voter of what they are voting for.
Emphasising the fact that we vote for an individual representative would also remove a lot of the outrageous threats being made to Europhile Tory MPs. If people were clearer that MPs are elected to serve their constituents as their own consciences dictate then the accusations of betrayal would be much harder to make. Certainly the telegraph would have no legitimate cause to plaster their faces around whilst ignoring all the other non Tory MPs who also voted against the Government for myriad different reasons.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not in my experience, and there's been a lot of research on this - general view is that personal votes normally account for up to 5% of the total (10% in extreme cases of a particularly loved or hated individual), and 90-95% vote by party. People do often know who their local MP is and there is some cross-party respect, but the incumbency bonus in terms of actual votes is usually modest.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
You have to register for council tax each and every time you move, normally within days, and that usually triggers a reminder for the electoral roll from the council. Not being on the roll affects things like credit scores so that's another incentive.
And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
There’s a similar problem, especially in urban areas with lots of short-term flats with GP’s lists. On which GP’s are paid. It is, or was when I was concerned with these things, apparently quite common to find people who’d moved three or four times but were still on the list of the doctor where they lived originally.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
The boundary change proposals are clearly not going to get through without DUP support however even the current boundaries still marginally favour the Tories as OGH says. Even if they narrowly lose the popular vote, the Tories could still won most seats just as Trump won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
Inner cities are probably not very overrepresented, now.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.
Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
More accurately finance bills and Brexit.
It's too hard in the current parliament to do much else.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Absolutely not. Legally they vote for an individual representative for their constituency. It is why MPs can quite rightly cross the floor. It is also something we should not change as we should do nothing that gives extra power to the parties.
Up to (I think) about 1970 only the candidates name appeared on the ballot paper. I was once, as a teller ouside a polling station, approached by a voter, ballot paper in hand, who asked me which of the two was the Labour candidate. In fact there wasn’t one. Putting party names on ballot papers is a mixed blessing. Remember the Literal Democrat in Winchester (and I seem to recall, elsewhere.)
I can remember my Dad going to vote and returning home, somewhat embarrassed, because he admitted he didn't know who the Conservative candidate was and had to ask the policeman outside who it was, only then to be told he couldn't tell him!
Personally I would choose to leave that detail on the ballot paper as it must be the only way those wanting to vote for UKIP or the Tories can identify their candidate of choice and I wouldn't want to see them disfranchised by accident.
In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.
The result?
2005 - Lab majority of 66
2010 - Tories just short of a majority.
I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.
Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
In 1951 the Tories lost the popular vote but won a small majority but in 1970 Labour lost the popular vote but won most seats
As opposed to one party polling 12.6% of the votes and receiving only 1 MP being the work of all that is good?
We don't vote for parties. Nor should we. They really are the epitome of anti-democratic elitism.
Which of course is why, as a privately educated elitist, you like them so much.
So wrong.
I’ve stated many times, including on this thread, I prefer multi member STV.
As for attacking me personally, I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
You misunderstand. I have plenty of arguments and use them continuously in discussions with others on these subjects as I have done this morning. I make a special case for you because I like to highlight what a hypocrite you are.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
100% wrong, as usual. The change to 600 MPs is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto. Brexit is implementing a provision of the Conservative manifesto, to hold a referendum, and is then implementing the outcome of that referendum.
Not a great thread for the Whingers.
The Tories did not win a majority in June. They nearly got one because the current boudaries give them an electoral advantage, but they didn’t manage it. The parties that got most votes and most seats oppose implementation of the new boundaries. It’s the will of the people.
Last time I looked, there was a Conservative PM in Downing Street, implementing the Conservative Manifesto.
More accurately finance bills and Brexit.
It's too hard in the current parliament to do much else.
None of the statements made on this issue are true -including the OP article. The OP article is only true in the sense that because we have First Past the Post instead of PR, the percentage of the vote is not linked to the number of seats that a party gets -and that can harm either of the two big parties. Corbyn Labour got 40% of the vote but only won a similar number of seats as Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%, but that was because he piled up useless votes in seats Labour already held, but failed to win Tory marginals because he is so extreme politically. That is solely because of First Past the Post and could just as easily harm the Tories. The OP is confusing the voting SYSTEM with the electoral boundaries WITHIN FPTP.
