Proposed new parliamentary constituencies

[ainsworth74]

Define. I presume you mean 16 and 17 year olds, but I'm not sure who else from those currently exempt could be reasonably included.

No this will about GrimsbyPacer being removed from the register when the switch to Individual Registration happened and, despite clear instructions on how to re-register, not doing so and therefore being 'denied' a vote.

 

[JamesT]

Agreed. That's just a form of obvious gerrymandering, but the Tories stand to gain from this when they already have the lowest votes/seat of any party. I cannot fathom how this can be construed as fair when that is the case.

That's using a very simplistic measure of total votes over total seats. Which doesn't take account of distribution. A more nuanced measure is the average number of votes a party needed to win a seat. I can't find the reference now, but I saw figures where the conservatives needed far more votes to win each seat as theirs are larger.

 

[Senex]

Your MP represents you regardless of the colour of his rosette.

That's the theory -- but it generally seems that the first loyalty is to the party whip and not to the constituents. And I wonder how far MPs are like local councillors, who do not even bother to reply to you if you are not of their party.

 

[Spamcan81]

That's the theory -- but it generally seems that the first loyalty is to the party whip and not to the constituents. And I wonder how far MPs are like local councillors, who do not even bother to reply to you if you are not of their party.

How does an MP/councillor know for which party you voted when you write to him/her?

 

[DarloRich]

That's the theory -- but it generally seems that the first loyalty is to the party whip and not to the constituents. And I wonder how far MPs are like local councillors, who do not even bother to reply to you if you are not of their party.

how would they know? I have corresponded with lots of politicians and have always had a reply even if only to tell me, nicely, that they cant do anything.

 

[miami]

That's using a very simplistic measure of total votes over total seats. Which doesn't take account of distribution. A more nuanced measure is the average number of votes a party needed to win a seat. I can't find the reference now, but I saw figures where the conservatives needed far more votes to win each seat as theirs are larger.

The average seat had 23,599 people vote for the winner.
The average tory won seat had 25,325
The average labour won seat had 21,610
The average snp won seat had 25,164

However that's not the average votes needed, that's the average votes received, and my spreadsheet of 2015 results doesn't have a total for the second place. It does have a column that says in 340 constituencies the plurarity of votes go to "I don't want to vote for any of those on offer" though. Democracy FTW.

 

[Busaholic]

Nobody has queried why, with an increasing population, there is to be a decrease in the number of parliamentary seats. You could still seek to equalise the number of voters in each constituency without getting rid of 50 seats. I know no constituency can be in parts of two countries, apparently, but apart from that the process should be fairly simple. Speaking of two countries, a constituency embracing parts of both Devon and Cornwall is proposed, which may well face a legal challenge (for the uninitiated, there are Cornish nationalists who believe Cornwall, or Kernow, not to be part of England). If the reason given for having 50 fewer MPs is cost, then the creation of so many peers by CallMeDave should be called into question, as they rake up eye-watering costs in the form of expenses and, not only are they not elected, they may even have just been rejected by the electorate.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That's using a very simplistic measure of total votes over total seats. Which doesn't take account of distribution. A more nuanced measure is the average number of votes a party needed to win a seat. I can't find the reference now, but I saw figures where the conservatives needed far more votes to win each seat as theirs are larger.

But it doesn't need to account for distribution - if their votes/seat is lower then it simply amounts to them having more marginal seats they can win, which is an electoral advantage.

 

[AlterEgo]

Nobody has queried why, with an increasing population, there is to be a decrease in the number of parliamentary seats. You could still seek to equalise the number of voters in each constituency without getting rid of 50 seats. I know no constituency can be in parts of two countries, apparently, but apart from that the process should be fairly simple. Speaking of two countries, a constituency embracing parts of both Devon and Cornwall is proposed, which may well face a legal challenge (for the uninitiated, there are Cornish nationalists who believe Cornwall, or Kernow, not to be part of England). If the reason given for having 50 fewer MPs is cost, then the creation of so many peers by CallMeDave should be called into question, as they rake up eye-watering costs in the form of expenses and, not only are they not elected, they may even have just been rejected by the electorate.

Seats may be in two counties. The UK's most marginal constituency is Fermanagh and South Tyrone, for example.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I don't think he's denying that, only that any proposed Devon and Cornwall constituency may flare up those in Cornwall who wish to be a separate country from England / Devon.

 

[radamfi]

Who on here supports First Past the Post? If you do, should the Scottish Parliament election convert to FPTP? Or do you think it makes complete sense for Westminster to have FPTP and Scotland not to have it?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think he's denying that, only that any proposed Devon and Cornwall constituency may flare up those in Cornwall who wish to be a separate country from England / Devon.

Read his post again.

 

[Busaholic]

Who on here supports First Past the Post? If you do, should the Scottish Parliament election convert to FPTP? Or do you think it makes complete sense for Westminster to have FPTP and Scotland not to have it?

