/ Labour party attacks democracy shock!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016

So, the independent electoral boundary commissions produce proposals to ensure that all voters are evenly represented across the country and the Labour party says it's unfair! Much fairer to have an inbuilt advantage for Labour one assumes?

Never mind, I'm sure they'll allow some changes in the end. Good excuse for Corbyn and his cohorts to deselect some elected representatives of the people.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you......
15
RyanOsborne - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Would the tories react differently if the shoe was on the other foot?

No, they wouldn't is the answer.
3
Andy Hardy on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

We just need PR, then boundary changes will be free from the accusations of gerrymandering.
In reply to Postmanpat:
They say it's unfair as they're using the pre-referendum electoral register to divide up the constituencies. An extra 2 Million people registered to vote for the referendum.

Labour say they should be using the current electoral register instead of the old one... That's all!
1
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Would the tories react differently if the shoe was on the other foot?

>
So you finally agree that Labour are as self serving and dishonest?
11
balmybaldwin - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

The real question is how it was ever allowed to get into such an unfair system in the first place. some MPs have constituencies 4-5 times the smallest.

the other thing is this reform doesn't even seem to be attempting to make the situation fair, just less unfair (most probably due to the outcry that would come from Wales and Scotland (especially labour) - if they are going to the effort I don't understand why they can't just say x,000 voters = 1 MP seat and then draw their lines.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Didn't we knock that idea into the long grass in 2011?
1
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

> They say it's unfair as they're using the pre-referendum electoral register and an extra 2 Million people registered to vote.

> Labour say they should be using the current electoral register.

Right, nothing to do with it's likely impact on the Labour vote then? They just want to see it done right and proper guv....
5
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Never mind, I'm sure they'll allow some changes in the end. Good excuse for Corbyn and his cohorts to deselect some elected representatives of the people.

Once again, they're not elected representatives of the people, are they?

If they were half of them wouldn't be there. They are selected FOR the electorate to vote for, the electorate don't have a say on who they get to vote for, they have a choice of voting for the person that's been selected for them. two very different things.

My MP was always very keen to assure me he wasn't my representative or delegate.

"Members of Parliament are not delegates. For so long as I am the Member of Parliament for Banbury I owe the whole of the electorate my best judgment and that is what I will continue to exercise."

In other words he did what HE thought best, not really what they wanted, which is why the Labour party is in the mess it's in now. I went to a meeting where over 90% of the people voted for the issue yet he still voted against, because HE thought best.

They are ignoring the electorate and doing what THEY think is best, and bollocks to democracy. It's about time they did represent the people and not their own agendas.
Post edited at 14:08
4
Lusk - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

How many constituencies would Scotland end up with?
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> How many constituencies would Scotland end up with?

one, probably.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Once again, they're not elected representatives of the people, are they?

>
Yes they are. You've not really cracked this "representative democracy thing have you?" They are not elected simply to repeat their constituents' views but they nevertheless represent their constituents.

From the parliamentary website "The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons."
Post edited at 14:21
1
alasdair19 on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

the point of politics is to win elections

the rules of the game in the UK are an evolving historical accident.

thatcher made tories unelectable in lots of places . the labour leadership relied on these seats but to take power needed middle England marginals.

they've certainly paid the price in Scotland.... despite getting the UK treasury to renovate every council house in Glasgow and pay for a flask parliament for sturgeon to destroy them.
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Right, nothing to do with it's likely impact on the Labour vote then? They just want to see it done right and proper guv....

There are Conservatives who are against the proposed changes too you know...
1
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So you finally agree that Labour are as self serving and dishonest?

Is that you saying the Conservatives are? Aha ;-)
2
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Didn't we knock that idea into the long grass in 2011?

Depends who you mean by "we".
If you mean the referendum then no we didnt. Since that was on AV.
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Right, nothing to do with it's likely impact on the Labour vote then? They just want to see it done right and proper guv....

Of course they want to play it to their advantage.
In this case though they arent being quite as hypocritical as the tories.
1
RyanOsborne - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Er, no that's not what I said.
1
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

if they are going to the effort I don't understand why they can't just say x,000 voters = 1 MP seat and then draw their lines.

Because there are other considerations around geography, for example Orkney and Shetland only have 30,000 odd constituents, but it would be bizarre to tack them on to a mainland constituency with totally different concerns. Likewise with he Isle of White which has the largest electorate of any constituency.

1
cb294 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> In other words he did what HE thought best, not really what they wanted, which is why the Labour party is in the mess it's in now. I went to a meeting where over 90% of the people voted for the issue yet he still voted against, because HE thought best.

That is precisely what he was elected for. He is a representative, not a delegate!

