Let the great boundary rejig commence

[doktorb]

And may all the Labour supporters who've allowed this disgrace to happen rot, for all I care.

I'm bewildered - not even angry anymore - that the party of the working man and Chartists have supported this amendment, a constitutional disgrace beyond all measure.

Labour now support, without justification at all, unequal constituencies, meaning the vote of "One Nation Britain" is unequal. Laughable, spiteful, bitter, shallow, backwards looking idiocy of the lowest order.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bit of an overreaction, maybe?

[doktorb]

Not at all.

They kicked voting reform out of the way for a generation out of spite, despite being a party formed on the basis of fair representation, and now they're the backbone against a manifesto commitment.

I can't put into many more words the utter contempt with which I hold that duplicitous shower of anti-democratic charlatans. The Labour Party stands for unaccountable establishment and each and every one of their parliamentary members can go to merry Hell for all I care.

Seething? You bet I am. 

[YL]

And may all the Labour supporters who've allowed this disgrace to happen rot, for all I care.

I'm bewildered - not even angry anymore - that the party of the working man and Chartists have supported this amendment, a constitutional disgrace beyond all measure.

Labour now support, without justification at all, unequal constituencies, meaning the vote of "One Nation Britain" is unequal. Laughable, spiteful, bitter, shallow, backwards looking idiocy of the lowest order.

Um... your party voted with Labour.

(And of course another way of thinking about it is that they don't support this or this.)

[You kip if you want to...]

And may all the Labour supporters who've allowed this disgrace to happen rot, for all I care.

I'm bewildered - not even angry anymore - that the party of the working man and Chartists have supported this amendment, a constitutional disgrace beyond all measure.

Labour now support, without justification at all, unequal constituencies, meaning the vote of "One Nation Britain" is unequal. Laughable, spiteful, bitter, shallow, backwards looking idiocy of the lowest order.

The Liberals voted with Labour.

Not at all.

They kicked voting reform out of the way for a generation out of spite, despite being a party formed on the basis of fair representation, and now they're the backbone against a manifesto commitment.

I can't put into many more words the utter contempt with which I hold that duplicitous shower of anti-democratic charlatans. The Labour Party stands for unaccountable establishment and each and every one of their parliamentary members can go to merry Hell for all I care.

Seething? You bet I am.  

"Calm down", as our Rt. Hon PM would say.

And on AV, there was no worth at all in changing one crap system for another just with a slim chance/hope that PR might come at some point in the future.

And if Labour are a band of anti-democratic charlatans, I'd really love to know what that makes the Liberal Democrats.

And don't act like the proposals weren't absolutely disgusting anyway. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Whatever.

Anyway, as a historical point, the Labour Party was founded to give the Labour Movement a voice in the Commons independent of the Liberal Party, and not on the basis of 'fair representation' (however defined).

[doktorb]

Specific constituencies has nothing to do with it. At all. Blame the formation of the island thousands of years ago for the shape of the Wirral peninsula.

Labour MPs were set upon the House of Lords Bill, to ensure that the Lords remains unelected and unaccountable. Labour MPs were set upon the AV referendum to ensure that the Commons is unrepresentative. And now Labour Lords have ensured that a vote in the middle of Glasgow is a different value to a vote in the middle of Manchester.

I've been wary of Labour supporters and their elected (by and large appointed) MPs. This Parliament has been a showcase of shame from the so-called 'party of the people'

[stepney]

Bit of an overreaction, maybe?

Not really, Al. I got into a tawdry tangle with that prat Boothroyd in the other place because, as he pointed out, there are many biases to Labour in the current set-up; not only unequal constituency sizes but also differential turnout and the differing size of majorities (that is to say, 'efficiency'). Which was all very true, but no distraction from the fact that if any of those biases could be ironed out by legislation, they should be ironed out.

Put at its basest, I think there should be a two-party fight between us and you (something you may agree with, but Dok may not). To my mind, if you win a greater share of the vote than us, you should form a Government; if we win a greater share than you, we should form the Government. The current boundary set-up militates against that. It should therefore be altered. No doubt this will be decried as Tory gerrymandering, the same way the whole review has been for the last 2 years. Shows how the Labour Party values its almost pathological Tory-hatred over democracy. That's what happens when you're led by a man who hasn't matured since his student union days.

[stepney]

Specific constituencies has nothing to do with it. At all. Blame the formation of the island thousands of years ago for the shape of the Wirral peninsula.