I support FPTP for electing MPs, but I'd like to see a second chamber reflecting the proportion of the vote each party got in the General Election, this totally replacing that anachronism the House of Lords. I very much doubt that anyone else would support my entire proposal!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nobody has queried why, with an increasing population, there is to be a decrease in the number of parliamentary seats. You could still seek to equalise the number of voters in each constituency without getting rid of 50 seats.

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

 

[Butts]

I read that the overall impact would be that the Conservatives would lose about 17 Seats compared to 23 for Labour, so it's hardly an earth shattering event.

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.

 

[Gathursty]

Wigan's constituencies haven't changed so there's not much to really say. I did notice an odd lozenge covering the Ribble Valley, extending much further this time.

 

[transmanche]

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.

And whilst the number of elected MPs is reduced, the number of unelected members of the House of Lords seems to be increasing.

Currently, there are 808 members of the House of Lords (including 92 hereditary peers and 26 Bishops). David Cameron created 242 new peerages whilst he was Prime Minister, more per year than any other PM. Theresa May has already created 16 new peerages since she came into office in July.

 

[me123]

The voting system in the Scottish parliament is what we need though, First Last The Poll is flawed and always will be unfair, leaving many unrepresented regardless of what MPs are supposed to do.

FPTP is truly an awful system, but I don't think the Scottish Parliament's system (the Additional Members System) is the answer for Westminster.

AMS uses a FPTP election to elect constituency MSPs, plus a "top-up" list of regional MSPs elected using a list based PR system. It works nicely for the Scottish Parliament, which serving a relatively small country benefits from having more members, and having multiple points of contact is good. However, if the system was to be employed in Westminster you'd be likely to have much larger constituencies and a significant increase in the number of MPs - I doubt that this result would be acceptable to many.

I would argue that different forms of PR are better for Westminster - I'd like to see the STV (Single Transferable Vote) introduced - you will have larger constituencies but these will be multi-member (the simplest way of doing this is to merge 3-5 together and elect 3-5 representatives). You still have the issue of larger constituencies, but still benefit from having multiple points of contact. The best thing for Westminster is that you don't necessarily change the number of MPs (although of course you can reduce or increase the number of MPs independently of this).

 

[Senex]

I would argue that different forms of PR are better for Westminster - I'd like to see the STV (Single Transferable Vote) introduced - you will have larger constituencies but these will be multi-member (the simplest way of doing this is to merge 3-5 together and elect 3-5 representatives). You still have the issue of larger constituencies, but still benefit from having multiple points of contact.

It's the multiple points of contact element that appeals to me almost as much as the more accurate representation of the will of the electorate. At the moment if you're a Corbynite in a constituency with a right-wing Tory member or a right-wing Tory in a constituency with a Corbynite member you're effectively unrepresented (I exaggerate both examples, of course). With five members to choose from, there's likely to be at least one you might find it possible to make sensible contact with.

 

[AlterEgo]

FPTP is truly an awful system, but I don't think the Scottish Parliament's system (the Additional Members System) is the answer for Westminster.

AMS uses a FPTP election to elect constituency MSPs, plus a "top-up" list of regional MSPs elected using a list based PR system. It works nicely for the Scottish Parliament, which serving a relatively small country benefits from having more members, and having multiple points of contact is good. However, if the system was to be employed in Westminster you'd be likely to have much larger constituencies and a significant increase in the number of MPs - I doubt that this result would be acceptable to many.

I would argue that different forms of PR are better for Westminster - I'd like to see the STV (Single Transferable Vote) introduced - you will have larger constituencies but these will be multi-member (the simplest way of doing this is to merge 3-5 together and elect 3-5 representatives). You still have the issue of larger constituencies, but still benefit from having multiple points of contact. The best thing for Westminster is that you don't necessarily change the number of MPs (although of course you can reduce or increase the number of MPs independently of this).

I'd prefer this system too. I doubt I will ever see it in Westminster though. You'd probably need some trigger point to enact this sort of constitutional change, or at least a campaign of mass civil disobedience.

 

[radamfi]

I'd prefer this system too. I doubt I will ever see it in Westminster though. You'd probably need some trigger point to enact this sort of constitutional change, or at least a campaign of mass civil disobedience.

There's a common theme across life in Britain. This country does some very important things extremely badly, such as integrated transport or voting systems. There are more successful examples abroad so we know how to fix things. People point this out and then get criticised for daring to criticise the best country in the world. The sticking up for Britain at all costs no matter how bad then trumps all else, so nothing ever changes.

 

[DarloRich]

It is proposed the two MK constituencies will be redrawn and potentially split the town into 3 constituencies:

Milton Keynes Newport Pagnell
Milton Keynes Bletchley
Buckingham (Wolverton & Stony Stratford)

It was all one constituency covering this area in the past!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I read that the overall impact would be that the Conservatives would lose about 17 Seats compared to 23 for Labour, so it's hardly an earth shattering event.

