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. 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.
Yeah, I was asking if there was any evidence for that, or, as I suspect, the majority of the culled electors no longer existed at their address. A more up to date roll was not available when the review started in 2016.
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).
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 conundrum is to weaken parties (or, my preference, to take the executive out of parliament) not to break the representative link
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
The criteria were changed by Messrs Cameron and Osborne; they were not handed down on tablets of stone.
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.
But it is. That is how the EC got the brief it did in the first place.
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.
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.
But it is. That is how the EC got the brief it did in the first place.
Yeah, I think we all know that. That doesn't mean it can't be done differently!
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
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.
The more valid voters on the register the better. But why people object to IVR on principle I don't understand
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unfair to the voters.
Tory ones
Despite the inbuilt bias already in place towards 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, 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.
I was registered with a GP in my university town for about seven years after I moved away. For nine years of the last decade I’ve lived abroad but no doubt the GP I was last registered with is still claiming for me.
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
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. 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.
Yeah, I was asking if there was any evidence for that, or, as I suspect, the majority of the culled electors no longer existed at their address. A more up to date roll was not available when the review started in 2016.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
Theresa threw away Dave's majority before the party could get the boundary reforms through parliament. It's her fault and no one else's. Jez is hardly going to wave through boundary changes that make it more difficult for him to become PM by eroding Labour's advantage.
Simply, it's our fault for not holding the Lib Dem AV referendum to ransom until the boundary changes were done and both should have been part of the same bill.
Regional top up lists are the spawn of Satan and are used by glorified county councils, they are fine for the Mothers-in-law of Parliament not the Mother of Parliaments.
They give parties far too much power.
Multi member STV is the answer.
PBers advocating STV should be deselected from the forum and placed in the transfer window for permanent removal to ConHome for a period no shorter than it takes Burnley FC to win the Champions League and OGH to resign as CEO of the Belgravia Hair Centre.
Happy New Year.
Great to hear from you on the slite again Jack. Hope your health is holding up.
Thank you Mike.
I regard coffin dodging as a most pleasurable pastime and seem to have enjoyed a modest amount of success recently.
Sadly I noted that Lord Elibank died recently. A Scottish peerage dating back to 1643. He also held the Jacobite peerage of the Earl of Westminster. Perhaps appropriately he passed away on St Andrew's Day.
Nice to see you on site again Jack, all the best for 2018
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
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.
Which is why I used the term "frustrating" - I don't think any boundary report will pass regardless of content
If Her Majesty wanted to scrap the meetings, then she did not make a very good job of it. There have now been 13 prime ministers during HMQ's reign and she can't possibly have approved of all of their policies. The teenage scribblers at the Daily Mail are getting over-excited again.
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.
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
The criteria were changed by Messrs Cameron and Osborne; they were not handed down on tablets of stone.
And Parliament can change the criteria set out in law if it chooses to do so.
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
You must live in pretty exalted surroundings if you honestly believe there are more 2nd home owners than students.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
I thought you could only register twice if you were a resident in two homes? Being a landlord doesn't seem to count.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
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?
The 'skew' (which actually is a reduction in the unfair advantage built into the system for larger parties with concentrated support - Tory attempts to paint this as a disadvantage are sickening hypocrisy) arises from the combination of where the boundaries are and where the votes are. The relative tilt toward Labour arose from the greater tendency of voters in safer Tory seats to vote LibDem, and the greater tendency of voters in Labour safe seats not to vote at all. Both of these factors are now hugely reduced.
To an extent this will be reversed if Labour makes big gains from the SNP next time.
It’s pretty pathetic how Labour call any change to the electoral system which disadvantages them ‘gerrymandering’. Then again, the Tories are now the only party left standing which aren’t led by fanatics.
EDIT I think Vince isn’t dynamic enough to be fanatic, but seeking to deny the E.U. referendum result is not a moderate stance.
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.
But it is. That is how the EC got the brief it did in the first place.
Yeah, I think we all know that. That doesn't mean it can't be done differently!