This is not a "Soviet" system (in its original meaning), where the voters in individual electoral districts choose delegates that represent them at regional assemblies and in turn select delegates to an even higher order, e.g. national, parliament.

CB

edit: the control the electorate is limited to regular elections for the explicit reason of not having a public vote on every single issue. This may just about work in a small country like Switzerland, but even there direct democracy is causing problems, e.g. by binding but contradictory resolutions.
Post edited at 14:26
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Is there any real evidence the Boundary Commission are gerrymandering things?
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> I went to a meeting where over 90% of the people voted for the issue yet he still voted against, because HE thought best.

Leaving aside the representative aspect of things, what makes you think this meeting was representative of the views of all in the constituency?
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

> They say it's unfair as they're using the pre-referendum electoral register to divide up the constituencies. An extra 2 Million people registered to vote for the referendum.

> Labour say they should be using the current electoral register.

They have to use the electoral register for a set point in time. It could be argued that it is more logical to use one that reflects the numbers that register for general elections rather than those who registered specifically for a once in a lifetime referendum.

I wonder how many of those 2 million extra voters will renew their registrations when the time comes or bother to turn out for the next general election?
1
JJL - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Didn't we knock that idea into the long grass in 2011?

We did. But then we are building a steady record of crap election decisions.
1
Trangia - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Labour Party? What Labour Party?

If the current Party keeps Corbyn there won't be a Labour Party by the time of the next election.

Just like the LibDems they will become history
1
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> That is precisely what he was elected for. He is a representative, not a delegate!

He didn't seem to think he was either.

But that's exactly the point he didn't represent the people on a number of issues, he voted how he wanted to. Like many of them do I can't remember who it was now, some woman Labour MP, who said words to this effect, "I've had a lot of pressure from my constituents to vote against, but I've voted for."

So what happens to democracy in this instance, where do I get what I want? When do I get to influence who "represents" me? Because I don't have it here and I didn't have it where I lived previously, both safe seats. Even when it's your team that won, they still don't represent the majority, they suit themselves.

Once upon a time it was easy Labour or Conservative, but times have changed our "representatives" no longer represent the people, and it's the people who have lost their voice, which is why many see politics as a waste of time.

"What's the point? They do what they want to do anyway"

The whole JC thing has been a way to try and push this back, to give the people some control back. It's all too obvious how much this is being resisted and how democracy is being trampled to achieve this.
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Is there any real evidence the Boundary Commission are gerrymandering things?

The cut off point seems rather problematic. Considering the number of people who registered prior to the referendum to cut them off is rather dubious.
There does also seem to be significant differences between electoral role and people who live in an area eg areas with lots of students and young people moving around.
It would be interesting to see what the number of votes per seat would be under these new proposals.
Personally the far bigger problem is just the problem of FPTP. Problem is whilst a party is in government and riding high they dont want to change it. Even when not in charge but the main opposition it doesnt have that much appeal.

krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> edit: the control the electorate is limited to regular elections for the explicit reason of not having a public vote on every single issue. This may just about work in a small country like Switzerland, but even there direct democracy is causing problems, e.g. by binding but contradictory resolutions.

But then many have no control what so ever.

I've always lived in safe seats, whether Labour or Conservative, my vote has made not one iota of difference for 35 years. With the exception of two referendum all my voting has been pointless, I might as well have not bothered.
My contact with local MPs has been pretty futile too, or at least it's felt that way. It's always appeared they had made their minds up first about any issue and then gave lip service to try and placate people against. While that's fair enough if the majority of their constituents agree, I don't think going against their constituents shows much representation.
1
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> The cut off point seems rather problematic. Considering the number of people who registered prior to the referendum to cut them off is rather dubious.

It's worth considering but there needs to be a cut-off at some point. Presumably work on all this started ages before any hint of mass registration for the referendum.

> There does also seem to be significant differences between electoral role and people who live in an area eg areas with lots of students and young people moving around.

Well, if they don't vote they won't be relevant however constituencies are drawn.

> Personally the far bigger problem is just the problem of FPTP. Problem is whilst a party is in government and riding high they dont want to change it. Even when not in charge but the main opposition it doesnt have that much appeal.

It is a problem. Introducing something like the Scottish system would be the best option IMO.
Post edited at 14:55
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> They have to use the electoral register for a set point in time. It could be argued that it is more logical to use one that reflects the numbers that register for general elections rather than those who registered specifically for a once in a lifetime referendum.

Apart from this is supposed to represent the number of constituents not the number of voters. So using the latest figures is what makes the most sense. Particularly if your party has been banging the drum about it being out of date and unfair.
Arguably it shouldnt use the register at all since that doesnt work well for areas with large transient populations such as university constituencies.
2
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Once upon a time it was easy Labour or Conservative,

Was it ever that simple or was it just easier to believe that it was simple when news travelled slower?
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Apart from this is supposed to represent the number of constituents not the number of voters. So using the latest figures is what makes the most sense. Particularly if your party has been banging the drum about it being out of date and unfair.