WITHIN the First Past the Post system, the system benefits Labour. It takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP because of the way the population is distributed and because constituency numbers are so unequal. This is why Blair got a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote and Cameron got no majority at all on 36% In that sense the Tories are right. However the proposed new boundaries drawn up by Cameron would have taken it to the other extreme and benefitted the Tories.
SO the OP article is broadly wrong and only right in the sense that FPTP is unfair to either party (in 2017 Labour) by not translating actual percentage of vote into seats because votes are being piled up in seats already held.
The Tories are right that the current FPTP boundaries are biased against the Tories but wrong in saying that Corbyn wants to rig the system, since their remedy itself would rig the system in their own favour.
Corbyn is wrong to want to keep the current boundaries because they are undemocratic and favour Labour, but right to oppose the Tories remedy which would rig the system against Labour.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
It worked in the context of the politics of the time because Blair was extremely good at winning middle England marginal seats, if not particularly loved elsewhere, the Conservatives were still very unpopular and the populist Right/Celtic nationalists didn't really feature.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
Not true. The party appears on the ballot. Voters vote for both.
Absolutely not. Legally they vote for an individual representative for their constituency. It is why MPs can quite rightly cross the floor. It is also something we should not change as we should do nothing that gives extra power to the parties.
Up to (I think) about 1970 only the candidates name appeared on the ballot paper. I was once, as a teller ouside a polling station, approached by a voter, ballot paper in hand, who asked me which of the two was the Labour candidate. In fact there wasn’t one. Putting party names on ballot papers is a mixed blessing. Remember the Literal Democrat in Winchester (and I seem to recall, elsewhere.)
I can remember my Dad going to vote and returning home, somewhat embarrassed, because he admitted he didn't know who the Conservative candidate was and had to ask the policeman outside who it was, only then to be told he couldn't tell him!
Personally I would choose to leave that detail on the ballot paper as it must be the only way those wanting to vote for UKIP or the Tories can identify their candidate of choice and I wouldn't want to see them disfranchised by accident.
One of the problems with it though is it gives a false impression. If the successful candidate then crosses the floor once elected people get upset because they think they voted for a party when legally and constitutionally they voted for the individual. Moreover even if they do not cross the floor, if the MP then subsequently regularly rebels against the party, even though they may be voting exactly in accordance with their stated views prior to the election, people again feel let down by the system.
The answer must surely be to make almost all Parliamentary votes free votes and educate people as to what they are actually voting for.
The situation is even worse at the local level where we have moved to much stronger party controls and the adoption of local council cabinets based on majority party rule which exclude many councillors from the decision making process.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
It worked in the context of the politics of the time because Blair was extremely good at winning middle England marginal seats, if not particularly loved elsewhere, the Conservatives were still very unpopular and the populist Right/Celtic nationalists didn't really feature.
The FPTP system has ALWAYS favoured the party -whichever it is - that has been able to win middle England marginal seats. Piling up votes in seats already held as Corbyn did is not the way to win a general election under FPTP.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Boundaries went out the window the moment Theresa lost her majority.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Boundaries went out the window the moment Theresa lost her majority.
On the politics, it's probably a good idea to attack Corbyn on this. He likes to portray himself as more principled than other politicians, which is laugably arrogant of him, and the Conservatives need to chip away at this by continually reminding people that he's just another politician.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
It worked in the context of the politics of the time because Blair was extremely good at winning middle England marginal seats, if not particularly loved elsewhere, the Conservatives were still very unpopular and the populist Right/Celtic nationalists didn't really feature.
Plus many of those who would have voted LD in a safe Labour seat tactically voted Labour in Tory v Labour marginals to stop Howard becoming PM
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
You have to register for council tax each and every time you move, normally within days, and that usually triggers a reminder for the electoral roll from the council. Not being on the roll affects things like credit scores so that's another incentive.
And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
When you move and register on the electoral roll at the new property, are you required to de-registered from the old property for the purposes of parliamentary elections?
Of course you can legally vote in more than one place in local elections.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Boundaries went out the window the moment Theresa lost her majority.
Lost Dave’s majority.