Yes, the point Charles, Mark and I were making is that the EC should review and implement the boundary review periodically and along objective criteria without the politicians getting involved beyond the initial legislative instruction to the EC. Making Parliamentary boundaries something that just happens every so often is much better than having the issue politicised with accusations of gerrymandering.
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.
The public votes overwhelmingly to retain FPTP in a national referendum
Given that is the chose system why is it gerrymandering to insist on roughly equally sized constituencies Mike? The last boundary review is uncommonly long ago, largely because Labour chose to overlook it because it gave them advantage
Please stop posting opinion pieces masquerading as analysis Mike, it does the site a disservice
Because the Tories are motivated by the outcome, not the process. The effect of the seat reduction and inflexible criteria is to increase the bias already built into the system for the Tories. Does anyone seriously think they would be pushing this otherwise?
Or Labour voting against it? Your point is?
Historically speaking, there has been a long delay since the last boundary changes
Not particularly so. Unchanged boundaries operated from 1955 until the February 1974 election when a review was implemented.Further boundary changes took place prior to the 1983 election and these continued to operate until 1997.
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
The UK was in no position to negotiate black majority rule in South Africa.
More pertinently, both the UK and US governments in the 1980's were worried that comprehensive sanctions would result in a pro-Soviet government taking power (the South African Communist Party was strong at the time). Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe were all unhappy examples of what happened when African liberation movements took power.
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.
Quite.
The Tories dont have an electoral advantage. It takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP. What the Tories are guilty of is trying to redress the disadvantage by going too far in the opposite direction and giving themselves an advantage.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
The UK was in no position to negotiate black majority rule in South Africa.
More pertinently, both the UK and US governments in the 1980's were worried that comprehensive sanctions would result in a pro-Soviet government taking power (the South African Communist Party was strong at the time). Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe were all unhappy examples of what happened when African liberation movements took power.
It was Thatcher's veto which prevented the Commonwealth agreeing a clear position on sanctions in 1987 and apartheid continued for 4 years and the National Party government stayed in power in South Africa for 7 years after that.
The only viable alternative as it proved was a Mandela led ANC and of course even Mugabe actually proved an initially sensible and pragmatic leader when he took over in Zimbabwe in 1980 before power went to his head.
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?
Yes. As defined on here, it means Conservatives can engage in magical thinking where whatever they want can be demanded through it and whatever they don't want isn't covered by it.
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.
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
You must live in pretty exalted surroundings if you honestly believe there are more 2nd home owners than students.
One in 10 UK adults, or 5.2 million people, own a second home according to the Torygraph.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
Come on Mortimer. Any change to the electoral system which adversely affects Labour is by definition gerrymandering, as only they are the legitimate voice of the people. Caring about the integrity of the ballot is merely a smokescreen for reaction.
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.
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.
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
You must live in pretty exalted surroundings if you honestly believe there are more 2nd home owners than students.
One in 10 UK adults, or 5.2 million people, own a second home according to the Torygraph.
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
The UK was in no position to negotiate black majority rule in South Africa.
More pertinently, both the UK and US governments in the 1980's were worried that comprehensive sanctions would result in a pro-Soviet government taking power (the South African Communist Party was strong at the time). Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe were all unhappy examples of what happened when African liberation movements took power.
It was Thatcher's veto which prevented the Commonwealth agreeing a clear position on sanctions in 1987 and apartheid continued for 4 years and the National Party government stayed in power in South Africa for 7 years after that.
The only viable alternative as it proved was a Mandela led ANC and of course even Mugabe actually proved an initially sensible and pragmatic leader when he took over in Zimbabwe in 1980 before power went to his head.
Sure, but then my view is that Thatcher was right and the rest of the Commonwealth (many of whose members had worse human rights records than South Africa) were wrong.
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
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.
Quite.
The Tories dont have an electoral advantage. It takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
Come on Mortimer. Any change to the electoral system which adversely affects Labour is by definition gerrymandering, as only they are the legitimate voice of the people. Caring about the integrity of the ballot is merely a smokescreen for reaction.
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
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.
