Let the great boundary rejig commence

[Leftbehind]

Although there is something to the proportional loss, as we seen in Scotland.

[Leftbehind]

Class.

[Leftbehind]

Any chance of linking the aforementioned excel sheet here?

[Leftbehind]

Cheers, YL.

Most of the ones I read for Redcar raise the ridiculous splitting of Normanby, but less than I expected for further lumping Greater Eston with Redcar, and not Middlesbrough.

[Leftbehind]

...and yet it feels so good!

Actually, they're not dead and buried until the vote on them is defeated.

[Leftbehind]

On the other hand, the current boundaries, while they're a bit out of date and maintain the over-representation of Wales, aren't as bad as some Tories like to make out they are

Good video by Michael Thrasher demonstrating that.

Well said in general, don't disagree with a word of that.

[Leftbehind]

The boundaries gained Labour a mere net 6 seats; making up less than a 10th of the bias to Labour witnessed in 2010. As Sibboleth says, the Tories themselves received a bias worth double that amount in that same election. Already linked to it, but see this video for analysis of the bias.

The Tories' pained attempts to remove Labour bias, whilst retaining their own, is amusing to watch.

[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.

[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.

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.

That is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever seen. You seem to freely admit you're a minority in this country, and yet expect to be rewarded with a majority of the seats? Well that's the beauty of PR - you get what you deserve, and not unimpeded power even when you can barely muster a third of the vote. If you don't represent the majority of voters, then you don't get a majority of seats. Winning seats proportional to your votes is not in anyway "superficial", it's the very definition of fairness and the ultimate reflection of voters wishes. It is the FPTP system unduly rewarding first placers that is the entrenched bias, not the system that reflects what the country voted for in seats (you're basically calling the country biased against the Tories, and that is true - for good reason).

This bastardised coalition is a FPTP coalition - the idea that the UK would differ from the rest of the world (established, old parties don't see splits in PR?) in not seeing a splintering of voters to their preferred strands under PR (which in turn would make for more natural coalitions), but would carry on voting determinedly for the main two and a half is pure fantasy. You're already seeing it now, with the Tory Right migrating to UKIP, and that's with FPTP!

Funnily enough, the Right could easily coalesce their collective seats, whereas if current voting patterns prevail in their split state, they'll both be punished by FPTP - like the Left suffered in the eighties. Your pessimism for the Right is not credible anyway, a) the Liberals would never wed themselves to Labour in that way - you'd have the Doktorbs as reliably at your side as any leftist Liberal would be to Labour and the voters would be happy voting for the same government for eternity? b) you're still seeing this through your FPTP lenses - this wouldn't be FPTP two-and-a half with Liberals the kingmakers, I'd be astonished if they didn't split between the leftist and rightist Liberals, and the latter would likely be joining a coalition of the Tories and UKIP - AKA bourgeois Rightist toffery.