Isn't MPs pay set by Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority who were set up by Labour? I was under the impression that short of new primary legislation there isn't anything that can be done to prevent IPSA giving a pay rise (other than giving any increase to charity I suppose).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Proposed new parliamentary constituencies
- Thread starter northwichcat
- Start date
- Status
Isn't MPs pay set by Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority who were set up by Labour? I was under the impression that short of new primary legislation there isn't anything that can be done to prevent IPSA giving a pay rise (other than giving any increase to charity I suppose).
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
northwichcat
Veteran Member
An independent body can recommend a pay increase but I don't think the government has to approve the recommendation. They infamously rejected a recommendation from an independent body that NHS Nurses should get a small pay rise (saying the country couldn't afford it) but a year later accepted the recommendation that MPs should get a large pay rise.
The argument has been used that we are comparatively over-represented when it comes to MPs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5140846/Do-we-really-need-646-Members-of-Parliament.html includes some numbers on other large countries who seem to manage with fewer.
Hmm perhaps but I could have sworn when this all exploded a year or two ago the Goverment were adamant that they had no choice in the matter. I suppose it depends on the terms under which IPSA were set up!
If I have time I'll have a little look around.
How hilarious, complaining of the built in labour majority, when it's the tories with 100% of the power and 35% of the votes.
I believe all the countries he mentions have strong local governments so the comparison is rather meaningless, sure there's only 436 congressmen in the us, but how many state senators are there taking the decisions that aren't under federal remit?
tbtc
Veteran Member
Yes, we do.
It may not be the "perfect" version that you'd choose for yourself if you ever reach the higher echelons of power in the UK, but it is democracy.
Saying otherwise just looks hysterical.
Mind you who needs the Boundary Commission to spoil Labours electoral prospects when Corbyn on his own will have a far greater negative impact than anything they could dream up.
Indeed.
By alienating the "red Tories" of the soft left, there'll be quite a struggle.
I think that the growth of social media and all of these daft petitions will probably have had a much bigger impact on MP workloads - I don't recall anyone I knew contacting an MP about anything between the days of doing projects at school and maybe five years ago, but now a lot of people I know are regularly tweeting MPs/ sending them spurious petitions etc.
I'm sure that it'll be their parliamentary staff/ office assistant who deal with 99% of this but still, we seem to be demanding a lot more of them.
Principled snowflakes unable to compromise will also ensure a Tory majority in 2020, as things stand
True.
AV wasn't perfect, but at least a step in the right direction. The vote was lost. If you lose such a vote then you have to accept that the argument is over for at least a generation (though in Scotland, a "generation" seems to be a bit shorter!).
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Yes, but at a local level they have much more representation per person. That article is extremely misleading.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Isn't it just.
There's loads of them like this.
Great Ayton in Cleveland is at the top of a narrow corridor that puts them in the same constituency as Malton and Pickering, as well as another tiny corridor of a few miles that stretches to Hunmanby (carefully missing out Filey).
The villages to the north of Knaresborough (but not Knaresborough itself) are in the same constituency as Selby, and down south the new St Albans constituency is careful to ensure all the wealthy bits around Watford are switched out of Watford North.
It's dodgy as hell.
https://www.bce2018.org.uk/
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
It's what happens when you (a) prioritize equalizing population over all else, and (b) restrict yourself to aligning constituency boundaries with council ward boundaries. Those two conditions can make it next to impossible to create sensible constituencies that encapsulate identifiable communities and have reasonable geographical shapes - you're reduced to finding a combination of council wards in the area whose combined population magically adds up to get you within the narrow band of allowed constituency population, and if those wards actually do sensibly fit together then that's just a coincidental bonus.