Why on earth is the Government wasting time by not getting a new Review under way? Whilst Primary Legislation is required for this to happen, there is plenty of time to change the brief of the Boundary Commission by reverting to 650 MPs and greater flexibility in the size of electorates. The process usually takes three years - so it really needs to begin in 2018 if any changes are to be implemented by 2022.
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
The UK was in no position to negotiate black majority rule in South Africa.
More pertinently, both the UK and US governments in the 1980's were worried that comprehensive sanctions would result in a pro-Soviet government taking power (the South African Communist Party was strong at the time). Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe were all unhappy examples of what happened when African liberation movements took power.
It was Thatcher's veto which prevented the Commonwealth agreeing a clear position on sanctions in 1987 and apartheid continued for 4 years and the National Party government stayed in power in South Africa for 7 years after that.
The only viable alternative as it proved was a Mandela led ANC and of course even Mugabe actually proved an initially sensible and pragmatic leader when he took over in Zimbabwe in 1980 before power went to his head.
Sure, but then my view is that Thatcher was right and the rest of the Commonwealth (many of whose members had worse human rights records than South Africa) were wrong.
We can never be sure either way of the effect sanctions would have had but we do know apartheid continued until 1991 in South Africa without them
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
But did it remove voters or duplicate entries? That's the question I'm asking.
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 conundrum is to weaken parties (or, my preference, to take the executive out of parliament) not to break the representative link
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.
The Current boundaries under FPTP does favour Labour. This is because many city constituencies are smaller than many rural constituencies which means that often it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP. This is why Blair won a majority of 66 with only 35% of the vote in 2005 and Cameron failed to win a majority with 36% -7 points ahead of Labour.
The Tories however want to change the boundaries too far in the other direction. The Tories are trying to rig the boundaries in their favour. Corbyn wants the current rigged system in favour of Labour to stay the same. Both Corbyn and the Tories therefore are trying to rig the election.
But it should be pointed out that Corbyn has been aping Trump for a long time, using words like "rigged" and claiming every negative story is false news.
Also, the reason Corbyn won so few seats on 40% is that he was piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, but not winning marginals. The FPTP system favours whichever party appeals to Middle England in the marginals. Corbyn Labour does not -hence the 40% did not translate into that many seat gains.
The only way to translate % of vote into seats is with PR. And Corbyn is not in favour of that.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
It does not matter for the purposes of setting constituency sizes if the voters have moved or not, provided the overall numbers are correct, most likely because the numbers leaving have been replaced by people who have not been registered. Obviously it will make a difference to who actually casts a vote come election day but that is not what we are talking about here.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
It does not matter for the purposes of setting constituency sizes if the voters have moved or not, provided the overall numbers are correct, most likely because the numbers leaving have been replaced by people who have not been registered. Obviously it will make a difference to who actually casts a vote come election day but that is not what we are talking about here.
Yeah, but the numbers won't be correct if people have moved out of the constituency, or were registered at multiple addresses.
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
Of course the way to work this problem out is not to take the sums you've provided, but to work out how w many votes were needed in each constituency won (i.e. Second placed candidate plus 1).
Given Labour tend to pile up votes in seats they've won, I suspect the result will be different. But I'm on holiday and away from the spreadsheet, so can't do it...
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
It does not matter for the purposes of setting constituency sizes if the voters have moved or not, provided the overall numbers are correct, most likely because the numbers leaving have been replaced by people who have not been registered. Obviously it will make a difference to who actually casts a vote come election day but that is not what we are talking about here.
Yeah, but the numbers won't be correct if people have moved out of the constituency, or were registered at multiple addresses.
The numbers will be correct provided the replacement rate is constant (eta) so there is an equilibrium between incomers and leavers.
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
It does not matter for the purposes of setting constituency sizes if the voters have moved or not, provided the overall numbers are correct, most likely because the numbers leaving have been replaced by people who have not been registered. Obviously it will make a difference to who actually casts a vote come election day but that is not what we are talking about here.
Yeah, but the numbers won't be correct if people have moved out of the constituency, or were registered at multiple addresses.
The numbers will be correct provided the replacement rate is constant.