Labour MPs were set upon the House of Lords Bill, to ensure that the Lords remains unelected and unaccountable. Labour MPs were set upon the AV referendum to ensure that the Commons is unrepresentative. And now Labour Lords have ensured that a vote in the middle of Glasgow is a different value to a vote in the middle of Manchester.

I've been wary of Labour supporters and their elected (by and large appointed) MPs. This Parliament has been a showcase of shame from the so-called 'party of the people'

Dok, much though I hate to concur with our Labour posters, the only reason this boundary review is not going through is because of the childish petulance of Nick Clegg. Labourites, unhappy a bias towards them in the electoral system would be removed, are I suppose at liberty to vote against this review. The Lib Dems - a member of the governing party who voted to pass the PVSCA 2011 - are not, really.

Rennard's amendment has not been passed in the Lords through independent minded peers sagely considering that amendment and voting for it. The whole thing was orchestrated out of Nick Clegg's office. The man has proved himself a petulant idiot who has stamped his foot and got this through on a whipped vote.

Your party has decided to vote against fair votes solely to screw the Tories over for having the temerity to vote down Lords reform. Much as I might curse the w--kers on our benches for voting down Lords reform, that's the way it's worked, and Nick Clegg has had his petulant tit-for-tat with Nadine Dorries, Jesse Norman, et al by having this amendment put down and passed. A tawdry way of doing things; at least our backwoodsmen's moves were out in the open, rather than moving a Lords amendment to the IER bill which would have been rightly moved out of order if it had been originally moved in the Commons.

[doktorb]

Forward 12 - as you well know, our piecemeal, unfit for purposed, cobbled together, out-dated mockery of a constitution is only "updated" by tiny steps. AV would have been one of those tiny steps. You're either claiming that our constitution is updated in great sweeps of revolutionary reform, or that there is no requirement to reform anything at all. AV would have been a stepping stone. I said at the time of the referendum, in which I voted yes, that my preferred choice was STV. It still is. But you don't get what you wish in the UK, you get what you can squeeze out by compromise.

As for the constituencies proposed - as I said, individual constituencies are of no consequence in this debate.

I thank Stepney for this response.

[doktorb]

Well, not both of them

[You kip if you want to...]

Bit of an overreaction, maybe?

Put at its basest, I think there should be a two-party fight between us and you (something you may agree with, but Dok may not). To my mind, if you win a greater share of the vote than us, you should form a Government; if we win a greater share than you, we should form the Government. The current boundary set-up militates against that. It should therefore be altered. No doubt this will be decried as Tory gerrymandering, the same way the whole review has been for the last 2 years. Shows how the Labour Party values its almost pathological Tory-hatred over democracy.

Ironing that out would be undemocratic anyway as Labour'd still find it easier to become the largest party with equal constituency sizes. You'd have to give the Tories an inbuilt advantage simply because Labour voters in safe seats don't turn up. The only way to get round it would be compulsory voting or PR and there's no political will for either of those really.

That's what happens when you're led by a man who hasn't matured since his student union days.

You think Flashman's any more mature than Miliband? Really?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Quick note from your friendly neighbourhood dictator (in his friendly neighbourhood dictator role) - play nice. As in; the tone of discussion should not deteriorate further, else posts will be deleted and so on.

Etc, etc, etc.

[doktorb]

I do.

I saw Ed on the Andrew Marr show. He's very good with theory. He's awful at leading a political party. He's the Westminster version of any one of us at this forum - an obsessed politico very good at plucking out facts and figures (at one point he referenced the 1992 election as easily as Stepney might reference an 1885 map), but very uneasy with specifics.

The man is utterly unsuited to his position and would be an absolute, unmitigated joke as Prime Minister.

Cameron or Miliband? You might as well offer "Tea or cat wee"

And with the intervention of our friendly neighbourhood dictator, I take the point in the manner in which it is intended, and will step back from the keyboard for the rest of the evening.

[You kip if you want to...]

The man is utterly unsuited to his position and would be an absolute, unmitigated joke as Prime Minister.

Because Cameron's been a success, so far.

Cameron or Miliband? You might as well offer "Tea or cat wee"

Posh + Well-spoken =/= Qualified

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Dok, you were warned.

[stepney]

Bit of an overreaction, maybe?

Put at its basest, I think there should be a two-party fight between us and you (something you may agree with, but Dok may not). To my mind, if you win a greater share of the vote than us, you should form a Government; if we win a greater share than you, we should form the Government. The current boundary set-up militates against that. It should therefore be altered. No doubt this will be decried as Tory gerrymandering, the same way the whole review has been for the last 2 years. Shows how the Labour Party values its almost pathological Tory-hatred over democracy.

