UK Politics VIII

[Lummel]

Constituency size is currently related to population based on census data (by and large). The proposal is to use the electoral register instead of census data so areas with fewer people currently registered to vote, currently this would disproportionally effect inner city constituencies few of which are held by the Tories, would loose out.

Reducing the number of thieves sounds nice, except when you consider the number of government jobs avaliable this means that backbenchers are going to be much less important and government power and control over their own parliamentary party considerably extended.

[Eurytus]

The spine got ripped out of backbench power at least as far back as Blair's admin. They're just faces on seats now. Solely existing to vote with the party.

[mormont]

How is reducing the number of seats gerrymandering?

Because of the chosen method. The notion that seats should be equalised in the number of registered voters they contain (rather than the number of registered voters plus other factors including total population, geographical size and boundaries, etc.) means that the reduction will be concentrated in those seats who contain a lot of people who are not registered - i.e. inner cities, which tend to vote Labour.

I'm actually rather surprised that you had to ask. The Tories are scarcely bothering to hide the fact that this is a stitch-up.

[Eurytus]

Because of the chosen method. The notion that seats should be equalised in the number of registered voters they contain (rather than the number of registered voters plus other factors including total population, geographical size and boundaries, etc.) means that the reduction will be concentrated in those seats who contain a lot of people who are not registered - i.e. inner cities, which tend to vote Labour.

I'm actually rather surprised that you had to ask. The Tories are scarcely bothering to hide the fact that this is a stitch-up.

Why should a constituency be sized because of the number of unregistered voters they have?

[mormont]

Why should a constituency be sized because of the number of unregistered voters they have?

Because people who are not registered voters* are entitled to representation too. MPs can't refuse to help someone because they're not on the electoral roll.

The more interesting question is, why on Earth should constituencies be sized solely on the basis of the number of registered voters, and no other factor?

*which is a different thing from 'unregistered voters', by the way. Children, for example, are not registered voters.

[Eurytus]

If people can't be bothered to be registered then frankly I don't think they merit representation (children who are too young to vote apart, but then they are implicitedly represented on their behalf by their parents vote).

Hell I'd be perfectly happy with people who are registered but can't be bothered voting being excluded too.

Labour redraw boundaries largely to their benefit when they got into power. Did you complain then?

[mormont]

If people can't be bothered to be registered then frankly I don't think they merit representation (children who are too young to vote apart, but then they are implicitedly represented on their behalf by their parents vote).

Hell I'd be perfectly happy with people who are registered but can't be bothered voting being excluded too.

Whatever your personal feelings, they're perfectly entitled to be represented under the current system, so the problem still exists. The notion that only voters are entitled to the protection of the democratic system is a dangerous one - as is the tendency to assume that unregistered voters are uniformly just lazy and therefore not morally worthy of consideration. And quite apart from the principled argument, there are enormous practical problems in leaving so many people without any democratic recourse.

Labour redraw boundaries largely to their benefit when they got into power. Did you complain then?

Yes, actually. (Particularly when they decoupled Westminster and Holyrood boundaries in Scotland.)

However, Labour never tried anything this egregious. They had public inquiries, for example, rather than ramming the changes through without scrutiny on the back of another measure as a political tactic. And their last reorganisation at least had some rationale, some forewarning, and some level of participatory debate.

[Lummel]

Well we had the boundary commission in place anyway with a mandate to sweep across the country on a regular basis and adjust the boundarys of constituencies to reflect population change. When the governing party is changing the system and the methodology and this happens curiously enough to give them an electorial advantage you do begin to suspect that they might not be playing cricket.

I'm not absolutely certain but I think the number and scale of revolts, backbenchers voting against their own government, has been steadily increasing since 1945.

[Usotsuki]

Because of the chosen method. The notion that seats should be equalised in the number of registered voters they contain (rather than the number of registered voters plus other factors including total population, geographical size and boundaries, etc.) means that the reduction will be concentrated in those seats who contain a lot of people who are not registered - i.e. inner cities, which tend to vote Labour.