Theresa May has never won a majority.
I mean she had one at her disposal for the first 10 months of her premiership.
Mr. Eagles, voters vote for politicians, not for parties. If a party is so inept it doesn't understand the basic democratic system in which it's competing, that's their own damned fault.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Which boundaries are those? I thought the regulations stated that the commission may consider existing constituency/local government boundaries, but that they don't have to.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
It worked in the context of the politics of the time because Blair was extremely good at winning middle England marginal seats, if not particularly loved elsewhere, the Conservatives were still very unpopular and the populist Right/Celtic nationalists didn't really feature.
The FPTP system has ALWAYS favoured the party -whichever it is - that has been able to win middle England marginal seats. Piling up votes in seats already held as Corbyn did is not the way to win a general election under FPTP.
True, if Corbyn had been hot stuff in those seats like Blair he could have quite plausibly won a majority with the Tories having won the national vote.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Which boundaries are those? I thought the regulations stated that the commission may consider existing constituency/local government boundaries, but that they don't have to.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Spectacularly unfair to whom? Not unfair to the Conservative Party, as OGH points out.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Spectacularly unfair to whom? Not unfair to the Conservative Party, as OGH points out.
In 1997 the Blair government set up the Jenkins Commission on Electoral Reform, which reported as follows: (Quoted from Wikipedia) 'The commission reported in September 1998 and suggested the alternative vote top-up or AV+ system, which would directly elect some MPs by the alternative vote, with a number of additional members elected from top up lists similarly to mixed member proportional representation. A Single Transferable Vote system was considered by the commission, but rejected on the grounds that it would require massive constituencies of around 350,000 electors resulting in an oppressive degree of choice, (i.e. too many candidates to choose from.) Also, they described the counting of votes in STV as "incontestably opaque" and argued that different counting systems could produce different results. Finally, Jenkins rejected STV because it was a different system from those used in European and devolved parliaments, as well as the London Assembly.’
I have to say I don’t find the STV counting system ‘incontesably opaque’, nor do I think it would result in too many candidates. Most of the time anyway!
There’s a criticsm which I don’t think has been mentioned. AFAIK the normal procedure is to assess constituency size on the number of people over understood to be resident in thge constuency. Didn’t the last review have to take into account the number of people who voted at the previosu election; oin other words actual voters instead of potential ones?
Apologies if I’m wrong.
No, TBF it is based on registered voters, not people who actually vote. The problem is with the numerous unregistered voters in urban areas. As ydoethur says, the problem in using the raw census data is that it includes people not entitled to vote, but IIRC it also includes questions about nationality which would make it possible to eliminate those from the count.
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
You have to register for council tax each and every time you move, normally within days, and that usually triggers a reminder for the electoral roll from the council. Not being on the roll affects things like credit scores so that's another incentive.
And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
When you move and register on the electoral roll at the new property, are you required to de-registered from the old property for the purposes of parliamentary elections?
Of course you can legally vote in more than one place in local elections.
The form my wife and I completed in September asked for details of our previous address so we could be removed from that roll.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
Back in 2001, it was estimated that if Conservatives and Labour won an equal vote share, Labour would be 100 seats ahead. But, the collapse of the Lib Dems in rural and suburban England, the collapse of Labour in Scotland, and the decline of tactical voting against the Conservatives, have eliminated that bias.
If the long term demographic trend was for people in GB to move from the country into the cities, as it was during the 19thC, rather than the other way round, then I suspect we might hear a bit more interest in boundary reform from the Labour Party.
Actually, on checking, I see it was a 140 seat lead.
It worked in the context of the politics of the time because Blair was extremely good at winning middle England marginal seats, if not particularly loved elsewhere, the Conservatives were still very unpopular and the populist Right/Celtic nationalists didn't really feature.
The FPTP system has ALWAYS favoured the party -whichever it is - that has been able to win middle England marginal seats. Piling up votes in seats already held as Corbyn did is not the way to win a general election under FPTP.
True, if Corbyn had been hot stuff in those seats like Blair he could have quite plausibly won a majority with the Tories having won the national vote.
