Election - interesting fact - 2013 Boundary Commission Review - 59 fake seats ...

[Gangsta]

When Labour and the Lib Dems utter drove a horse and carriage over democracy a couple of years ago by voting down the independant Boundary Commision Review to ensure that they still held onto constituancies that no one lives in any more whilst the ever growing populaton of the South East had bigger and bigger constituancies - 1 vote for 1 person: meaningless if dozens of Scottish and Welsh seats have 50% less population than some southern seats. Why do we have to wait for turkeys to vote for Xmas... but too late now, rant over.

However the self-serving left whilst still ahead in this game are not going to have it all their own way. Going on current polls (yes I know), they have created by happenchance the following likely results of those 59 rotten boroughs that should no longer exist (I have only counted the ones here where there is likely to be a change of party):

LAB to SNP 7 seats
LAB to PC 1 seat
LAB to UKIP 1 seat
LD to SNP 2 seats
LD to CON 1 seat
CON to LAB 2 seats

So their plan to safeguard all these mainly safe-ish seats appears to have reckoned without the current nationalist air and may well deliver the SNP 9 seats that only have 3 men and a haggis living in it and even Plaid whatever will nick one off of Labour - I've seen it on the map it looks like it has the population of Seaford. And - Great Grimsby to UKIP!

Anyhow, I personally will never ever vote for Labour or the LDs for this utter carve up and leaving us down here with a vote that is actually only worth half that of many people in Scotland and South Wales. There can be no justification for their actions - it was shameful. I have heard all their excuses - liers the lot of them.

PS. Although traditionally a bit of a Nazi, I shall be voting Green (though not in the council elections obviously), and no not to keep Labour out (honest) - but because I think it is important that at least one Green is in parliament to represent the thousands that vote Green and promote saving the planet (a bit more important than a lot of crap the others champion).

Can't wait for it all to be over now...

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Anybody got the faintest idea what OP is banging on about?

 

[Danny-Boy]

Can't agree with this, the move to destroy the Lewes seat and it's links to its traditional hinterland was cynical and poorly worked-out, putting Seaford either in with Uckfield and Forest Row, or at the second attempt enlarging Kemptown eastwards to include Newhaven and Seaford made no sense. (Other than, for the Tories to try to break Norman Baker).

 

[Titanic]

Anybody got the faintest idea what OP is banging on about?

Yes - and if true, it is quite amusing to see Miliband's schoolboy politics rebounding on him like this

 

[halbpro]

Anybody got the faintest idea what OP is banging on about?

Population disparity in constituencies.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Population disparity in constituencies.

I think that's right.

The Tories wanted to bring the populations of each seat 'roughly' in line - and also reduce the number of MPs.( They believe it would have helped them - why would they proposed it otherwise!)

I believe the LibDems joined with Labour to veto it (In turn they believed it would work against, why would they have voted against it otherwise!)

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Who gives a f***!?

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

I think its an odd way of saying they want AV

 

[Cian]

With the exception of the exemptions for a few constituencies where merging them would ensure that no single MP could even try to serve them - putting Orkney and Shetland in with a mainland Scotland constituency or making the Ross constituency even bigger - maintaining traditional lines is a terrible excuse for keeping uneven population bases. The same argument about traditional areas could be applied to actual rotten boroughs in the pre-reform (or Blackadder, if you want) sense

There's two and a half times as many people eligible to vote for the Isle of Wight's sole MP as there is for the Arfon one which doesn't even have the size/scale/isolation issues that the really small Scottish seats have (Western Isles is about a fifth of the IoW)

 

[Tom Bombadil]

It the Tories own fault. If they hadn't cynically blocked the Lords reforms they'd agreed to the Lib Dems would have supported their boundary changes

 

[Hampster Gull]

Who gives a f***!?

Because it distorts democracy and disenfranchises many people. The parties serve their own purposes first and foremost. We need a revolution to bring in PR, and to get rid of Kemy and Best

 

[Gwylan]

I think that's right.

The Tories wanted to bring the populations of each seat 'roughly' in line - and also reduce the number of MPs.( They believe it would have helped them - why would they proposed it otherwise!)