Surely this is the work of an independent group rather than a political party?

> Arguably it shouldnt use the register at all since that doesnt work well for areas with large transient populations such as university constituencies.

What else would we use? Census results?
Simon4 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> The whole JC thing has been a way to try and push this back, to give the people some control back. It's all too obvious how much this is being resisted and how democracy is being trampled to achieve this.

Isn't it about England becoming a one-party state, not by the usual means of rubber truncheons, secret police and violent intimidation (from the government, not from a left-wing fringe group), but by the main opposition party committing slow, messy, public, voluntary and fratricidal suicide?

Mostly they have done this by electing as leader a superannuated student union protest activist who has never grown up, has no capability to think flexibly and no understanding or ability to cope with the fact that other people (or countries), really, really see the world differently to him. But Prime Ministers have to deal with awkward realities and real intractable problems that just don't have an easy solution and will not yield to repeating trite cliches and high-sounding slogans.

As I Corbyn supporter, I get the impression you want an electoral contest between Corbyn and Theresa May. Courage may be an admirable quality, suicidal recklessness is not normally so viewed. Whatever electoral system, under whatever boundaries, Corbyn would be massacred if he tried to appeal to the general public, rather than the echo chamber of groupies and cultists.
Post edited at 15:11
5
neilh - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Early days yet. The last time this was changed, 2/3 objections were considered reasonable and accepted. So it has a long way to go yet.

I suppose as an independent body you have to start somewhere, look at the objections and then adjust. You will never get it right first time( probably impossible).

i think the current review was started by consent across all parties so not sure that labours objections stand upto scrutiiny. there are also concerns in the Cons and Lib party as well. If so then they have as a first stab probably got it about right.
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016

In reply to
> The whole JC thing has been a way to try and push this back, to give the people some control back. It's all too obvious how much this is being resisted and how democracy is being trampled to achieve this.

No it isn't. It's an attempt to replace the current system with a Chinese style delegate system thus giving members of "the party" power totally disproportionate to their numbers.

In the '70s a number of union leaders thought parliament should be replaced by some sort of praesidium of party (mainly union) delegates. Nice....
Post edited at 15:19
1
Andy Hardy on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Didn't we knock that idea into the long grass in 2011?

PR wasn't offered in 2011. In my eyes the failure to secure PR for this country ranks as Cleggies biggest fcuk up, bigger than tution fees, the bedroom tax, failing to reform the lords and austerity.
The New NickB - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> "Members of Parliament are not delegates. For so long as I am the Member of Parliament for Banbury I owe the whole of the electorate my best judgment and that is what I will continue to exercise."

The MP is question obviously understands the difference between a representative and a delegate, something you appear to be struggling with.

1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Surely this is the work of an independent group rather than a political party?

Apart from they are specifically restricted in what they can do by law. Where do you think the exact numbers, the cut off date come from?

> What else would we use? Census results?

Perhaps. If representing the population was actually the aim then the electoral registry does have plenty of problems and gives a bias against certain groups.
1
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Apart from they are specifically restricted in what they can do by law. Where do you think the exact numbers, the cut off date come from?

I think the complaint about the cut off date is a red herring. You have to start the work at some point and it isn't necessarily practical to redo all the sums because a load more voters come out of the woodwork for a referendum.

> Perhaps. If representing the population was actually the aim then the electoral registry does have plenty of problems and gives a bias against certain groups.

Are any particular groups disadvantaged other than those that ignore repeated requests to register to vote?

Jack B on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:

The population of Scotland is 5.29m, and the UK is 64.1m. So if the seats were allocated strictly on a population basis, Scotland should get 49 of the 600 available. They had 59, and are going down to 53, so a Scottish vote will be worth 8% more than the UK average.

For wales, population 3.06m, one would expect 29 seats, which they are actually getting (down from 40). For Northern Ireland a population of 1.81m would earn them 17 seats, which is also what they are actually getting.

So at least on a national level, things look mostly fair, with the obvious exception of Scotland, but that's at least partly driven by the small island constituencies. Turnout was also high in Scotland in 2010, which might indicate a higher percentage of potential voters registered to vote - which matters as the boundary commission used electoral registers and I used 2011 census figures.
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No it isn't.

evidence?
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> I think the complaint about the cut off date is a red herring. You have to start the work at some point and it isn't necessarily practical to redo all the sums because a load more voters come out of the woodwork for a referendum.

You still seem a bit confused about the difference between voters and number of people in a constituency. That 2 million people got added shows the flaws in the electoral registry as a measure of how many people a single MP will represent.