But then, he wouldn't be Corbyn. Part of his appeal to the people who voted in vast numbers for Labour in London and university cities is that he doesn't appeal to people in such marginal seats.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
Surely it should always be the last Electoral Roll?
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
And if it was done on population it would be even more distorted as it would be the population of 2011.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
Yes but the particular problem here is the Conservatives fixing the particular electoral roll to favour itself. If a later roll were used, things would be different. Likewise removing the reduction to 600 seats would make passing the review easier.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
Surely it should always be the last Electoral Roll?
Well the review started in 2016, so it would have been quite something if they had used the 2017 register.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
Yes but the particular problem here is the Conservatives fixing the particular electoral roll to favour itself. If a later roll were used, things would be different. Likewise removing the reduction to 600 seats would make passing the review easier.
Fixing the roll? Is there any evidence that this is what happened? AIUI, councils went to great lengths to contact those on the register that weren't automatically transferred, and there was a huge drive to get people registered individually.
I'm sorry Mike, but this is just complete and utter bollocks. You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.
The register used to set boundaries was in 2001. By the likely date of the next election that will be more than 20 years out of date.
Parliament has set down in law the fact that it wants these updated and the method that should be used.
Labour is attempting to block the changes because it believes it will be disadvantaged by them. *That* is attempting to rig the system. The Tories are simply trying to implement the law as it stands: if you don't like the 600 seat law or the 5% variance limitation go and change the law.
Don't try to prevent boundaries being updated to reflect the changes in population size and location.
Except that, as TSE points out, it was entirely within their power to put through these changes before May's decision to hold a snap election. Why didn't they do so back then if it is a matter of such high principle ?
The plain fact is that any change to the boundaries will be subject to this kind of posturing on both sides, as the existing electoral system is manifestly unfair to someone whatever the current political weather, and whatever the current boundary proposals.
Presumably because the EC hadn't done their work.
But I would be fine with Parliament not having a vote on the EC's conclusion (although there should be some review process due manifest unfairness - probably judicial - as I don't want the EC itself to become a political prize)
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
Which is why the role of Parliament should be to issue guidelines to the impartial Electoral Commission who then make and implement the new boundaries. They’ve already voted via primary legislation to make the changes and shouldn’t have a veto on the implementation of them.
+1
Both of you seem to be struggling with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty. Which is odd, since you both seem to be all in favour of it in the abstract.
Do you understand what parliamentary sovereignty actually means?
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Boundaries went out the window the moment Theresa lost her majority.
In 2010 the Tories received a higher share of the vote than Labour in 2005 and had a bigger lead over Labour than Labour had over the Tories in 2005.
The result?
2005 - Lab majority of 66
2010 - Tories just short of a majority.
I think it would be more accurate to say that at present the system seems to work against the Tories. For many years it worked against Labour. 1951 is, I think, the most extreme example.
Otherwise I agree with Mr Yorkcity. Regional top-up systems seems to work well.
In 1951 the Tories lost the popular vote but won a small majority but in 1970 Labour lost the popular vote but won most seats
I think Labour winning most seats in the 1970 general election will have come as an unpleasant surprise to the Heath government of 1970-74.
It seems fake political news predates Mr Trump by some decades ..
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
To clarify - a majority of MPs elected by the British people in June oppose giving the Tories a greater electoral advantage than they have currently.
The EC is required by law to do this job according to certain criteria.
If you don't like it change the law - don't vote down every change
Watching 'Brexit-vote': Amber Rudd is a haridan (and I do not enjoy saying this). No support from this Conservative-member (even when absolutely drunk).
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
To clarify - a majority of MPs elected by the British people in June oppose giving the Tories a greater electoral advantage than they have currently.
The EC is required by law to do this job according to certain criteria.
If you don't like it change the law - don't vote down every change
And the change won’t happen without Parliamentary approval. That is the law.
So are you saying the Queen should have backed apartheid South Africa then? That was clearly one issue where the Queen was right in retrospect, Thatcher should have supported sanctions on South Africa when it had a white minority government that supported apartheid.
