This boundary changes thing is rather delicious.

[Burney]

Labour have known it was coming for ages, know it's creating a fairer system and is merely reversing a previously existing pro-Labour bias and have not a single good democratic argument against it, but are nonetheless lining up to decry it as gerrymandering.

I've seen Owen Jones argue it's not fair because Labour can no longer win in Scotland and therefore any inherent bias no longer applies and this morning I see that that absurd popinjay and class traitor Tristram Hunt is saying that it's tantamount to abolishing Labour constituencies, when all it's actually doing is getting rid of some of Labour's rotten boroughs - such as his safe Stoke seat.

[Luis Anaconda]

Labour have known it was coming for ages, know it's creating a fairer system and is merely reversing a previously existing pro-Labour bias and have not a single good democratic argument against it, but are nonetheless lining up to decry it as gerrymandering.

I've seen Owen Jones argue it's not fair because Labour can no longer win in Scotland and therefore any inherent bias no longer applies and this morning I see that that absurd popinjay and class traitor Tristram Hunt is saying that it's tantamount to abolishing Labour constituencies, when all it's actually doing is getting rid of some of Labour's rotten boroughs - such as his safe Stoke seat.

Can't agree, b - they are clearly brought into too far for T20 and 50 over games

[Sir C]

Labour have known it was coming for ages, know it's creating a fairer system and is merely reversing a previously existing pro-Labour bias and have not a single good democratic argument against it, but are nonetheless lining up to decry it as gerrymandering.

I've seen Owen Jones argue it's not fair because Labour can no longer win in Scotland and therefore any inherent bias no longer applies and this morning I see that that absurd popinjay and class traitor Tristram Hunt is saying that it's tantamount to abolishing Labour constituencies, when all it's actually doing is getting rid of some of Labour's rotten boroughs - such as his safe Stoke seat.

I'm pretty sure I saw mention of the Labour party starting a petition against the changes.

:hehe:

[Pokster]

I'm pretty sure I saw mention of the Labour party starting a petition against the changes.

:hehe:

Everyone knows it has been unfair for a long time... there are far too many MP's for the size of Scotland but always causes a good rant when it is raised..... making each seat roughly the same voting size seems a very obvious thing to do imho

[Burney]

I'm pretty sure I saw mention of the Labour party starting a petition against the changes.

:hehe:

Essentially, their argument boils down to the fact that this is unfair because not enough people vote for them to let them get into power without rigged electoral boundaries. I can really see the people taking to the streets to support that position. :hehe:

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Labour have known it was coming for ages, know it's creating a fairer system and is merely reversing a previously existing pro-Labour bias and have not a single good democratic argument against it, but are nonetheless lining up to decry it as gerrymandering.

I've seen Owen Jones argue it's not fair because Labour can no longer win in Scotland and therefore any inherent bias no longer applies and this morning I see that that absurd popinjay and class traitor Tristram Hunt is saying that it's tantamount to abolishing Labour constituencies, when all it's actually doing is getting rid of some of Labour's rotten boroughs - such as his safe Stoke seat.

1. Much as I detest Owen Jones for making my party unelectable, he does have a point that before the changes, at the last election, it took 34k votes for a Tory seat and 40k for a Lab seat. And given the discrepancy between the votes/seats for the SNP vs Ukip or Greens, if the Tories cared about democracy then they'd give us some form of PR.

2. Given 2m were added to the electoral role in the run up to the referendum, surely they could redraw the boundaries using the new data. To refuse to do so when the new data would add more Lab voters than Tory voters is blatant gerrymandering. If they cared, they would take the extra couple of months to use the new data to get it right.

3. Even Matthew Parris in the Times says that Lab have a valid point saying they represent people who aren't on the electoral role - especially the poor and students - and this needs to be taken into account.

[Burney]

1. Much as I detest Owen Jones for making my party unelectable, he does have a point that before the changes, at the last election, it took 34k votes for a Tory seat and 40k for a Lab seat. And given the discrepancy between the votes/seats for the SNP vs Ukip or Greens, if the Tories cared about democracy then they'd give us some form of PR.

2. Given 2m were added to the electoral role in the run up to the referendum, surely they could redraw the boundaries using the new data. To refuse to do so when the new data would add more Lab voters than Tory voters is blatant gerrymandering. If they cared, they would take the extra couple of months to use the new data to get it right.

3. Even Matthew Parris in the Times says that Lab have a valid point saying they represent people who aren't on the electoral role - especially the poor and students - and this needs to be taken into account.