> Are any particular groups disadvantaged other than those that ignore repeated requests to register to vote?

Because people move around. Students and young people in general are far more likely to move around for work and depending where we are on the electoral cycle might not keep the documents up to date.
2
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> PR wasn't offered in 2011. In my eyes the failure to secure PR for this country ranks as Cleggies biggest fcuk up

yup. If he had got that right then the others could have been acceptable short term damage. As it was though he gave away everything and got bugger all in return.
1
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> You still seem a bit confused about the difference between voters and number of people in a constituency. That 2 million people got added shows the flaws in the electoral registry as a measure of how many people a single MP will represent.

Why do you presume that I'm confused, if this is about a democratic system based on votes then it seems logical to count those who are inclined to vote rather than those who can't be bothered.

> Because people move around. Students and young people in general are far more likely to move around for work and depending where we are on the electoral cycle might not keep the documents up to date.

Do you mean people who move around or people who don;t bother to keep up with the paperwork? In my experience when I have moved it hasn't been difficult to ensure that you remain registered. On the few occasions where my registration has lapsed there has only been one person to blame
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Why do you presume that I'm confused, if this is about a democratic system based on votes then it seems logical to count those who are inclined to vote rather than those who can't be bothered.

In which case, logically, they would be basing the figures off the percentage of people who actually voted (minus spoiled votes) as opposed to those on the electoral register. I am sure even you would think that would be incorrect.

> In my experience when I have moved it hasn't been difficult to ensure that you remain registered.

You are my hero. Although I will admit to being slightly confused since I thought you were a farmer. Who arent exactly known for moving a lot. In a five year period roughly how many times do you move?
1
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Do you know what the actual criteria are? I can arguments for electoral role (showed some minimal interest in the political system), and population (will be affected by government).
cb294 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:
Welcome to the club! I have been allowed to vote for 30 years, and even have voted in local elections in several European countries (where EU citizens were allowed to participate).

In all these years, I have only once voted with the winners (and I have skipped exactly one election, a mayoral decider where both remaining candidates were absolutely unelectable for me).

The hope is that over time and districts this all evens out.

CB

edit: just saw your second post. FPTP is an antiquated system, but even PR does not help against disappointment! It does, however, guarantee a level of representation once your party beats the cutoff that is required to enforce some kind of stability.
Post edited at 16:19
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Do you know what the actual criteria are?

I am not quite sure what your question is? If it is the rules that the commission have to follow it is (roughly).
600 seats.
With a handful of exceptions these constituencies must be within +-5% of the average.
After that its try and respect local government boundaries etc.
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Is the target number constituents or those in the electoral roll? Are children included if the former?
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> In which case, logically, they would be basing the figures off the percentage of people who actually voted (minus spoiled votes) as opposed to those on the electoral register. I am sure even you would think that would be incorrect.

Why minus spoiled votes? At least they made some sort of effort!

There is no perfect "correct" system, I'd say that in democratic terms the current system is as good as any. Everyone who can be arsed to bother has a vote and we all have a local representative that we can communicate with if we want to. The timing of the point at which the data for the current work was taken could have been better but you have to start at some point and you could wait forever for the perfect dataset.

> You are my hero. Although I will admit to being slightly confused since I thought you were a farmer. Who arent exactly known for moving a lot. In a five year period roughly how many times do you move?

When I was a student and during the few years after I finished I can count 7 moves. Very roughly 5 times since then. Don't make assumptions based on stereotypes when you're trying to patronise someone, you might just wind up looking foolish ;)
Andy Hardy on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

>[...] There is no perfect "correct" system, I'd say that in democratic terms the current system is as good as any. Everyone who can be arsed to bother has a vote and we all have a local representative that we can communicate with if we want to. [...]

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/liam-anderson/voters-per-mp-why-first-past-post-failed

nearly 4,000,000 voted UKIP, they get 1 MP. 1,500,000 vote SNP, they get 56. On what planet is that democracy?
1
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> >[...] There is no perfect "correct" system, I'd say that in democratic terms the current system is as good as any. Everyone who can be arsed to bother has a vote and we all have a local representative that we can communicate with if we want to. [...]


> nearly 4,000,000 voted UKIP, they get 1 MP. 1,500,000 vote SNP, they get 56. On what planet is that democracy?

The planet where some of us aren't obsessed with party politics ;)
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Why minus spoiled votes? At least they made some sort of effort!

Clearly too dim to vote so remove it.

> There is no perfect "correct" system, I'd say that in democratic terms the current system is as good as any.

Why then has not a single new democratic structure in the UK been set up with FPTP in the last few years?