Ironing that out would be undemocratic anyway as Labour'd still find it easier to become the largest party with equal constituency sizes. You'd have to give the Tories an inbuilt advantage simply because Labour voters in safe seats don't turn up. The only way to get round it would be compulsory voting or PR and there's no political will for either of those really.

That's. Not. The. Point. Because, as I said, if there are many biases to Labour (or indeed any party), and any one of them can be ironed out through legislation, then that one should be ironed out. Thta's regardless of whether the others remain. One can't do anything about differential turnout. But one can do something about Liverpool seats with electorates of 60,000 and Oxfordshire seats with electorates of 80,000. I'm surprised this has to be pointed out to a forum largely posted on by Americans, where an electorate variance of 25% would be anathema, even in the states where common sense intervenes.

That's what happens when you're led by a man who hasn't matured since his student union days.

You think Flashman's any more mature than Miliband? Really?

Aye, yes I do. Flashman ain't bought into any guff that his opponents are evil. Whereas the Gurning Man's the millionaire son of a Spartist academic who grew up in the 80s. That sort are the very worst for their self-professed desires to stamp on Maggie's grave. To prove their leftist credentials and all that.

Quick note from your friendly neighbourhood dictator (in his friendly neighbourhood dictator role) - play nice. As in; the tone of discussion should not deteriorate further, else posts will be deleted and so on.

Aw, gie over Al. You surely see how it is with Miliband. I imagine the Labour Party is going through one of its 1981-esque spasms moderated by Blairism, and therefore the cult of Miliband and his immature Tory-bashing is in full swing, but I'm not having a go at anyone here (unless Ed posts here, I presume he doesn't)

[afleitch]

Sigh. I still think that the Commons could easily have been culled without changing the current rules; just reducing the Commons to 550 or 600 seats without crossing county boundaries and the Tories generally ensuring at reviews stage that we have more donuts than cakes with respect to urban/suburban splits. I also don't see why reviews can't take place between parliaments, there's computers to help with this sort of thing.

[YL]

Sigh. I still think that the Commons could easily have been culled without changing the current rules; just reducing the Commons to 550 or 600 seats without crossing county boundaries and the Tories generally ensuring at reviews stage that we have more donuts than cakes with respect to urban/suburban splits. I also don't see why reviews can't take place between parliaments, there's computers to help with this sort of thing.

I haven't been convinced by the need to reduce the size of the Commons, not that I'm particularly convinced that it needs to be 650 either.  (I find the size of the payroll vote more concerning than the number of MPs, actually.)

I think the Tories were right to move, effectively, to a single national quota, and yes I don't think it was acceptable that the last review took six years (and because of the timing of its completion was ten years out of date when first used).  But I don't think the 5% rule was necessary (a wider tolerance in cases where it means that other criteria such as local government boundaries are better followed shouldn't create a bias one way or the other) and I certainly think that given its existence the BCE should have been more prepared to split large wards (as the other Commissions did) which is the real reason, not the shape of the Wirral, for the two seats I mentioned earlier (and others I could mention).

[stepney]

I think the Tories were right to move, effectively, to a single national quota, and yes I don't think it was acceptable that the last review took six years (and because of the timing of its completion was ten years out of date when first used).  But I don't think the 5% rule was necessary (a wider tolerance in cases where it means that other criteria such as local government boundaries are better followed shouldn't create a bias one way or the other) and I certainly think that given its existence the BCE should have been more prepared to split large wards (as the other Commissions did) which is the real reason, not the shape of the Wirral, for the two seats I mentioned earlier (and others I could mention).

You're just annoyed over Yarksher, aren't you? I must confess it irked me until I cracked the damn thing, and from there it was a piece of cake. As a result, Batley, Dewsbury, Wakefield and the Calder Valley were put back together - now really, what's the problem? My only whine would be the superfluous "and Denby Dale" in Colne Valley.

[YL]

I think the Tories were right to move, effectively, to a single national quota, and yes I don't think it was acceptable that the last review took six years (and because of the timing of its completion was ten years out of date when first used).  But I don't think the 5% rule was necessary (a wider tolerance in cases where it means that other criteria such as local government boundaries are better followed shouldn't create a bias one way or the other) and I certainly think that given its existence the BCE should have been more prepared to split large wards (as the other Commissions did) which is the real reason, not the shape of the Wirral, for the two seats I mentioned earlier (and others I could mention).

You're just annoyed over Yarksher, aren't you? I must confess it irked me until I cracked the damn thing, and from there it was a piece of cake. As a result, Batley, Dewsbury, Wakefield and the Calder Valley were put back together - now really, what's the problem? My only whine would be the superfluous "and Denby Dale" in Colne Valley.