And why should we assume this to be true? We can see that constituencies don't stay at the same size, and some get a lot larger than others, so I don't think that is a valid assumption.
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
Depends how you look at it.
Con votes in the 317 seats they won: 9,261,441 or 29215 votes/seat Lab votes in the 262 seats they won: 7,339,955 or 28015 votes/seat
Drawing attention to one of the principal flaws in the system that votes cast for any other than the winner (which in most seats means a majority of them) count for nothing.
The Current boundaries under FPTP does favour Labour. This is because many city constituencies are smaller than many rural constituencies which means that often it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP. This is why Blair won a majority of 66 with only 35% of the vote in 2005 and Cameron failed to win a majority with 36% -7 points ahead of Labour.
The Tories however want to change the boundaries too far in the other direction. The Tories are trying to rig the boundaries in their favour. Corbyn wants the current rigged system in favour of Labour to stay the same. Both Corbyn and the Tories therefore are trying to rig the election.
But it should be pointed out that Corbyn has been aping Trump for a long time, using words like "rigged" and claiming every negative story is false news.
Also, the reason Corbyn won so few seats on 40% is that he was piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, but not winning marginals. The FPTP system favours whichever party appeals to Middle England in the marginals. Corbyn Labour does not -hence the 40% did not translate into that many seat gains.
The only way to translate % of vote into seats is with PR. And Corbyn is not in favour of that.
It's quite striking how big a lead the Conservatives have built up in the East and West Midlands.
The Current boundaries under FPTP does favour Labour. This is because many city constituencies are smaller than many rural constituencies which means that often it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP. This is why Blair won a majority of 66 with only 35% of the vote in 2005 and Cameron failed to win a majority with 36% -7 points ahead of Labour.
The Tories however want to change the boundaries too far in the other direction. The Tories are trying to rig the boundaries in their favour. Corbyn wants the current rigged system in favour of Labour to stay the same. Both Corbyn and the Tories therefore are trying to rig the election.
But it should be pointed out that Corbyn has been aping Trump for a long time, using words like "rigged" and claiming every negative story is false news.
Also, the reason Corbyn won so few seats on 40% is that he was piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, but not winning marginals. The FPTP system favours whichever party appeals to Middle England in the marginals. Corbyn Labour does not -hence the 40% did not translate into that many seat gains.
The only way to translate % of vote into seats is with PR. And Corbyn is not in favour of that.
Under First Past the Post the number of national votes or percentages thereof are utterly irrelevant to the result. So its a false premise that 35% = a Labour majority and 36% ≠ a Tory majority demonstrates bias. Where the votes of those parties are distributed - and what is happening with other parties - determines a majority or not
Any evidence for what? If the 2015 rolls are smaller than the current ones, then that is evidence. Remember for boundary review purposes it does not matter if any particular individual electors are still there, just that the overall number of electors is right.
It isn't evidence that the Tories fixed it. They could all be duplicate entries. I was wondering if there was any evidence for the claim.
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
We are using fixed with two different meanings.
You were claiming that the change to IVR fixed the system in favour of the Tories. I was wondering if there was any evidence for that.
Any system which removes voters disproportionately from Labour seats favours the Conservatives.
And your evidence that it removed actual voters, rather than 'voters', is...?
It does not matter for the purposes of setting constituency sizes if the voters have moved or not, provided the overall numbers are correct, most likely because the numbers leaving have been replaced by people who have not been registered. Obviously it will make a difference to who actually casts a vote come election day but that is not what we are talking about here.
I see you've dodged my question. Just because someone was on the roll doesn't mean they existed by the time the roll was cleaned.
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?
The 'skew' (which actually is a reduction in the unfair advantage built into the system for larger parties with concentrated support - Tory attempts to paint this as a disadvantage are sickening hypocrisy) arises from the combination of where the boundaries are and where the votes are. The relative tilt toward Labour arose from the greater tendency of voters in safer Tory seats to vote LibDem, and the greater tendency of voters in Labour safe seats not to vote at all. Both of these factors are now hugely reduced.
