Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it is then its a rather poor predictor of who actually ends up holding the post. Over the centuries we have had some very odd and very unlikely PMs and their times in office have not always been brief.

[minionofmidas]

If it is then its a rather poor predictor of who actually ends up holding the post. Over the centuries we have had some very odd and very unlikely PMs.

Churchill comes to mind.

[Phony Moderate]

If it is then its a rather poor predictor of who actually ends up holding the post. Over the centuries we have had some very odd and very unlikely PMs.

Churchill comes to mind.

Attlee, Eden, Douglas-Home, Heath, Major and Brown too...depending on how one defines 'odd'.

[ChrisDR68]

Just read this on Electoral Calculus:

New Boundary Estimates: Conservative Majority of 50

There has been recent interest in the likely effect of new boundaries which may be brought in under this parliament. Electoral Calculus prepared a full set of notional implied results under the 600-seat "Sixth Periodic review" of boundaries which was conducted around 2013.

Although these boundaries were not used in 2015, they can still give a good approximation of the likely effect of the boundary changes. If we use the actual election result (adjusted slightly to compensate for model deficiencies) and feed it into the user-defined predictor, then we can see the effect of the boundaries.

Using these figures and the old boundaries gives CON 331, LAB 232, LIB 9, UKIP 1, Green 1, SNP 55, and Plaid 3, which is almost exactly correct. Then when we switch to the proposed 2013 boundaries we get

CON   LAB LIB SNP Plaid N.Ire
325   202   5   49   3   16

This gives the Conservatives a majority of 50 seats, well ahead of their current majority of 12. This is equivalent of nearly another twenty seats for the Conservatives.

Without any change to legislation, the Sixth Review should restart this year for completion in 2018. It looks unlikely that the Conservative government would want to slow this process down.

How likely is this new 600 seat house of commons coming to fruition in time for the next general election?

[Famous Mortimer]

I think any attempt at election reform that wasn't PR would look pretty sh!tty.

[Gary J]

Just read this on Electoral Calculus:

New Boundary Estimates: Conservative Majority of 50

There has been recent interest in the likely effect of new boundaries which may be brought in under this parliament. Electoral Calculus prepared a full set of notional implied results under the 600-seat "Sixth Periodic review" of boundaries which was conducted around 2013.

Although these boundaries were not used in 2015, they can still give a good approximation of the likely effect of the boundary changes. If we use the actual election result (adjusted slightly to compensate for model deficiencies) and feed it into the user-defined predictor, then we can see the effect of the boundaries.

Using these figures and the old boundaries gives CON 331, LAB 232, LIB 9, UKIP 1, Green 1, SNP 55, and Plaid 3, which is almost exactly correct. Then when we switch to the proposed 2013 boundaries we get

CON   LAB LIB SNP Plaid N.Ire
325   202   5   49   3   16

This gives the Conservatives a majority of 50 seats, well ahead of their current majority of 12. This is equivalent of nearly another twenty seats for the Conservatives.

Without any change to legislation, the Sixth Review should restart this year for completion in 2018. It looks unlikely that the Conservative government would want to slow this process down.

How likely is this new 600 seat house of commons coming to fruition in time for the next general election?

Unless Parliament amends the rules that the boundary commissions work to, the next Parliament will have 600 MPs elected on changed boundaries.

If there had been a hung Parliament then Parliament would almost certainly have amended the law, probably to retain 650 seats and give a larger degree of discretion than the plus or minus five percent permitted variance in the average size of electorate now permitted. However a Conservative majority has no particular reason to legislate further and has not proposed to do so in today's Queens speech.

That means that a new boundary review will start in Spring 2016 and that it is due to be reported in 2018. Parliament could, in theory, refuse to accept the implementation of the review. This is what happened in 1969, when the Labour government put a set of boundary changes before Parliament and whipped their MPs to reject them (delaying implementation until 1974 after a Conservative majority House revisited the issue after the 1970 general election). As present law requires a new review in each five year period, an adverse vote would kill the next set of proposals but it seems unlikely that the Tories will not get their way.

The Boundary Commission for England has indicated its current plans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only bit of electoral legislation mentioned in the Queen's speech has studiously ignored a select committee report about changing the boundary review legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People still take Electoral Calculus seriously?

But as a more serious point, I will reiterate that the main electoral impact of larger seats with tighter quotas would be to a) greatly increase the impact of national swing while also b) reducing the power of incumbency.

[Vega]

People still take Electoral Calculus seriously?