The big cities, and especially the random areas tacked on to their constituencies (like Ossett, certain wards in Barnsley, especially Kingstone, and Horsforth) to make the numbers fit.  Both Leeds and Sheffield could have been done within their boundaries with the odd split ward (as Glasgow and Edinburgh were) and Bradford just needed to lose Queensbury.

[Leftbehind]

he pointed out, there are many biases to Labour in the current set-up; not only unequal constituency sizes but also differential turnout and the differing size of majorities (that is to say, 'efficiency'). Which was all very true, but no distraction from the fact that if any of those biases could be ironed out by legislation, they should be ironed out.

Well much of it could be ironed out with PR, but of course they won't be - your party only wishes to remove the biases that don't work in your favour (baby and the bathwater!).

Forward 12 - as you well know, our piecemeal, unfit for purposed, cobbled together, out-dated mockery of a constitution is only "updated" by tiny steps. AV would have been one of those tiny steps. You're either claiming that our constitution is updated in great sweeps of revolutionary reform, or that there is no requirement to reform anything at all. AV would have been a stepping stone. I said at the time of the referendum, in which I voted yes, that my preferred choice was STV. It still is. But you don't get what you wish in the UK, you get what you can squeeze out by compromise.

On what basis do you claim it a stepping stone? It's just another majoritarian system, and that's why it was readily offered up by Cameron - it was no threat to anything, and certainly not a promise for proportional in the future. The Liberals hold a fair share of blame for the travesty of constitutional inertia. They quickly abandoned PR when given the first sniff of an electoral system that would benefit them moreso than any other party, and quite expectedly, then couldn't convince anyone of its merits. They then abandoned the HOL reforms, even though its chances were far from over, resolving to now scupper the Tory plans as payback. Now, I do agree with general criticism of Labour's record when in government, but your rants on how they're to blame for coalition failures make you seem as desperately bitter and spiteful as you accuse the Labour party of being.

[stepney]

he pointed out, there are many biases to Labour in the current set-up; not only unequal constituency sizes but also differential turnout and the differing size of majorities (that is to say, 'efficiency'). Which was all very true, but no distraction from the fact that if any of those biases could be ironed out by legislation, they should be ironed out.

Actually, much of it could be ironed out with PR. But your party only wishes to remove the biases that don't work in your favour.

Per contra. My party wishes to iron out biases against us, but not actually allow the Great 'Progressive' Middle-Class Leftist Coalition Masturbatathon to impose "lock out the Tories out forever" as a supposedly noble aim of the whole bloody electoral system. Put at its bluntest, if the Tories win more votes than anyone else, the Tories should form the Government.

PR doesn't allow that. In this country, with our electoral system (and let's not pretend all our century-old established parties would just split up at PR), it means hung Parliaments forever with Liberals commanding the central kingmaker position. (And just look how marvellously well that's working out). In this country, PR would not be fair. It may mean seats are allocated in proportion with electoral results - a superficial degree of 'fairness' that might fool a moron - but power would be locked in with the left. Fair? Give over. It's a bloody entrenchment of bias.

[afleitch]

To be fair anyway you cut the cake will result in a disproportionate bias towards Labour. One of the main problems is that the electoral geography of Britain has remained generally unaltered since the war. The administrative boundaries have however. The Mets are a major problem, you have areas of Tory support on the fringes but backed up against the boundaries with the county councils which are never crossed. Worse still, within the Mets you have continuing traditions which are never broken. Look at the proposed Otley constituency. That would never be suggested under the current method of doing things, yet it makes a fair degree of sense.

[Gary J]

Labour had a number of arguments against equalising the electorates of constituencies. Most were nonsense, being concerned with preserving unfair partisan advantage.

On the other hand the Conservatives were also creating a system which they hoped (perhaps wrongly) would enable them to gain a partisan advantage, against both Labour and Liberal Democrat opponents.

The Liberal Democrats were prepared to put up with a potential loss of seats through the boundary review, if it was offset by the Alternative Vote system (which they thought, perhaps wrongly, would help them to win more seats). With the AV idea dead, the Liberal Democrats self interest was to kill the boundary review. Petulance was not involved, just political calculation.

All parties were pursuing partisan self interest, cloaked with appeals to principle. That is what tends to happen in such debates. 

It would be better to equalise each constituency, using the census population rather than the registered electorate. This does seem to be the approach most countries follow.

The real problems are the single member constituency and first past the post elections. Unfortunately we seem further than ever from addressing those issues.