I believe the LibDems joined with Labour to veto it (In turn they believed it would work against, why would they have voted against it otherwise!)

That's only half the story.

During the coalition discussions, the Lib Dems agreed to support reform of the parliamentary boundaries if the Tories would support reform of the House of Lords. The Tories agreed ... and then promptly reneged on the deal when it came to a vote. In a tit for tat move, the LDs refused to support the proposed boundary changes.

So, the OP is being a bit economical with the truth when he says that it's Labour and the Lib Dems' doing. It could easily have been changed but the Tories, given a choice between an unreformed House of Lords and new parliamentary constituencies, opted for the former.

I've mentioned this before but I'll say it again; I think that's the single daftest thing that Cameron has done - it could easily cost him the next election

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Reducing the number of seats in Westminster from 650 to 600 by equalising the number of voters in each constituency only favours one party.

 

[drew]

It the Tories own fault. If they hadn't cynically blocked the Lords reforms they'd agreed to the Lib Dems would have supported their boundary changes

.

It's far too simplistic to argue that each constituency should have the same number of voters. The tories want to do it because it suits them. If it didn't favour them then they wouldn't even consider it. However, they obviously preferred the House of Lords as it is to be more favourable to them than boundary changes.

As for the OP, who exactly is he trying to fool by describing them as 'rotten' boroughs.

 

[beorhthelm]

That's only half the story.

During the coalition discussions, the Lib Dems agreed to support reform of the parliamentary boundaries if the Tories would support reform of the House of Lords. The Tories agreed ... and then promptly reneged on the deal when it came to a vote. In a tit for tat move, the LDs refused to support the proposed boundary changes.

and thats not the full story either. some Tory back benchers wanted changes to the Lords Reform Bill to support it (i dont recall what, the Bishops?), while a small group also opposed the Bill. Labour, who supported the reform, seeing the government had trouble in the ranks decided they'd vote down the motion to determine how long would be spent on debating it. without their support, the government didnt have enough of a majority to get past the rebel Tories. so essentially petty politics meant Labour killed it. i dont suppose they knew the price exacted by the Liberals would be to withdraw support on the boundry commission, thats good fortune for them.

 

[GT49er]

The discussion above seems to be going purely on party lines - it's always the other lot's fault. The truth is that all the parties wanted reform that would benefit them in an election, and voted against any reform they thought would benefit their opponents. Purely selfish motives on all sides, then. No news there.

Of course, they could have tried working out a system that would be better for us, the electorate - but they'd all think that was a silly idea if it wasn't going to be to their advantage.

For my own reasons I'm glad the reforms were rejected; Gloucester Cathedral is still in Gloucester, where it should be, not in the Forest of Dean!

 

[Danny-Boy]

It the Tories own fault. If they hadn't cynically blocked the Lords reforms they'd agreed to the Lib Dems would have supported their boundary changes

I don't think they would have. The LDs had too much to lose.

Instead of trying to shrink the Commons, Cameron and co. should be trying to shrink the Lords. Gawd knows how many "Peers" we have now. And there will be loads more after May 7th.

I still think Westminster as a centre of government is the problem. We need to do a "Canberra" and have a modern legislature somewhere else. How about Leicester?

They've probably got loads more car-parks to dig up and build on.

 

[Igzilla]

I think its an odd way of saying they want AV

or PR...

 

[Gwylan]

Labour, who supported the reform, seeing the government had trouble in the ranks decided they'd vote down the motion to determine how long would be spent on debating it. without their support, the government didnt have enough of a majority to get past the rebel Tories. so essentially petty politics meant Labour killed it.

As mentioned on the other thread, Labour supported the motion to reform the Lords and it passed its Second Reading comfortably, it was the government's decision to withdraw the bill.

The discussion above seems to be going purely on party lines - it's always the other lot's fault. The truth is that all the parties wanted reform that would benefit them in an election, and voted against any reform they thought would benefit their opponents.

Labour may or may not have voted against any reform, we'll never know because it wasn't put to the vote as the Conservatives decided they'd rather have an unreformed Lords than a reformed House of Commons