> Don't make assumptions based on stereotypes when you're trying to patronise someone, you might just wind up looking foolish ;)

I notice you failed to answer the question. So how many times on average every five years? Especially with the changed system. Especially since you mentioned you got it wrong on a few occasions
2
rallymania on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

can't speak for tim as i've never met him...

I've moved 3 times in a little over 12 months

but i'm in my late forties so have lots of practice filling in simple forms ;-)

part of the problem stems from what else the electoral is used for.
some people won't register because it means creditors or other people will "find" them.
Jon Stewart - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Anyone in favour of FPTP should be sprayed in effluent every time they use the word "democracy".
1
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Clearly too dim to vote so remove it.

You might think that. I would disagree.

> Why then has not a single new democratic structure in the UK been set up with FPTP in the last few years?

??

Was there supposed to be a new democratic structure?

> I notice you failed to answer the question. So how many times on average every five years? Especially with the changed system. Especially since you mentioned you got it wrong on a few occasions

I'm 49, I've already identified that I've moved 12 times. Do the maths yourself you lazy sod ;)
Jon Stewart - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

I agree with much of your criticism of Corbyn and Labour, but:

> But Prime Ministers have to deal with awkward realities and real intractable problems that just don't have an easy solution and will not yield to repeating trite cliches and high-sounding slogans.

"Brexit means Brexit"?
"Big Society"?
"Back to Basics"?
etc
etc
etc
cb294 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Cutting constituency number to achieve a reasonably sized parliament, ensuring that constituencies are roughly the same size, and redrawing the boundaries such that specific seats are made safe or destabilized as desired, are three independent aims that can be achieved by the same reform.

The accusation of gerrymandering primarily concerns the last of these, not the first two. I am sure you are fully aware of this, but are happy to misrepresent the issue to score a cheap political point.

CB.
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016

In reply to cb294

> The accusation of gerrymandering primarily concerns the last of these, not the first two. I am sure you are fully aware of this, but are happy to misrepresent the issue to score a cheap political point.

> CB.

How have I misrepresented anything? The commission has come up with an impartial attempt at creating greater fairness and Labour whines "gerrymandering".

Whether their accusations cover one or all three elements of the review is beside the point. As for accusing me of making a "cheap political point", how very dare you? Do you think I'm the sort of chap who looks a gift horse in the mouth??
Post edited at 17:07
1
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> In reply to cb294

>The commission has come up with an impartial attempt at creating greater fairness and Labour whines "gerrymandering".

Yet the House of Lords remains untouched, and with a Tory bias. All of which were elected by precisely no one.
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> edit: just saw your second post. FPTP is an antiquated system, but even PR does not help against disappointment! It does, however, guarantee a level of representation once your party beats the cutoff that is required to enforce some kind of stability.

I don't mind being disappointed, I was disappointed with the EU ref., but at least my vote counted for something.

I'm pretty certain if everyone felt like that before the vote we'd still be in the EU.
Tthere where many places were the vote out was a protest vote against Westminster and bollocks to the consequences.
cb294 - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

>...The commission has come up with an impartial attempt at creating greater fairness...

This claim is exactly the issue under contention. Making constituencies roughly equal in size indeed increases fairness, but the issue lies in exactly how this is achieved. Which constituencies will be split, which wards will be removed from one constituency and added to a neighbouring one?

CB
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Ooh look, a bird!!

THOL has nothing to do with the boundary changes.
krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> Isn't it about England becoming a one-party state, not by the usual means of rubber truncheons, secret police and violent intimidation (from the government, not from a left-wing fringe group), but by the main opposition party committing slow, messy, public, voluntary and fratricidal suicide?

And the other option is what? To carry on with the electorate feeling they have no voice, disenfranchised and worthless.

> Mostly they have done this by electing as leader a superannuated student union protest activist who has never grown up, has no capability to think flexibly and no understanding or ability to cope with the fact that other people (or countries), really, really see the world differently to him.

Maybe it time someone in power say the world differently, it hasn't exactly been great for everyone has it. Ask people in Iraq, Syria, and Gaza, how well the status quo has been looking after them!

> As I Corbyn supporter, I get the impression you want an electoral contest between Corbyn and Theresa May. Courage may be an admirable quality, suicidal recklessness is not normally so viewed. Whatever electoral system, under whatever boundaries, Corbyn would be massacred if he tried to appeal to the general public, rather than the echo chamber of groupies and cultists.

I find it hard to disagree, the problem being it wasn't of Corbyn's making but the PLP and the NEC which have f*cked the Labour Party good and proper. That doesn't mean we have to go back to business as usual and get Tony Blair out of retirement.

Remember Labour lost the last election, before JC was a factor in it's downfall, unless you'd like to blame him for that too!

It's pretty obvious he has a lot of grass roots support, we won't know if that will translate into electoral support until there's a GE. Your supposition doesn't make it true.