Equalizing population is a great aim in itself, but you need to be realistic about it and about what's sensibly achievable (within the constraints of what is a pretty idiotic electoral system in the first place). The restrictions the Government placed on the boundary commission weren't realistic, and this is the result. The sad thing is - this has all happened before in previous boundary reviews - when the Government tried to focus too much on population and not enough on whether the constituencies are sensible. But the Conservatives don't seem to be great when it comes to learning from past mistakes
Curiously, the Government did recognize this problem on the Isle of Wight - and therefore specified that the Isle of Wight should have two significantly undersized constituencies (where population alone would dictate that it has 1 and a half constituencies). I wonder if they'd have done that if the Isle of Wight hadn't been relatively safe Conservative territory...
Equalizing population is a great aim in itself, but you need to be realistic about it and about what's sensibly achievable (within the constraints of what is a pretty idiotic electoral system in the first place). The restrictions the Government placed on the boundary commission weren't realistic, and this is the result. The sad thing is - this has all happened before in previous boundary reviews - when the Government tried to focus too much on population and not enough on whether the constituencies are sensible. But the Conservatives don't seem to be great when it comes to learning from past mistakes
Curiously, the Government did recognize this problem on the Isle of Wight - and therefore specified that the Isle of Wight should have two significantly undersized constituencies (where population alone would dictate that it has 1 and a half constituencies). I wonder if they'd have done that if the Isle of Wight hadn't been relatively safe Conservative territory...
Last edited:
They've also done it for two constituencies up in Scotland...
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I'd agree with that, if it weren't for the fact that all the examples I've listed are changes to constituencies that already meet the criteria for the Boundary Commission...
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That by itself doesn't contradict what I said. I would guess that most likely, the issue was that those constituencies already met the criteria, but leaving those constituencies unchanged would make it impossible to construct neighbouring constituencies that meet the criteria. I don't know for sure whether that's the case in the particular examples you cited, but that certainly is something that is very likely to happen in multiple locations with the restrictions the boundaries commission were working under, so I'd be surprised if that wasn't the reason.
On the other hand, allowing for a slight relaxation of the population requirements - even as little as, say 5% - when it's impossible to make good constituencies within the usual range can make a huge difference in terms of allowing for constituencies that cover more sensible geographical areas.
Last edited:
TheKnightWho
Established Member
They've protected the seats Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but I don't see them having split any in two to create undersized ones.
I fear you've misunderstood the issue here.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The Isle of Wight is currently one constituency with a population of 121,000, and it's being split down the middle. Rightly too, I should add.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Anyone would think the Tories sorry The Electoral Commission were trying to water down Labour constituencies in the north and bolster thier majorities in decent places at the same time!
Some of the places they are chucking into these bonkers consistences have no connections with the other parts of the constituency. Great Ayton, no matter what the terribly decent Tory stock in the sticks might think, faces the Boro. Barnard Castle has no connection to Gateshead. The people and thier needs are very different.
Last edited:
The issue is seats that have significant geographical barriers to being able to being able to be formed into the usual sizes. Like the two Scottish seats, it is deemed to be unfair to merge the island with the mainland. Once you've made that decision, it's a simple choice of having a giant constituency larger than all the rest, or two smaller ones.
It went through parliament, so got the agreement of the parties. Given this was during the coalition when the LibDems reneged on the timetable, they could have very easily objected to splitting it as the price of getting the legislation through.
If it was being done purely for party-political gain as has been suggested, do you really think it would have got through?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's why these are initial proposals. People can make their representations as to why they believe their ward belongs in a different constituency. Assuming the arguments have more behind them than "they don't vote the same as us" and they can keep the numbers balanced there's no reason why adjustments can't be made.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I do understand that. You haven't really addressed the point though. Saying it got through parliament isn't relevant either - the Tories carried the vast majority of seats required, and the LidDems - as the junior partner - can only do so much.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
OK, the legislation specified two severely undersized Scottish seats (that have always been there), and mandated splitting the Isle of Wight into two undersized seats. At the time it seemed almost certain that of the four seats, two would go to the Conservatives, 1 to the LibDems and 1 to the SNP (who at the time were a minor party, not a perceived threat to the Conservatives). I don't like throwing accusations of this kind of gerrymandering around, but this arrangement certainly gave a small overall advantage to the then coalition parties.