I'm actually rather surprised that you had to ask. The Tories are scarcely bothering to hide the fact that this is a stitch-up.

This doesn't seem to be true.

The electoral quota as defined by current legislation makes no allowance for anything other than registered voters.

The commission is expected as far as practicable to equalise the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency.

Now one can certainly argue that allocating seats on the basis of the registered electorate rather than population implies a disregard for the principles of democratic representation but as that isn't as far as I can tell being changed from the present system it's hard to convincingly characterise it as gerrymandering.

Nor can I see how ignoring the physical size of constituencies constitutes a betrayal of principle - I'm firmly opposed to enfranchising dirt. Now it might well be true that reducing the weight given to this criterion would advantage the Conservative party but that surely argues that at present the Conservatives are the victims of a biased system rather than the architects of future bias.

[Lummel]

registered voters only then - sorry the census business was my mistake which I introduced into the thread above.

[mormont]

This doesn't seem to be true.

The electoral quota as defined by current legislation makes no allowance for anything other than registered voters.

The commission is expected as far as practicable to equalise the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency.

Now one can certainly argue that allocating seats on the basis of the registered electorate rather than population implies a disregard for the principles of democratic representation but as that isn't as far as I can tell being changed from the present system it's hard to convincingly characterise it as gerrymandering.

When a government enacts boundary changes that will deliberately disadvantage another party, it's hard to characterise it as anything but gerrymandering. Convincingly or otherwise.

The Boundary Commission formerly had to take account of local government boundaries, 'special geographical considerations', and other factors. In practice, the main effect of taking the first of these into account was to give additional representation to areas of high population where there was likely to be low voter registration - i.e. inner city areas. These requirements have been abandoned in favour of a very strict requirement based on registered voters alone. The only exceptions are carefully defined to cover specific Lib Dem constituencies. ETA - and, to be fair, one SNP constituency.

It's so nakedly political a bit of gerrymandering that the coalition barely bother to pretend it's anything else. As I say, I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're attempting to do so.

Nor can I see how ignoring the physical size of constituencies constitutes a betrayal of principle - I'm firmly opposed to enfranchising dirt.

You, sir, clearly don't live in the Highlands. ;) Bigger constituencies mean poorer coverage, and practically speaking, less access to your MP. If the principle is to ensure fair representation for voters, that's an issue. As the coalition recognise - providing you live in Charlie Kennedy's seat, at least. Anywhere else, tough.

Geographical spread is taken into account when determining access to pretty much every other government service (schools, roads, hospitals). It would be odd to suddenly say it can't be taken into account when it comes to accessing democratic representation.

[Usotsuki]

When a government enacts boundary changes that will deliberately disadvantage another party, it's hard to characterise it as anything but gerrymandering. Convincingly or otherwise.

The Boundary Commission formerly had to take account of local government boundaries, 'special geographical considerations', and other factors. In practice, the main effect of taking the first of these into account was to give additional representation to areas of high population where there was likely to be low voter registration - i.e. inner city areas. These requirements have been abandoned in favour of a very strict requirement based on registered voters alone. The only exceptions are carefully defined to cover specific Lib Dem constituencies. ETA - and, to be fair, one SNP constituency.

It's so nakedly political a bit of gerrymandering that the coalition barely bother to pretend it's anything else.

The argument is surely that the present arrangement is unduly biased against the Conservatives, for me there's a considerable gap between gerrymandering and self-interestedly addressing flaws in the system.

The Labour position is: "We stand in firm and heroic defence of the ancient principle that as far as possible parliamentary constituencies should contain complete wards." (IIRC one of the major demands of the Suffragettes).

And the Conservatives argue: "We seek, as far as practicable, equal representation for every registered voter in the kingdoms."

How fortunate for both that self-interest should align so perfectly with their beliefs.

As I say, I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're attempting to do so.

I'm subbing for Hereward - he offered me cake and gin.

You, sir, clearly don't live in the Highlands. ;) Bigger constituencies mean poorer coverage, and practically speaking, less access to your MP. If the principle is to ensure fair representation for voters, that's an issue. As the coalition recognise - providing you live in Charlie Kennedy's seat, at least. Anywhere else, tough.