The Labour Party have killed themselves as far as I can see, the NEC has been atrocious in it's attempts at stopping people having their say. Banning people from voting because they were swearing on their own facebook pages. Double standards when people have supported the Green party, while big donors can make payments to numerous parties. It all stinks, meanwhile even the people who are taking an interest are being trampled into submission.

This could have been a sea change within British politics but the PLP have destroyed it.

One can only hope that after the next election when JC wins again, they'll have a rethink and get behind him and unite, but I'm not holding my breath.

krikoman - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Ooh look, a bird!!

What sort?

> THOL has nothing to do with the boundary changes.

Except that it still remains untouched, and it's a bunch of unelected people who have a massive amount of power over our country.
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to cb294:

> >...The commission has come up with an impartial attempt at creating greater fairness...

> This claim is exactly the issue under contention. Making constituencies roughly equal in size indeed increases fairness, but the issue lies in exactly how this is achieved. Which constituencies will be split, which wards will be removed from one constituency and added to a neighbouring one?

>
Yes, and its been widely understood for years that the status quo favours Labour . Now that in impartially trying to make the system more equitable in terms of numbers represented per MP the existing unfairness on party lines is being addressed the Labour party cries "foul".

They have produced no evidence of a "foul". Have you found some?

2
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Was there supposed to be a new democratic structure?

Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, various Mayors. Not one of them uses FPTP.

> I'm 49, I've already identified that I've moved 12 times. Do the maths yourself you lazy sod ;)

Apart from you could have moved 10 times in 2 years and then 2 in the rest.
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> THOL has nothing to do with the boundary changes.

They have a point. The tories are trying to spin any objection to boundary changes as being undemocratic whilst propping up their numbers. Makes it rather clear they dont have any real interest in the subject. Not of course that labour were better last time round.
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, and its been widely understood for years that the status quo favours Labour .

It depends on your measures. If votes per seat are used.
The parties which do best are the NI ones and the SNP. Then Labour and Tories have switched positions over the last few elections with, currently, the tories being most favoured needing just under 5k less votes per seat.
Then a whole bunch of parties do extremely badly with UKIP standing out in particular.
MG - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Anyway, Big Ger's going to have problems - who to support party or county?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/cornish-come-out-fighting-over-proposed-cross-border...
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

It's usually calculated on percentage of votes required to win a majority and Labour needs about 3% less, but that's not just about boundaries.
timjones - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, various Mayors. Not one of them uses FPTP.

But both Wales and Scotland elect MPs using FPTP.

> Apart from you could have moved 10 times in 2 years and then 2 in the rest.

What method would you like me to use to calculate a figure to your liking your lordship ;)

Why the feck are you so obsessed by doing some weird statistical analysis on how many times I've moved?
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's really kicking off in Cornwall;

> The mayor of Launceston, Brian Hogan, summed up the mood as angry. “The people of Cornwall have fought long and hard to preserve their sense of identity. They are not keen on centuries of history being chucked out because of red tape. There’s a lot of anger around here. Cornwall is passionate about its own identity.”

> Under the boundary commission’s proposals, the new constituency would include the Cornish towns of Launceston and Bude – plus the north Devon port of Bideford – and myriad villages and hamlets in between.

> Cornish politicians, community leaders and artists are up in arms. Cornwall council is claiming the concept is illegal and is urging a rethink. Activists are discussing direct action, which could include organising a blockade of roads between Devon and Cornwall.
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> Anyway, Big Ger's going to have problems - who to support party or county?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/13/cornish-come-out-fighting-over-proposed-cross-border...

Whoopsy, I missed this.

I'm voting Mebyon Kernow mate.
Timmd on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Big Ger:
I like how passionate the Cornish are, a guy in his 70's who I've known since childhood taught for a while in Cornwall, and commented on one of the children quietly saying there'd be blood spilt if some kind of boundary change proposed at the time took place. They're like Yorkshire people but turned up to 15.
Post edited at 21:53
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It's usually calculated on percentage of votes required to win a majority and Labour needs about 3% less, but that's not just about boundaries.

Looking at the documention the constituency size appears to be a minor factor and possibly already dealt with due to the change in politics in Scotland and Wales. Which would explain why the tories needed only 34244 per seat vs Labours 40290. Other factors such as overall distribution rather than general size seem rather more important.

I am sure though that good tories such as yourself will be campaigning for this to be altered to make each vote worth the same.
1
KevinD - on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> But both Wales and Scotland elect MPs using FPTP.

ermm yes. Which is why I stated "new democratic structure".

> Why the feck are you so obsessed by doing some weird statistical analysis on how many times I've moved?

