The Green Party fourth most popular party in the city!

[Chicken Run]

2010 General election.

Cons 46,786
Lab 46,301
Lib 26,090
Green 21,136

 

[Badger]

Did they even have candidates in the other areas?

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

So you're saying that with 33% of the vote in the City, the Tories ended up with 66% of the MPs. And yet Labour - with 33% also, got no representation at all.

 

[Chicken Run]

So you're saying that with 33% of the vote in the City, the Tories ended up with 66% of the MPs. And yet Labour - with 33% also, got no representation at all.

No, No I'm saying that the Green Party came fourth btw can you read

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

the greens surely got f*** all in hove though? drags their number down a bit

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

No, No I'm saying that the Green Party came fourth btw can you read

...

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If they normalise the constituency boundaries, as the tories want to do, the greens will not get a look-in. Make the most of it Ms Lucas, nick all the pebbles you can stuff in your pockets, you won't be there very long.

 

[The Large One]

If they normalise the constituency boundaries, as the tories want to do, the greens will not get a look-in. Make the most of it Ms Lucas, nick all the pebbles you can stuff in your pockets, you won't be there very long.

If they 'normalise constituency boundaries'?

What does that mean?

 

[Chicken Run]

If they normalise the constituency boundaries, as the tories want to do, the greens will not get a look-in. Make the most of it Ms Lucas, nick all the pebbles you can stuff in your pockets, you won't be there very long.

At least 4 years if CMD?CMN get their way!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If they 'normalise constituency boundaries'?

What does that mean?

I think they are planning to make all the consituencies the same size WRT population and reduce the overall number of MPs in the process. The tories would only want to do this if it benefitted them - all the parties want changes which would benefit themselves.

I don't know, but I would imagine a reduction in the number of MPs that represent B&H & the area, and if the figures at the top of the thread are accurate, no "smaller" party will get anything (and that probably goes for the rest of the country too).

 

[beorhthelm]

I think they are planning to make all the consituencies the same size WRT population and reduce the overall number of MPs in the process. The tories would only want to do this if it benefitted them - all the parties want changes which would benefit themselves.

it is currently strange that one seat might represent 60k while another 80k, so needs looking at whoever is in power. but the boundry changes are done by a third party (electoral commission?) to ensure its they arent blantantly rigged.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

it is currently strange that one seat might represent 60k while another 80k, so needs looking at whoever is in power. but the boundry changes are done by a third party (electoral commission?) to ensure its they arent blantantly rigged.

Whilst they are an independant body, they will carry out what is laid down for them by the government.

This is not an easy subject, there are pros and cons. Whilst it may sound fair that the constituency sizes are the same, it is not that simple. Like I pointed out earlier, you could end up with local differences "smoothed" out and the big parties would permanently dominate.

 

[Nottseagull]

So you're saying that with 33% of the vote in the City, the Tories ended up with 66% of the MPs. And yet Labour - with 33% also, got no representation at all.

The Greens got 1% of the national vote, so where exactly should their seat be if not in Brighton & Hove? Not to mention the other five they were due according to your logic.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

The Greens got 1% of the national vote, so where exactly should their seat be if not in Brighton & Hove? Not to mention the other five they were due according to your logic.

Exactly. I'm all for PR.

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

I suspect you will end up with something like Hove and Brighton West (with maybe the Pavilion name retained) or North, with the rest of Pavilion combined with the Brighton wards from Brighton Kemptown, with the rest returning to Lewes. HBW would be a Tory-Labour marginal, with the trend in population favouring Labour, Brighton Central (my name, though I imagine both Pavilion and Kemptown will be retained) will be a three-way battle, though I suspect Labour and Green will take the first two places, while the ex-Kemptown wards, though obviously where the Tory majority comes from in the current seat, will make no difference to Norman Baker's retaining of the Lewes seat. Not too much for the Left to worry about there, I don't think.

 

[dougdeep]

So a Green/Libdem coalition would have the majority.

 

[Colossal Squid]

The Greens made no effort in Hove and very little in Kemp Town so this is hardly a surprising statistic.

The reason they won the Pavilion seat is that in that constituency they won the most votes.

It's not rocket surgery

 

[West Hoathly Seagull]

Exactly. I'm all for PR.

All that is on offer is Alternative Vote. The Lib Dems will demand this as the price for the boundary changes (both parties want to cut the number of MPs, the Tories to 585, Lib Dems to 500). Under the current boundaries, I suspect the results would have been:

Hove: Tory (just)
Brighton Pavilion: photo-finish between Labour and Green. Greens might just have taken it, as most Tories would not bother to put a second preference, or would probably have voted UKIP or Lib Dem. Lib Dem voters would probably split equally between Labour and Green.
Brighton Kemptown: Labour (the Tory majority was very narrow, and Lib Dem second preferences would mostly have gone to Labour).

New boundaries:

Hove and Brighton North: Tory
Hove and Brighton West: Labour
Brighton Central: Labour or Green (probably Labour, but very close)
Lewes: Lib Dem with an increased majority.