To an extent this will be reversed if Labour makes big gains from the SNP next time.
That is a big IF given the state of Scottish Labour
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
Depends how you look at it.
Con votes in the 317 seats they won: 9,261,441 or 29215 votes/seat Lab votes in the 262 seats they won: 7,339,955 or 28015 votes/seat
Drawing attention to one of the principal flaws in the system that votes cast for any other than the winner (which in most seats means a majority of them) count for nothing.
Just responding to SteveF blatant untruth
"The Tories dont have an electoral advantage. It takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP."
Exactly. Despite all the self-serving guff from (already over-represented) Tories about "equal representation", there are various groups who are on the electoral register more than once and therefore are distorting representation. With the exception of students, these groups are likely to be heavily weighted towards the Tories.
Wouldn't students be the biggest group by far? And we all know which way they vote
There are surely more landlords and second home owners than students? Multiple registration of landlords is decreasing but there are still plenty of holiday and second home owners on the register more than once.
I thought you could only register twice if you were a resident in two homes? Being a landlord doesn't seem to count.
Theory and reality are still reasonably far apart, as we started from a system where the form came through the door and the property owner fills it in and returns it. Second home owners are commonly registered, as are owners of short term lets such as holiday cottages. Landlords could register themselves by adding their name to the form before handing it on to, or adding the names of, tenants.
It is much less common nowadays to find landlords registered, but many second home owners are. You're right that they are supposed to be actual homes, but then a) many second homes still qualify under the rules, b) no checks are being made on existing register entries, and c) as I understand it only cursory checks are being made on new register entries, as - despite IER tying registration to the NI number, the data is spread across dozens of local authority databases and is not nationally joined up.
In terms of bias, what matters is not so much how those individuals vote (because no-one can vote more than once) but the types of areas where they tend to live - i.e. any skew in distribution. I would suggest that second home owners, holiday let owners, and landlords, would tend to be more likely to live in middle class areas, as indeed are students. If the students all vote at Uni then it is their home areas that are being over-represented, and if these are skewed towards middle class neighbourhoods it matters not a jot that most students voted Labour - it is their register entry that creates the bias, not their vote.
TSE has already stated the solution - Multi-Member STV. A fully proportional Commons. People can vote for whomever they like and have their vote carry equal weight. People get a choice of MP to deal with their issues as they do councillors - removing the problem of lazy/ignorant members who do nothing but win anyway. A realignment of political parties so that the nutters at either end can do their own thing without penalty and Blair/Osborne/Clegg can form their new Coalition Union of National Triumph party.
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.
Uh no. Thatcher's approach gave legitimacy to the government which helped perpetuate it, Thatcher should have done as she did in Rhodesia and negotiated the process for black majority rule, especially as Mandela proved a far better President than Mugabe.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
It was Carrington and Gilmour who negotiated the Lusaka and Lancaster House deals, not Thatcher. It was Soames as governor who implemented the latter. Credit should be given to Thatcher though for, having realised her initial support for Smith and later preference for Muzowera was impracticable, public support for the deals and facing down the pro-Smith faction on the Tory right led by the Monday Club.
Thatcher later felt she had 'sold out' the white Rhodesians, although Mugabe's avowedly criminal regime may have helped her change stance (and ironically for all his later claims of pragmatism, Mugabe's slide to one-party rule from 1981 and the Matabele crisis from 1983 did in fact amply bear out her and indeed Ian Smith's earlier belief that he was a Marxist crook on the make who would lead Zimbabwe to catastrophe).
Surely the obvious solution here is to equalise the constituencies but drop the change to 600 MPs. Given the massive increase in HoL members in recent years, the cost of 50 MPs is a drop in the ocean.
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
Of course the way to work this problem out is not to take the sums you've provided, but to work out how w many votes were needed in each constituency won (i.e. Second placed candidate plus 1).
Given Labour tend to pile up votes in seats they've won, I suspect the result will be different. But I'm on holiday and away from the spreadsheet, so can't do it...