A few basic facts to cut through the guff from both sides:
1 National vote tallies and percentages are an irrelevance under FPTP. Complaining that party X gets seats Z despite votes Z misunderstands how our (utterly stupid) system works. This also means that complaints about vote counts vs votes for the government / opposition are also flawed
2 The boundaries are in desperate need of reform. The issue being the means being used for the reform. Both the failed attempt in the last parliament and the soon to fail attempt in the current parliament decided that people favour equivalence over communities. Seat boundaries have to respect geography, and in both cases there are swathes of seats where the proposed changes are fundamentally stupid to anyone who knows the area. Being less hell-bent on equal size has to be the way forward
3 The current review is already dead - it will not command a majority in the Commons. The government barely has a working majority (favouring abstaining over losing), the proposals ask its DUP partner to give seats up to Sinn Fein, the proposals ask Tory MPs to give up even more seats on top of the ones Mrs May lost them in June. It won't pass.
4 The Commission is non partisan. The criteria it is set for the review is partisan. The rules for boundaries (see point 2) were drawn up by Tories looking to favour their chances. That is the very definition of gerrymandering. The only solution has to be to remove party politics from the equation. Parliament empowers the Commission to draw up its own criteria independently, then make recommendations on a fixed period (every 10 years perhaps). Take meddling ministers of both parties out of the loop.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Boundaries went out the window the moment Theresa lost her majority.
Lost Dave’s majority.
Theresa May has never won a majority.
Neither did Dave for his first five years as PM.
Dave took the Tories from Opposition to Government and made sure the Tories had more seats than what he inherited.
The boundary changes clearly aren't going to happen in this parliament, so it's largely academic. We are stuck with the spectacularly unfair current boundaries, which are completely indefensible by any rational standard (why on earth does Wales, for example, get substantially more MPs pro-rata than the South East?)
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
Spectacularly unfair to whom? Not unfair to the Conservative Party, as OGH points out.
They appear to be like council tax - everyone agrees it's years out of date and in desperate need of reforming or at least rebanding, but nobody can agree on a replacement that would be less controversial.
Parliament has agreed on a replacement.
Certain MPs wish to frustrate the actions of the Electoral Commission in fulfilling its mandate
To clarify - a majority of MPs elected by the British people in June oppose giving the Tories a greater electoral advantage than they have currently.
The EC is required by law to do this job according to certain criteria.
If you don't like it change the law - don't vote down every change
And the change won’t happen without Parliamentary approval. That is the law.
I think Charles' argument was that it shouldn't be subject to approval. In fact, the reviews should be automatic, and require no input from MPs whatsoever.
So are you saying the Queen should have backed apartheid South Africa then? That was clearly one issues where the Queen was right in retrospect, Thatcher should have supported sanctions on South Africa when it had a white minority government that supported apartheid.
Mrs Thatcher’s approach helped end Apartheid.
Brenda’s approach would have seen Black South Africans suffer even more.
It's also naked interest to keep arbitrary boundaries that create such distortion under FPTP.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, it's not an argument for failing to correct the skewed distribution of seats under FPTP. Are you seriously suggesting that, pending some future switch to a completely different electoral system, Wales should continue to be over-represented in the current system?
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
I don't think Labour's objection is to equalisation of seats, but is to it being on the basis of the electoral roll of 2015, rather than the one of 2017, and it being on the basis of votes rather than population. Both seem reasonable to me. Under the FTPA we have an election in 2022 so plenty of time to do boundaries including all the extra voters who turned out in 2017.
It’s never been done on the basis of population, it’s always been based on the electoral roll.
Yes but the particular problem here is the Conservatives fixing the particular electoral roll to favour itself. If a later roll were used, things would be different. Likewise removing the reduction to 600 seats would make passing the review easier.
Fixing the roll? Is there any evidence that this is what happened? AIUI, councils went to great lengths to contact those on the register that weren't automatically transferred, and there was a huge drive to get people registered individually.
No, fixed on a particular roll just after the switch to individual registration and the purging of old registrations (against EC advice) which favoured Conservatives. More up to date rolls are now available. The Conservatives fixed use of a roll that favoured themselves and purged them because they thought that would favour the blue team. Labour would prefer the more up to date roll which they believe would favour Labour. Let us not pretend there much higher principle at stake.