Geographical spread is taken into account when determining access to pretty much every other government service (schools, roads, hospitals). It would be odd to suddenly say it can't be taken into account when it comes to accessing democratic representation.

Access can surely by addressed by means other than undue representation. Increase the allowances for support staff and constituency offices rather than give the preferences of the highly dispersed greater weight than those of the pleasantly clumped.

[mormont]

The argument is surely that the present arrangement is unduly biased against the Conservatives, for me there's a considerable gap between gerrymandering and self-interestedly addressing flaws in the system.

The Labour position is: "We stand in firm and heroic defence of the ancient principle that as far as possible parliamentary constituencies should contain complete wards." (IIRC one of the major demands of the Suffragettes).

And the Conservatives argue: "We seek, as far as practicable, equal representation for every registered voter in the kingdoms."

How fortunate for both that self-interest should align so perfectly with their beliefs.

Indeed. But we're getting away from the more salient point, I think. Which is not whether this is gerrymandering - there's an element of gerrymandering in any boundary reorganisation, so really we're just arguing over the degree. The larger point is that why this bill has been conceived and bolted in this death grip to the referendum bill. That's really the issue in the Lords - if the boundary reorganisation stood on its own, there would be no rush to get it passed and so no point to delaying tactics by Labour. (Revising, yes. Filibustering, no.)

The answer is, to prevent Conservative MPs voting down the referendum bill and so destroying the coalition. A nakedly political gambit; and one that therefore attracts a nakedly political response.

Access can surely by addressed by means other than undue representation. Increase the allowances for support staff and constituency offices rather than give the preferences of the highly dispersed greater weight than those of the pleasantly clumped.

Doesn't really work. The constraints of geography are not easily addressed by handing out extra cash.

[Thelonious]

So if you live in the highlands, you get a disproportionately powerful vote and the benefits of the West Lothian Question?

I suppose I shouldn't complain- without the votes of the other home nations i'm not sure England would ever be free from Tory government.

[mormont]

So if you live in the highlands, you get a disproportionately powerful vote and the benefits of the West Lothian Question?

I suppose I shouldn't complain- without the votes of the other home nations i'm not sure England would ever be free from Tory government.

My views on the West Lothian question are a bit complicated to go into right now, but as to the 'disproportionately powerful vote': I'll be surprised if anyone can show any proof that this actually has any effect at all on the lives of constituents in larger constituencies (particularly once factors such as marginal constituencies, target seat strategies, variable turnout etc. are taken into account). On the other hand, making the less populous constituencies geographically larger in order to achieve a notional statistical 'fairness' does produce a real negative impact on people who live in those constituencies, while providing no real benefit to voters in other constituencies.

In short: you need to balance the impact of the problem you're trying to solve against the problem you're creating in the process. Boundary tribunals used to have a lot more discretion to do that. The government's new rules remove that discretion, as I understand it.

[Werthead]

Iain Duncan Smith seems to be being weirder than normal. Talking about the new benefits bill, he keeps making the point that people who 'refuse jobs when offered them' will be the ones to be punished. Except that in the current climate the number of people doing that is microscopically tiny. If you are going for a job along with 150-200 other people (whilst in the good old days it would have been maybe 10-15), the chances of you being offered it is tiny.

This bill would have made more sense in 2002 or 2003 as a way of getting the last hold-outs into work. At the moment, however, it's a method of punishing those who have lost their jobs as a result of the economy and the lack of confidence in the job market triggered by government policy. Very strange, and even worse none of the news programmes interviewing the government about it are calling them on it.

[MinDonner]

Not to mention that, as anyone who has seen Trainspotting will know, there are so many more ways to avoid getting jobs you don't want than merely refusing, this is only going to affect the really stupid people anyway.

[Slick Mongoose]

Forest sale plans abandoned.

A tree-mendous decision. And it should be very poplar. :smug:

[Horza]

Once again the Tories larch from one absurdity to another.

[MinDonner]

It's oakay, at least they are bringing back the birch.