It's more about the biases that the new boundaries have, rather than how many of the existing MPs will lose their seats.

My constituency doesn't change. It's the only one in the north east that doesn't. There are some very "interesting" changes in this area though, including a very strangely-shaped constituency in Newcastle that just so happens to include all the student areas, with a careful wiggle around the posh bits of Gosforth and Jesmond, and another very strangely-shaped constituency in County Durham which stretches all the way from Barnard Castle through a very narrow corridor of the posh bits of rural Gateshead to the top of Winlaton. It's all very suspicious, it's almost as though they're trying to outnumber all the Labour supporters in Consett with the rural farmers of the Durham Dales...

ETA: I see they've also moved Tranwell Woods, the most expensive estate in the north east, out of Labour-stronghold Wansbeck and into Hexham, a safe Tory seat. That's nice of them.

 

[Howardh]

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

I questioned the "workload" issue, but the answer is that after the changes each constituency should have roughly the same population. Today one can be twice the size of another, so twice the workload?
Meanwhile, there appears to be a growing love for PR/AV; but we had a referendum and this was rejected.
Am I to presume many now wants another vote because they have changed their mind? If so, can I also assume that when the details of Brexit are finalised (if ever) we also get another in/out referendum on that?

 

[radamfi]

Meanwhile, there appears to be a growing love for PR/AV; but we had a referendum and this was rejected.

The referendum was on AV, completely different to PR.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I questioned the "workload" issue, but the answer is that after the changes each constituency should have roughly the same population. Today one can be twice the size of another, so twice the workload?

There aren't that many outlier constituencies, other than the Isle of Wight (which is correctly being split in half) and the rural Scottish highland and Welsh constituencies. And that's an interesting argument about workload too; is it more tiring to have a lot of people or a lot of ground to cover?

Meanwhile, there appears to be a growing love for PR/AV; but we had a referendum and this was rejected.

I think a fair few people rejected it because they wanted PR not AV, and quite a few more rejected it because they decided they didn't like Nick Clegg's decision on tuition fees. The referendum wasn't on PR though.

The kippers have changed their minds now they've realised they get screwed over the most. It's funny that.

 

[DarloRich]

It's more about the biases that the new boundaries have, rather than how many of the existing MPs will lose their seats.

My constituency doesn't change. It's the only one in the north east that doesn't. There are some very "interesting" changes in this area though, including a very strangely-shaped constituency in Newcastle that just so happens to include all the student areas, with a careful wiggle around the posh bits of Gosforth and Jesmond, and another very strangely-shaped constituency in County Durham which stretches all the way from Barnard Castle through a very narrow corridor of the posh bits of rural Gateshead to the top of Winlaton. It's all very suspicious, it's almost as though they're trying to outnumber all the Labour supporters in Consett with the rural farmers of the Durham Dales...

ETA: I see they've also moved Tranwell Woods, the most expensive estate in the north east, out of Labour-stronghold Wansbeck and into Hexham, a safe Tory seat. That's nice of them.

That Barnard Castle/ Gateshead one is very odd indeed!

 

[miami]

I questioned the "workload" issue, but the answer is that after the changes each constituency should have roughly the same population. Today one can be twice the size of another, so twice the workload?

Currently there are 650 MPs with an average 71,314 constituents. There will be 600 MPs with an average 77,256 constituents.

If an MP spends 25 hours a week dealing with constituents and 15 dealing with parliamentary business, that's 1 hour per 2850 constituents. In future they'll have to spend 27 hours a week dealing with constituents and 13 dealing with parliamentary business.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a growing love for PR/AV; but we had a referendum and this was rejected.

Same reason we had a tory government in 2015, idiotic left wing voters unable to compromise.

The kippers have changed their minds now they've realised they get screwed over the most. It's funny that.

Always a silver lining.

 

[Domh245]

The referendum was on AV, completely different to PR.

The unfortunate truth however is that the government will present it as an endorsement of FPTP instead of a dislike of the AV system

 

[northwichcat]

The referendum was on AV, completely different to PR.

Indeed and if AV was accepted it might have made it harder to go to PR in the future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I read that the overall impact would be that the Conservatives would lose about 17 Seats compared to 23 for Labour, so it's hardly an earth shattering event.

Remember the plans are not final yet so the estimated number of seats gained/lost may change. Also have the Scottish boundaries been decided yet - yesterday they were TBC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody has queried why, with an increasing population, there is to be a decrease in the number of parliamentary seats.

The argument the Conservatives are using is if budgets are cut for everything else then they need to be cut for parliament. That by itself makes sense. However, the Conservatives approved a large pay rise for MPs and rejected plans for House of Lords reform. Labour are now echoing Lib Dem calls for House of Lords reform - if they'd been more in favour of it a few years ago it might have already been done.