Surely the obvious solution here is to equalise the constituencies but drop the change to 600 MPs. Given the massive increase in HoL members in recent years, the cost of 50 MPs is a drop in the ocean.
I agree, especially when you consider the extra workload they will have after leaving the EU.
TSE has already stated the solution - Multi-Member STV. A fully proportional Commons. People can vote for whomever they like and have their vote carry equal weight. People get a choice of MP to deal with their issues as they do councillors - removing the problem of lazy/ignorant members who do nothing but win anyway. A realignment of political parties so that the nutters at either end can do their own thing without penalty and Blair/Osborne/Clegg can form their new Coalition Union of National Triumph party.
Whats not to like?
We would all die from sleep deprivation by the time all winning candidates are known. That’s quite a design flaw
TSE has already stated the solution - Multi-Member STV. A fully proportional Commons. People can vote for whomever they like and have their vote carry equal weight. People get a choice of MP to deal with their issues as they do councillors - removing the problem of lazy/ignorant members who do nothing but win anyway. A realignment of political parties so that the nutters at either end can do their own thing without penalty and Blair/Osborne/Clegg can form their new Coalition Union of National Triumph party.
Whats not to like?
Actually its scary that Osborne of the 3 named individuals would be my preferred PM
In November, Russia lost contact with a 6,062-pound, $45 million satellite. Turns out, that happened because the Meteor-M weather satellite was programmed with the wrong coordinates.
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
The coverage from BT isn't much better.
You don't say.
After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
The coverage from BT isn't much better.
You don't say.
After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
Watching the Ashes coverage has been nearly as bad as sitting through The Last Jedi on repeat ;-)
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
The coverage from BT isn't much better.
You don't say.
After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
Watching the Ashes coverage has been nearly as bad as sitting through The Last Jedi on repeat ;-)
I thought that sort of thing was illegal under torture regulations. In the US I know it's forbidden under the Eighth Amendment.
But are you referring to the commentary or the standard of England's cricket?
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
Of course the way to work this problem out is not to take the sums you've provided, but to work out how w many votes were needed in each constituency won (i.e. Second placed candidate plus 1).
Given Labour tend to pile up votes in seats they've won, I suspect the result will be different. But I'm on holiday and away from the spreadsheet, so can't do it...
14,592 /seat for Lab 16,736 /seat for Con
Thanks Rob.
@stevef - you're released from your maths detention.
Comments
Stealing Grannies house?
The double lock rather than the triple one?
The continuation of the Public Sector Pay Cap?
I thought they were more implementing Labours
Ending Pay Cap
Continuing Triple Lock
Energy Cap
Despite the inbuilt bias already in place towards them?
And if the elector is not there, the overall number of electors will be incorrect. They could be registered elsewhere in the same constituency, or moved to another constituency.
Simply, it's our fault for not holding the Lib Dem AV referendum to ransom until the boundary changes were done and both should have been part of the same bill.
The Queen was absolutely right to take the stance she did. (Though I would not be surprised to learn the Queen Mother and Prince Philip had more sympathy for Thatcher's position at the time).
Organisers of Berlin's New Year's Eve celebrations are to set up a "safe zone" for women for the first time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/11403728/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-campaign-to-end-apartheid.html
and this
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/04/the-end-of-apartheid-diary-of-revolution-robin-renwick-review
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42502984
Also, No booze, no bags and don’t take any valuables.
Come on FU. We all know that ever greater diversity is a good thing. Why aren’t you celebrating?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses
EDIT I think Vince isn’t dynamic enough to be fanatic, but seeking to deny the E.U. referendum result is not a moderate stance.
More pertinently, both the UK and US governments in the 1980's were worried that comprehensive sanctions would result in a pro-Soviet government taking power (the South African Communist Party was strong at the time). Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe were all unhappy examples of what happened when African liberation movements took power.
The only viable alternative as it proved was a Mandela led ANC and of course even Mugabe actually proved an initially sensible and pragmatic leader when he took over in Zimbabwe in 1980 before power went to his head.
Your Maths are substandard
12,878,460/262 = 49154 to Elect a representative on the side of the many rather than the few.