Why wouldn't they? It wasn't their fault that polling (what they use and average to predict) sucked this election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would have made that remark six months ago as well. Electoral Calculus's notional figures are better described as notorious figures. But, anyway, that little jibe was not exactly the substance of my post...

[ChrisDR68]

But as a more serious point, I will reiterate that the main electoral impact of larger seats with tighter quotas would be to a) greatly increase the impact of national swing while also b) reducing the power of incumbency.

So in effect each seat will have around 75,000 electors compared to 70,000 at present.

What's the main reason for reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600?

[Gary J]

But as a more serious point, I will reiterate that the main electoral impact of larger seats with tighter quotas would be to a) greatly increase the impact of national swing while also b) reducing the power of incumbency.

So in effect each seat will have around 75,000 electors compared to 70,000 at present.

What's the main reason for reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600?

Extracts from the Conservative Party manifesto 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Labour have meddled shamelessly with
the electoral system to try to gain political
advantage. A Conservative government will
ensure every vote will have equal value by
introducing ‘fair vote’ reforms to equalise the
size of constituency electorates, and conduct a
boundary review to implement these changes
within five years. We will swiftly implement
individual voter registration, giving everyone
the right to cast their vote in person and making
it easier for UK citizens living overseas to vote.
[/quote]

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

basically, shameless populism.

[ObserverIE]

basically, shameless populism.

Shameless populism plus meddling with the electoral system to their own advantage.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Today I learned that increasing the size of single-member constituencies is part of making politics more local.

[Joe Republic]

FEWER POLITICIANS!!!  starting with all the ones clustered together in urban constituencies

[minionofmidas]

But as a more serious point, I will reiterate that the main electoral impact of larger seats with tighter quotas would be to a) greatly increase the impact of national swing while also b) reducing the power of incumbency.

So in effect each seat will have around 75,000 electors compared to 70,000 at present.

What's the main reason for reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600?

Keeping commuterbelt backbenchers' seats intact.

[YL]

FEWER POLITICIANS!!!  starting with all the ones clustered together in urban constituencies

This should probably be in the boundary review thread, but contrary to some Tory propaganda on this issue there are quite a few Labour seats in urban areas with high electorates.  Indeed according to the list of electorates I've got (which came from Electoral Calculus) 8 of the 15 largest electorates are in Labour-held urban constituencies.

(Ilford South, West Ham, Bristol West, East Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Slough, Manchester Central, Croydon North.)

[joevsimp]

FEWER POLITICIANS!!!  starting with all the ones clustered together in urban constituencies

This should probably be in the boundary review thread, but contrary to some Tory propaganda on this issue there are quite a few Labour seats in urban areas with high electorates.  Indeed according to the list of electorates I've got (which came from Electoral Calculus) 8 of the 15 largest electorates are in Labour-held urban constituencies.

(Ilford South, West Ham, Bristol West, East Ham, Holborn & St Pancras, Slough, Manchester Central, Croydon North.)

East and West ham are ridiculously overpopulated constituencies, over 90,000 I think, and that's before you account for the large numbers of non-UK citizens who can't vote, they should really change the rules to use the census rather than the electoral roll to draw boundaries, but the new individual registration rules make it even worse

[Phony Moderate]

This is beginning to turn into a contest of Blairite cliches...ugh.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Would it be wrong of me to want Ed Miliband back?

[ChrisDR68]

Would it be wrong of me to want Ed Miliband back?

If you want the Conservatives to win a bigger majority at the 2020 general election than they already have then yes it would be the correct thing for Labour to do.

[Phony Moderate]

There is talk of Miliband going down the IDS route and becoming a cabinet minister in the next Labour government (whenever that may be). IDS has certainly made more impact in the past five years than he did as Tory leader, so perhaps not a bad idea.

[Silent Hunter]

There is talk of Miliband going down the IDS route and becoming a cabinet minister in the next Labour government (whenever that may be). IDS has certainly made more impact in the past five years than he did as Tory leader, so perhaps not a bad idea.

Those on benefits might beg to differ.

[Phony Moderate]

There is talk of Miliband going down the IDS route and becoming a cabinet minister in the next Labour government (whenever that may be). IDS has certainly made more impact in the past five years than he did as Tory leader, so perhaps not a bad idea.

Those on benefits might beg to differ.

From Miliband's POV, sorry. and obviously IDS's impact has been...negative

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Burnham now has over 35 public PLP pledges and Cooper is only a few short.