I just find it fascinating that you casually dismiss something that the electoral commission, amongst others, consider a serious problem.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> I am sure though that good tories such as yourself will be campaigning for this to be altered to make each vote worth the same.
>
Obviously, but it'll need a lot more than that to give Jezzer a shout
2
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> ermm yes. Which is why I stated "new democratic structure".

There are plenty in Wales that serious dislike the process by which they elect members to the assembly.

> I just find it fascinating that you casually dismiss something that the electoral commission, amongst others, consider a serious problem.

Why do you feel that this means that I should complete some whacky statistical analysis?

I've told you how many times I've moved and how old I am, do you even know what you would regard as an acceptable 5 year average?

With email reminders and online registration it's never been easier to maintain your entry on the register.

KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> With email reminders and online registration it's never been easier to maintain your entry on the register.

and yet the actual experts consider it a problem particularly with the new design. Perhaps you should write to them and let them know you know it is all good and that they shouldnt worry about it.
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> and yet the actual experts consider it a problem particularly with the new design. Perhaps you should write to them and let them know you know it is all good and that they shouldnt worry about it.

The new design of what?

I'm sure that the "actual experts" will reach their own conclusions regardless of what you or I think ;)

If I'm worried about anything within our current system it's the absurd obsession with petty, party poliitcal back-biting.
KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> The new design of what?

ermm, electoral role registration.
You do come across as rather govian in seemingly projecting your own experiences onto others. Something especially flawed in this case since it isnt just those who dont register who come out worse but anyone in that area.

> If I'm worried about anything within our current system it's the absurd obsession with petty, party poliitcal back-biting.

Ah so you are depressed with the posties OP then?

John_Hat - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:
> Whatever electoral system, under whatever boundaries, Corbyn would be massacred if he tried to appeal to the general public, rather than the echo chamber of groupies and cultists.

Why?

I'm aware that it's what the papers are saying and I'm aware it's what the PLP are saying. What appears to be short on evidence is whether the electorate (who have been called wrong by the pundits & polls really badly in every election recently) are of the same view.

The one thing I would say recently is the electorate as a whole appear to have a substantial inclination to say "up yours" to what they perceive as the establishment. By that measure I would say that Corbyn has as good a chance as anyone and better than many (as he is perceived as non-establishment, common man, etc).

Stranger things have occurred..... e.g. Trump being the republican nominee and in with a non-zero chance of the white house, FFS!
Post edited at 12:36
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> ermm, electoral role registration.

I'll have to do a bit of research when time permits. My experience suggests that it works well but there is usually room for improvement in any system.

> You do come across as rather govian in seemingly projecting your own experiences onto others. Something especially flawed in this case since it isnt just those who dont register who come out worse but anyone in that area.

Govian? Is that another cheap attempt to patronise someone who doesn't share your opinion?

Personal experiences are valid, the only place that I am projecting them onto others is in your mind!

> Ah so you are depressed with the posties OP then?

Irritated would be a better word, but you get used to the absurdity of it. Your use of "govian" above is another example.

KevinD - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:

> Govian? Is that another cheap attempt to patronise someone who doesn't share your opinion?

Considering your patronising attitude that is another superb projection. I cant be arsed to waste any more time on this.
2
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:
I like the way the term 'Govian' rhymes with Pavlovian, and has a ring of the draconian about it.
Post edited at 13:46
Whitters - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

How very much dare you! To suggest that Cornish people are more passionate about their county than Yorkshire folk is an affront to all right thinking people.

The only reason we don't turn it up to 15 is cos it plays havoc with the electricity bill... ;-)
Timmd on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Whitters:

Pardon me, I'm merely an incomer from Derbyshire.
John_Hat - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Whitters:
> The only reason we don't turn it up to 15 is cos it plays havoc with the electricity bill... ;-)

You're making the mistake of taking the magnet off the top of the meter then.
Post edited at 14:58
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Considering your patronising attitude that is another superb projection. I cant be arsed to waste any more time on this.

Have you looked at some of your own posts?
ads.ukclimbing.com
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So, the independent electoral boundary commissions produce proposals to ensure that all voters are evenly represented across the country and the Labour party says it's unfair! Much fairer to have an inbuilt advantage for Labour one assumes?

Even representation is hardly the contentious issue, I think everybody wants every vote to more or less count the same. What's contentious is how you draw the boundary line, let's say a constituency needs to be made smaller, and it happens to be a marginal labour set, drawing the line to exclude a labour voting area swings the constituency.
1
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Even representation is hardly the contentious issue, I think everybody wants every vote to more or less count the same. What's contentious is how you draw the boundary line, let's say a constituency needs to be made smaller, and it happens to be a marginal labour set, drawing the line to exclude a labour voting area swings the constituency.

Do we have data on which areas within constituencies vote for any given party?
1
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:
> Do we have data on which areas within constituencies vote for any given party?

