Let the great boundary rejig commence

[stepney]

Cheers squire

I have written (but failed to keep a copy of) a response to the BCW about the Labour proposal for "Llandudno Beach and the Shropshire marshes" or whatever it is. Complete  bobbins of the highest order.

Just as I think it's easy to guess what the BCE will do in specific regions, it seems to me that the BCW will tinker with the north (maybe just name changes as there's not much call for ward switching or the like from what I've read) and wholesale changes in the Valleys (where everyone considers it necessary to rip up and start again).

There's a great submission from someone getting into a right huff about the proposed Caerfyrddin seat, because he thinks a) nobody will be able to pronounce it, and b) the name would give the impression of it "being a nationalist stronghold".

I'm not Welsh and I can pronounce it wonderfully. Cair Fumph Rin. And as for being a nationalist stronghold, the notional calculations produced by the Guardian say: Plaid 29% Con 27% Lab 27% Lib Dem 13% UKIP 3% Others 0%

The lingua franca of Wales is English. 99.9%, if not 100%, of the people residing in Wales can pronounce "Carmarthen" or "Carmarthenshire" very easily; 100% of the people of the UK (and, almost as a natural consequence, 100% of those elected to the 2015 Parliament) can pronounce those words also. Probably 30% of the Welsh people - if not more - will have difficulty with the artificial "Caerfyrddin", and certaily a greater percentage of the British people at large the same.

The nomenclature of this seat should be obvious; but not to the BCW, a public sector organisation almost certainly wedded to the nonsense dictates of multiculturalism and "respect" [sic] for dead languages and dead cultures, only kept alive at the public expense because most of the Welsh themselves realise it's an irrelevance in a global world.

[stepney]

Stepney, that rant was almost Daily Mail esque!  I ticked off the bingo card at least six old favourites....

My dear Doktorb, the fact that it is "almost Daily Mail esque", as George Orwell almost said, doesn't mean it's wrong. My own opinions on Welsh were expressed on another place a while back. The only arguments against seemed to be sentimentality; a misguided belief that other, divisive, cultures should be fostered and nurtured; and Welsh nationalism.

If you would like to dispute that the lingua franca of Wales south of, say, Aberystwyth and Montgomery, is English, and that most people south of that line barely speak Welsh, I'd like to hear the argument. If it's that we should artificially foster such a half-dead tongue as Welsh through the nomenclature of seats in the House of Commons, there is a case against it that is almost unanswerable.

[stepney]

The only arguments against seemed to be sentimentality; a misguided belief that other, divisive, cultures should be fostered and nurtured; and Welsh nationalism.

To which it could be claimed that the only arguments in favour of your position are consistent only with being a bigoted cretin.

Or the abuse and the arrogance could be dropped and things could be looked at more reasonably. In which case it would seem obvious that attempts to accommodate the Welsh language (so to speak) are quite reasonable. Bilingualism is the order of the day anyway; there are no monoglot communities left now and no prospect of bringing them back. So why get angry?

Yes, yes. Perhaps only a socialist isolated from realism could in one paragraph accuses his interlocutor of being a 'bigoted cretin' (with a friend below to call me an 'idiot') and then in the next breath make an accusation against the same person of 'abusive arrogance'.

The point I have made here, and in another place where doktorb, you and I are all members, is that Welsh, were it not for public subsidy, would die. And that as such, I believe, public subsidy should be withdrawn and that it should die its natural death. Multiculturalism and polyglotism may be prayed in Welsh's aid, but you forget that I live in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, where multiculturalism is a canard, a cover word for divisiveness and the religious and ethnic supremacism of a minority group.

I would like the Bangladeshis of the East End to jump into the melting pot with the rest of us; why should I not apply that to the Welsh without being accused of bigotry?

Bringing this subject back to the topic at hand, the seat based on Carmarthen has been called Carmarthen (or Carmarthen Boroughs, or West Carmarthenshire) since Wales got Parliamentary representation - for any passing Americans on this thread that's twice as long as they've been a nation. Why, now, should that be changed? Why should a public body be entrenching and furthering the divisiveness of a non-English tongue when it should be supporting integration? To bring the subject home to me, it is as if, after roughly 130 years of seats in northern Tower Hamlets named after the local communities, the English Commission should elect to rename Bethnal Green and Bow 'Banglatown' for no good reason but to 'recognise' or 'celebrate' diversity or some such.

Are you capable of seeing my point, or is it that all Tories are arrogant bigots and cretins and idiots in your eyes, or what?

And, of course, most people in Wales who don't speak the language have no problems with Welsh place names.

Whereas all the people in Wales speak English and none of them have any problem with English place names, particularly the ones that have been established for half a milennium.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Well done on spectacularly missing the point. I'm not arguing in favour of unimpeded Tory power. The Labour and Liberal parties have, collectively, won a majority of the votes in every election in the UK since at least 1964. Ditto, however, the Tory and Liberal parties. There has not been a majority, not necessarily even a plurality, however, in favour of a Lab-Lib or Con-Lib coalition at any of those elections with the possible exceptions of 1997 and 2001, though I'd wager there was a plurality in favour of a Labour majority Government at both of those elections.

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.

No it bloody isn't. Hung Parliaments every single time, in which the perpetually third-placed party chooses what Government is formed, is not fair. It's power that should be fairly distributed, not the number of seats.

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).

Insofar as the country is biased against the Tories, it is for very bad reasons, viz. Labour Governments have perpetually sought to bribe people with their own money. Like Pandora's box, they have entrenched so many people, even the middle-class, in dependency, that there is an intrinsic anti-Tory bias in the whole rotten system.

This is not necessarily relevant to this thread. How difficult is "Tory-leaning seats having an average 8000 more electors per seat than Labour-leaning seats" to understand as an indicator of malapportionment?

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.   

I've read this over three times, and it's still drivel. Are you perhaps not British? Do you have no idea what you're on about? Looks like it. I've no idea what you're trying to say, but my point is that in a democracy the pendulum swings, left and right each get a taste of power, not some stitch-up to keep the right out forever. UKIP are a nuisance, but an irrelevant nuisance to this.