The two Scottish seats have traditionally been so small in population because otherwise you would have had a seat with an extremely large land area and extremely poor communications within the constituency. It arguably would've been politically very difficult for the Government to have attempted to go that way.
That's not really true for the Isle of Wight. Sure, the single seat was vastly oversized and needed splitting somehow. But communications with the mainland are relatively good and the geographical areas are small. Making a seat that - for example, included parts of NW Wight and Lymington would have been awkward but no more so than some of the seats the boundaries commission has come up with. And it would have been far more consistent with the Conservatives' claimed aim to equalize population levels. The fact that the then coalition decided that awkwardness was not acceptable for the Isle of Wight (a decision which coincidentally favours the Conservatives) - and therefore specifically legislated to prevent it - but apparently decided such awkward constituencies were acceptable elsewhere - is at best inconsistent, and certainly suggestive that there may have been some political motivation (though of course it's impossible to be sure).
Of course, when you throw in other issues - like the fact that this review attempts to remove a minor pro-Labour bias in the distribution, while ignoring the vastly bigger pro-Conservative (and to a lesser extent Labour) bias caused by the whole electoral system, and the way the boundaries commission has been forced to go not by population, but by registered voters just after the registration system was changed in a way known to have excluded many voters in groups more likely to support Labour - and the argument that the whole thing is at least in part motivated by the desire for political advantage becomes very compelling.
But representations will only be accepted and considered if they fall within the legal framework that the boundaries commission operates. That very severely limits the ability to improve some of those constituencies. My point is that some of the constituencies are going to be so ridiculous because the legal restrictions placed on how constituencies can be made up make it mathematically extremely hard to do anything else. No amount of representation is going to change that significantly.
Last edited:
Local to myself, Droitwich is being added onto the Bromsgrove constituency - the former is influenced by Worcester whereas the rest of the constituency is heavily under Birmingham's gravity. Or perhaps look at the new Evesham & South Warwickshire constituency, stretching from Worcester to Banbury: the two halves have no connection whatsoever.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
A lot of people have said how many seats Labour and the Conservatives will lose and seem to have based that on the 2015 general election votes.
However, how many marginal seats which the Conservatives currently have will remain as marginal seats and how many marginal seats which Labour currently have will remain? For instance, Weaver Vale is one which could go either way at an election with the Conservatives retaining it with a narrow majority at the last election. Yet that is a seat which is being abolished with the town of Northwich (which has mainly Labour voters) being moved in Eddisbury (which is currently a safe Tory seat.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For anything to get through parliament it needs to get at least 51% of votes. There were some agreements drawn up so that the Conservatives would support a few Lib Dem proposals if they supported some Conservative proposals. For instance, the Lib Dems wanted the £10,000 personal allowance and all primary schools to have to provide cooked school meals for infants which got through despite not being Conservative policies. However, the coalition agreement broke down with regards to House of Lords reform.
Of course the 51% of votes don't have to come from the government benches. Prior to becoming Labour leader a certain Mr Corbyn voted the same way as the Conservative leader on a number of issues and against the 'Red Tories.'
However, how many marginal seats which the Conservatives currently have will remain as marginal seats and how many marginal seats which Labour currently have will remain? For instance, Weaver Vale is one which could go either way at an election with the Conservatives retaining it with a narrow majority at the last election. Yet that is a seat which is being abolished with the town of Northwich (which has mainly Labour voters) being moved in Eddisbury (which is currently a safe Tory seat.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For anything to get through parliament it needs to get at least 51% of votes. There were some agreements drawn up so that the Conservatives would support a few Lib Dem proposals if they supported some Conservative proposals. For instance, the Lib Dems wanted the £10,000 personal allowance and all primary schools to have to provide cooked school meals for infants which got through despite not being Conservative policies. However, the coalition agreement broke down with regards to House of Lords reform.
Of course the 51% of votes don't have to come from the government benches. Prior to becoming Labour leader a certain Mr Corbyn voted the same way as the Conservative leader on a number of issues and against the 'Red Tories.'