My guess is that the big political parties have a pretty good idea of where their core supporters are pretty much street by street based on data they collect when canvassing, but obviously they don't share this data.
You could get a rough idea based on demographics and types of area though.
Post edited at 16:26
1
timjones - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> My guess is that the big political parties have a pretty good idea of where their core supporters are pretty much street by street based on data they collect when canvassing, but obviously they don't share this data.

> You could get a rough idea based on demographics and types of area though.

How many people genuniely tell canvassers which way they are going to vote? They've never got a commitment out of me ;)

It's also worth bearing in mind that there are large areas that haven't been canvassed by labour for many years. I'm confident that the same applies to other parties too.

As for demographics, I'm not so sure, people often make assumptions on other peoples political allegiances. They are often wrong
RomTheBear - on 14 Sep 2016
In reply to timjones:
> How many people genuniely tell canvassers which way they are going to vote? They've never got a commitment out of me ;)

> It's also worth bearing in mind that there are large areas that haven't been canvassed by labour for many years. I'm confident that the same applies to other parties too.

> As for demographics, I'm not so sure, people often make assumptions on other peoples political allegiances. They are often wrong

Regardless, the fact is , the boundaries can be manipulated at will to favour any parties, and I don't trust any majority to not try to fiddle with it to their advantage.
Enjoy the next decades of permanent Tory rule
Post edited at 20:04
2
fred99 - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Firstly, it's an INDEPENDENT boundary commission.
But Labour are making out that it's Tory run and controlled.

Secondly, Labour (and SNP) have enjoyed an unfair advantage over the lifetime of the current boundaries.
But I never heard Labour (and SNP) apologising for their unequal advantage over the years.

Thirdly, Corbyn is rubbing his hands in glee at the opportunity at having a new set of selection meetings/elections for all the changes, so that he can (Stalin-like) throw his enemies out.
But you won't hear him admit this, just complaints about the system being made fairer being discriminatory.
Offwidth - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
They said before it was near impossible for Labour to ever win again in England until Blair did it, easily. All that is needed for a big swing in fptp is marginal voters to be pissed off with the government and to see an alternative in what they regard as an electable opposition. Boundry changes won't alter this much. Labour's real problems next time are being an attractive alternative to marginal votors and to deal with the SNP coalition issue.

I think numbers should be based on best estimates, partly from census data and not just the electoral register to avoid encouraging more disenfranchisement. It seems undemocratic to me that if we do use the elctoral register we don't use the most up-to-date data.
Post edited at 11:36
1
RomTheBear - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> I think numbers should be based on best estimates, partly from census data and not just the electoral register to avoid encouraging more disenfranchisement. It seems undemocratic to me that if we do use the elctoral register we don't use the most up-to-date data.

Or maybe, instead, have a proportion of PR, like you know, modern democracies.
MG - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Your still need to decide on the constituency boundaries
Post edited at 20:16
RomTheBear - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
> Your still need to decide on the constituency boundaries

But it matters a lot less because they woudl be typically much much larger.
Post edited at 20:25
MG - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Not really, e.g. Scotland. Unless you go full PR, which has other downsides.
RomTheBear - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
> Not really, e.g. Scotland. Unless you go full PR, which has other downsides.

??? well, yes really, e.g. Scotland
Post edited at 20:38
1
MG - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Constituencies for MSPs are smaller than Westminster ones.
RomTheBear - on 15 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:
> Constituencies for MSPs are smaller than Westminster ones.

?? Sorry but I don't follow, I was talking about PR, constituency MSPs are elected FPTP not PR.
The MSP elected through PR are not elected by constituency, but by regions instead, and they are much bigger (there are only 8)
Post edited at 22:13
MG - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
You said a proportion of PR, which implies another non PR aspect,as in Scotland. As I noted pure PR isn't that great.
Post edited at 06:55
RomTheBear - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to MG:

> You said a proportion of PR, which implies another non PR aspect,as in Scotland. As I noted pure PR isn't that great.

Well yes, but at least a proportion of PR is enough to alleviate the problems with fptp, and vice-versa
It's a good compromise.
1
MG - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes I agree. But one thing it doesn't do is remove the difficulties of defining constituency boundaries. Which is what I said. Arrgh!!
Trevers - on 16 Sep 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> Whatever electoral system, under whatever boundaries, Corbyn would be massacred if he tried to appeal to the general public, rather than the echo chamber of groupies and cultists.

At the first leadership election, my vote for Corbyn was based off the fact that he was the only candidate opposing austerity economics. I don't think that makes me a groupy or a cultist.

Say what you will about Corbyn (I personally think his leadership has been useless, but he's not as bad as the media and PLP paint him), anti-austerity views have become far more mainstream since he took charge.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.