On the politics, it's probably a good idea to attack Corbyn on this. He likes to portray himself as more principled than other politicians, which is laugably arrogant of him, and the Conservatives need to chip away at this by continually reminding people that he's just another politician.
I imagine Corbyn would welcome the opportunity to point out the Tories are seeking to introduce boundaries that increase the electoral advantage they already have.
Comments
The usual answer to this is to say, "Well, if people can't be bothered to register then tough luck", but that's a view that reflects a settled existence - if you're having to move home every 6 months as you chase a series of part-time/temporary jobs, you have to be extraordinarily motivated to register each time.
We've all debated this many times, so I won't go on, but the Minister and the Telegraph are, as Mike says, just being silly.
Point 3 - The NI commission has not yet reported its revised proposals. It's possible they may go back to a 4 seat Belfast which would be better for the DUP
Point 4 - Parliament should set the criteria at the beginning of the process but then have no further say with the boundaries being automatically implemented at the end of the process.
Oh, and apparently the Commission were pushing for this particular reform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Electoral_Registration
It’s amazing how much work Satan has done, in the stated opinions of PBN-ers!
Mind you the entire form had issues. The question on religion was left in for some reason I never quite understood but made optional, negating the whole point of it. The daftest one was a question on sexuality, which was dropped after the person drafting it was asked, not having considered this, how many admissions to paedophilia or bestiality they were expecting.
Her reply was, 'well he may not be as good as he ought to be but you've got to admit he's a really industrious body for all that!'
I have to go out. Have a good morning everyone.
One interesting side-effect of the changes has been registration drives (perhaps for partisan reasons).
As OGH never fails to remind us, the GE isn't one contest but 650 simultaneous by-elections just as the US election is really 50 state contests rather then one election.
We live in a representative democracy - we derive comfort and ownership from the fact that we have a presence, whether we voted for them or not, in the national law-making sovereign body we call Parliament. You may like your representative, despise them or not give them a second thought but they are for you.
The current system that we use to choose that representative means that while every vote is counted, most votes don't actually count. Granted, I'm one of the minority who didn't vote for Stephen Timms in June (though less of a minority when taking into account non voters) but I know that if I ever needed him, my MP would treat me and my concerns as any other constituent. The relationship after the election is more Doctor-Patient if you like.
Some people like the current system - others don't. I've never considered it "fair" but over time I came to realise the representative system (if that's all you use) is inherently unfair. I'd like to think any MP will help anyone anywhere even if that person didn't vote for them and I'm sure that's true but the MP isn't just a constituency representative - he or she is a member of a political party with a programme of policies you either support wholly partly or not at all.
There's the problem - I can call on my MP if I have a problem and they will help but I can't make them choose the policies I support if they are a member of a Party taking a contrary view. In essence, my MP is my non-medical GP, a super-Councillor but he doesn't represent me or my idea of the country.
Freedom of Speech provides some comfort - the plurality and diversity of voices and opinion can be heard and if not accepted they cannot be ignored. The liberation of opinion that has come from Twitter and other social media means more voices are heard but still not enough and not often enough. Who speaks for me ? In the end, me, because I can. Who speaks for the homeless man begging for coins by the tube station ? Who speaks for the abused in a violent relationship ? Who speaks for those who have no voice ?
Party may be a cause of voting behaviour, but it isn't something people vote for. They only vote for individuals.
Mr. Eagles, alas, I don't trust the political class to redesign the electoral system.
I'd agree that increasing the number of marginals would be a sensible aim.
5 seems, on occasion to create problems. If I write to my MP with a problem which is a non-poilitical matter, then he or she will, in my experience, deal with it fairly and resonably. Might even, if appropriate ‘go the extra mile’. However if I write with a problem to which there is a party political dimension then he or she may apply party policy to the way it is dealt with. Which isn’t always fair and reasonable.
I’ve had experience of both.
It's too hard in the current parliament to do much else.
Which of course is why, as a privately educated elitist, you like them so much.
I feel for them. It must be one of the most morale sapping places to work in the country.
Putting party names on ballot papers is a mixed blessing. Remember the Literal Democrat in Winchester (and I seem to recall, elsewhere.)
The Tories went from using FPTP to elect their leaders to using quasi-AV to elect their leaders.