Either way, it's going to make seat predictions from polling for the 2020 GE quite difficult!
317 forever
Established Member
Cornwall is not as separate from England as people like to make out. After all, Cornwall like much of England voted for Brexit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed. I suspect it's being done because the Conservatives think reducing the numbers of MPs would be popular with voters - and they'd probably be correct. But it's a pretty silly move nonetheless. MPs already have a massive workload because of the huge amount of correspondence they get from constituents that needs answering. Reduce the number of MPs by about 10% and clearly the constituency workload per MP goes up by the same amount. I would suspect that very few MPs have any spare time/resources to cope with that increase, so it just means constituents will start seeing a poorer service from their local MPs - which is not only bad for the constituents but is likely to lead to even more cynicism against politicians. And that's before you consider all the important work that MPs do in scrutinizing legislation, working on select committees etc. Fewer MPs means the quality of that work will go down, which may well lead to slightly less effective Government, and less well thought through legislation.
All this so the Conservatives can get some short-term brownie points with the electorate and save an amount of money that - as a proportion of Government expenditure - is absolutely negligible.
Typical Conservatives
MPs' workload is destined to increase as a result of Brexit, meaning full discussions of all legislation being confined to Westminster (apart from devolved areas to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland).
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Cornwall is really on the same wavelength as the North East of England and Wales. They see more benefits from being in the EU than most parts of the UK, yet they voted to leave. It makes as much sense as Cornwall voting in favour of a pastry tax when the sale of Cornish pasties are important to the local economy.
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
I have always had a reply from my MP to any letter I have written. Normally they disagree with me, however they have always taken the time and trouble to indicate exactly why with well thought out responses to points I had put in my letter to them.
I have lived in constituencies that were SDP/LibDem, Labour and Tory and have had responses from all.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
As much as I don't want George Osborne as my MP - he has on one occasion (before 2010) written to some constituents asking them to complete a questionnaire and has always responded to letters to I've written to him.
However, after the questionnaire he wrote back with the results and said about how many people wanted university tuition fees scrapped and that it would be Conservative policy to scrap them when we next get in to power. Somehow he survived that even though many Lib Dems lost their seats over the increases to tuition fees.
Also with the quality of his responses hasn't always been good. He thought instead of responding to a letter about a lack of investment in Northern services he would write about the government support Metrolink has received despite Metrolink not serving his constituency!
On a separate occasion when I wrote about the promised cascaded 319s alone not being sufficient for Northern's needs he wrote to both Stephen Hammond and Alex Hynes and sent me their responses. Mr Hammond agreed with me but didn't suggest any solution to the problem. On the other hand Mr Hynes effectively said we'd like to do more but the government have tied our hands and it would be great if a powerful figure like the Chancellor of the Exchequer would support us in delivering improvements. I'm not sure he even read Alex Hynes' letter as he forwarded on to me with a covering note saying here's the response I've received from Northern Rail relating to your recent correspondence.
He didn't go into the election on a manifesto of not raising fees though, whilst the lib dems did.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Lib Dems had 57 seats and the Conservatives had 306. Osborne being Chancellor and a member of the larger party could have got what he promised constituents, the Lib Dems had to agree to some Conservative policies/compromised Conservative policies in order to get the Conservatives to agree to some of their own.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The same reasons- unemployment and poverty- apply in both Cornwall and up here. People are poor, out of work, and angry. Leave's success came in persuading them that a) Leave were anti-establishment and b) that the EU were instrumental in their unemployment and poverty. Remain's failure came in not setting out the argument that, certainly in the north east, what remains of the economy would be gone without EU funding.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
They did set that out, but it was countered with bolshie rhetoric about how Germans still want Japanese cars and so the Nissan plant won't close. As though they won't just up and move, as they're thinking of doing now.
Then they didn't do a very good job of it then. Plenty of 'Leave' material in the post as well as posters, billboards and doorsteppers but I think we got the Government 'Remain' mail shot and a couple of other bits through post and that was it. Nothing else around here from Remain.
- Status