SteveF RN et al its detention time i am afraid.
It always frustrates me when people recite the myth that Thatcher was pro Apartheid, when in reality she hated it and did her bit to end it.
The Tories however want to change the boundaries too far in the other direction. The Tories are trying to rig the boundaries in their favour. Corbyn wants the current rigged system in favour of Labour to stay the same. Both Corbyn and the Tories therefore are trying to rig the election.
But it should be pointed out that Corbyn has been aping Trump for a long time, using words like "rigged" and claiming every negative story is false news.
Also, the reason Corbyn won so few seats on 40% is that he was piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, but not winning marginals. The FPTP system favours whichever party appeals to Middle England in the marginals. Corbyn Labour does not -hence the 40% did not translate into that many seat gains.
The only way to translate % of vote into seats is with PR. And Corbyn is not in favour of that.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses
Given Labour tend to pile up votes in seats they've won, I suspect the result will be different. But I'm on holiday and away from the spreadsheet, so can't do it...
Con votes in the 317 seats they won: 9,261,441 or 29215 votes/seat
Lab votes in the 262 seats they won: 7,339,955 or 28015 votes/seat
I see a number of papers including the Guardian had this statistic and they claim it is an increase of 30% since 2000.
Well at the 2011 census, only 1,570,228 people said they had second homes - or a second address - where they spend more than 30 days a year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32393222
There is simply no way these two sets of figures can be made to match.
To answer your question there are about 2.28 million students.
"The Tories dont have an electoral advantage. It takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Tory MP."
It is much less common nowadays to find landlords registered, but many second home owners are. You're right that they are supposed to be actual homes, but then a) many second homes still qualify under the rules, b) no checks are being made on existing register entries, and c) as I understand it only cursory checks are being made on new register entries, as - despite IER tying registration to the NI number, the data is spread across dozens of local authority databases and is not nationally joined up.
In terms of bias, what matters is not so much how those individuals vote (because no-one can vote more than once) but the types of areas where they tend to live - i.e. any skew in distribution. I would suggest that second home owners, holiday let owners, and landlords, would tend to be more likely to live in middle class areas, as indeed are students. If the students all vote at Uni then it is their home areas that are being over-represented, and if these are skewed towards middle class neighbourhoods it matters not a jot that most students voted Labour - it is their register entry that creates the bias, not their vote.
Whats not to like?
Thatcher later felt she had 'sold out' the white Rhodesians, although Mugabe's avowedly criminal regime may have helped her change stance (and ironically for all his later claims of pragmatism, Mugabe's slide to one-party rule from 1981 and the Matabele crisis from 1983 did in fact amply bear out her and indeed Ian Smith's earlier belief that he was a Marxist crook on the make who would lead Zimbabwe to catastrophe).
16,736 /seat for Con
In November, Russia lost contact with a 6,062-pound, $45 million satellite. Turns out, that happened because the Meteor-M weather satellite was programmed with the wrong coordinates.
https://gizmodo.com/russia-lost-a-45-million-satellite-because-they-didn-1821624492
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-england-2017/content/story/1131092.html
I especially liked these two comments:
'There are times when the Channel 9 commentary, predominantly staffed as it is by cricketers who have served Australia with distinction, becomes as partial as any broadcaster anywhere in the world. And yes, that includes the North Korean channel that only shows Kim Jong-un hitting holes in one on the golf course. While sitting on a unicorn.'
But even that is surpassed by this bon mot:
[Anderson's] suggestion has largely been vindicated by Jackson Bird's attempt to stand in for Mitchell Starc (no bird has had a worse Christmas and plenty of turkeys have had a rough time of things)'
Just noticed the Wally with the Brolly is favourite to be next SWFC manager.
Lay Lay FFS Lay
After my experiences with them I'm still faintly astonished they got the cameras to Australia rather than Austria.
But are you referring to the commentary or the standard of England's cricket?
@stevef - you're released from your maths detention.
@bigjohnowls - you can take his place
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/news/40000-people-spent-christmas-eve-watching-video-game-designer/