Elsewhere the current review is using the reduced electoral roll despite large numbers added back on after the cutoff. Another reason why ministers should have no part to play in the process - leave it to the Electoral Commission with a mandate to get the maximum number of people on the electoral roll.
And there are annual (compulsory) registrations each September.
Could it be that it is the time of year that people are realising how difficult it is to get septuagenarian bigots to leave???
I’ve stated many times, including on this thread, I prefer multi member STV.
As for attacking me personally, I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
If this were genuniely an example of copying something he has pioneered then fair enough. But actually UK parties have been arguing about boundaries in the obvious ways for as long as I can remember.
Emphasising the fact that we vote for an individual representative would also remove a lot of the outrageous threats being made to Europhile Tory MPs. If people were clearer that MPs are elected to serve their constituents as their own consciences dictate then the accusations of betrayal would be much harder to make. Certainly the telegraph would have no legitimate cause to plaster their faces around whilst ignoring all the other non Tory MPs who also voted against the Government for myriad different reasons.
Inner cities are probably not very overrepresented, now.
Personally I would choose to leave that detail on the ballot paper as it must be the only way those wanting to vote for UKIP or the Tories can identify their candidate of choice and I wouldn't want to see them disfranchised by accident.
WITHIN the First Past the Post system, the system benefits Labour. It takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than it does to elect a Tory MP because of the way the population is distributed and because constituency numbers are so unequal. This is why Blair got a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote and Cameron got no majority at all on 36% In that sense the Tories are right. However the proposed new boundaries drawn up by Cameron would have taken it to the other extreme and benefitted the Tories.
SO the OP article is broadly wrong and only right in the sense that FPTP is unfair to either party (in 2017 Labour) by not translating actual percentage of vote into seats because votes are being piled up in seats already held.
The Tories are right that the current FPTP boundaries are biased against the Tories but wrong in saying that Corbyn wants to rig the system, since their remedy itself would rig the system in their own favour.
Corbyn is wrong to want to keep the current boundaries because they are undemocratic and favour Labour, but right to oppose the Tories remedy which would rig the system against Labour.
Clearly, by definition it can't be 'naked political interest' to want to have roughly even-sized constituencies independently allocated by the Boundary Commission. It is, however, naked political interest to try to prevent correction of the current scandalous distribution of seats.
The answer must surely be to make almost all Parliamentary votes free votes and educate people as to what they are actually voting for.
The situation is even worse at the local level where we have moved to much stronger party controls and the adoption of local council cabinets based on majority party rule which exclude many councillors from the decision making process.
Theresa May has never won a majority.
Tories only talk about half of the job.
Of course you can legally vote in more than one place in local elections.
Sounds like children with three parents.
In any case, I hadn't noticed Labour finishing the job of electoral reform when they had the massive majorities to do so. Hypocritical, much?
Her Majesty was wrong once again and acting like a petulant teenager.
Queen was 'so enraged' by Margaret Thatcher's refusal to back sanctions on apartheid she wanted to scrap their weekly meetings.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5219155/amp/Queen-enraged-Thatcher-apartheid.html
'The commission reported in September 1998 and suggested the alternative vote top-up or AV+ system, which would directly elect some MPs by the alternative vote, with a number of additional members elected from top up lists similarly to mixed member proportional representation. A Single Transferable Vote system was considered by the commission, but rejected on the grounds that it would require massive constituencies of around 350,000 electors resulting in an oppressive degree of choice, (i.e. too many candidates to choose from.) Also, they described the counting of votes in STV as "incontestably opaque" and argued that different counting systems could produce different results. Finally, Jenkins rejected STV because it was a different system from those used in European and devolved parliaments, as well as the London Assembly.’
I have to say I don’t find the STV counting system ‘incontesably opaque’, nor do I think it would result in too many candidates. Most of the time anyway!
But I would be fine with Parliament not having a vote on the EC's conclusion (although there should be some review process due manifest unfairness - probably judicial - as I don't want the EC itself to become a political prize)
It seems fake political news predates Mr Trump by some decades ..
If you don't like it change the law - don't vote down every change
Mrs Thatcher managed it too, Mrs May failed.
Brenda’s approach would have seen Black South Africans suffer even more.