1/ That's bull****. Those numbers are only the case now because Labour lost Scotland. Including Scotland, the figures were wildly disproportionate. Why should Labour be compensated for their own electoral incompetence in losing a former heartland? Also, there is no public mandate for PR. AV was devastatingly defeated in a referendum with the Labour Party opposing reform. They only want PR now because it's their only chance.
2/ Boundary changes are always and have always been based on the most recent electoral roll. The fact that 2m people signed up for the referendum makes no difference. Besides, given that most of them signed up to vote Leave, I wouldn't count on them voting Labour any time soon.
3/ You can't claim to represent people who aren't on the electoral roll. It's akin to saying you represent people who don't vote. If those people want to be heard, it really isn't hard to register to vote. If they don't do it, they can't expect to be taken into account I'm afraid. It's a question of personal responsibility - a concept socialists struggle with, I know.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

1/ That's bull****. Those numbers are only the case now because Labour lost Scotland. Including Scotland, the figures were wildly disproportionate. Why should Labour be compensated for their own electoral incompetence in losing a former heartland? Also, there is no public mandate for PR. AV was devastatingly defeated in a referendum with the Labour Party opposing reform. They only want PR now because it's their only chance.
2/ Boundary changes are always and have always been based on the most recent electoral roll. The fact that 2m people signed up for the referendum makes no difference. Besides, given that most of them signed up to vote Leave, I wouldn't count on them voting Labour any time soon.
3/ You can't claim to represent people who aren't on the electoral roll. It's akin to saying you represent people who don't vote. If those people want to be heard, it really isn't hard to register to vote. If they don't do it, they can't expect to be taken into account I'm afraid. It's a question of personal responsibility - a concept socialists struggle with, I know.

2. It doesn't matter who they are voting for - common sense dictates that we base the figures on the currently registered, not those from the previous electoral roll.

3. We've always had the principle of virtual representation in GB/UK. MPs - the decent ones, anyway - felt duty bound to represent female and poor constituents in the C19th. I would have hoped that you, B, would have put this country's unwritten constitution above party loyalty.

[Pokster]

3/ You can't claim to represent people who aren't on the electoral roll. It's akin to saying you represent people who don't vote. If those people want to be heard, it really isn't hard to register to vote. If they don't do it, they can't expect to be taken into account I'm afraid. It's a question of personal responsibility - a concept socialists struggle with, I know.[/QUOTE]

Surely as an MP you should represent everyone who lives in your constituency? Doesn't metter if they voted or not

[Burney]

2. It doesn't matter who they are voting for - common sense dictates that we base the figures on the currently registered, not those from the previous electoral roll.

3. We've always had the principle of virtual representation in GB/UK. MPs - the decent ones, anyway - felt duty bound to represent female and poor constituents in the C19th. I would have hoped that you, B, would have put this country's unwritten constitution above party loyalty.

I fail to see how basing the electoral boundaries on the voters who registered to vote in the last election, rather than those who registered solely for a referendum (many of whom had never and will never vote in a general election) is unfair. Those who are interested in their parliamentary representation have been accounted for. Those who were not, have not. Besides, there are practical issues: this process has been in train since the tories won the last election. Calculations have been based on the data that has been available since then. To ask for those calculations to be torn up and the process put back another year for this data is ridiculous.

3/ MPs represent their constituents, but that is not the same as asking the Boundary Commission to take account of a nebulous and unquantifiable number of people who aren't registered to vote. That's holding any change hostage to specious guesswork about those too lazy, feckless or uninterested to register to vote.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

3/ You can't claim to represent people who aren't on the electoral roll. It's akin to saying you represent people who don't vote. If those people want to be heard, it really isn't hard to register to vote. If they don't do it, they can't expect to be taken into account I'm afraid. It's a question of personal responsibility - a concept socialists struggle with, I know.

Surely as an MP you should represent everyone who lives in your constituency? Doesn't metter if they voted or not[/QUOTE]

Exactly - we were thought that this was very important during politics a-level in the '80s. They called it virtual representation. Everyone has an MP to represent them, even if they voted for another party, even if they didn't vote, even if they aren't registered to vote. As long as you live in the constituency, the MP is duty bound to represent you.

[Pokster]

Surely as an MP you should represent everyone who lives in your constituency? Doesn't metter if they voted or not

Exactly - we were thought that this was very important during politics a-level in the '80s. They called it virtual representation. Everyone has an MP to represent them, even if they voted for another party, even if they didn't vote, even if they aren't registered to vote. As long as you live in the constituency, the MP is duty bound to represent you.[/QUOTE]

Curly mentioned that The Rev Ian Paisley was the best MP you could wish for, didn't matter what your religion was he would look out for you...... Of Course, someone trying to bomb The Rev's house enabled Curly to buy his house very cheaply, but that is a different story

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I fail to see how basing the electoral boundaries on the voters who registered to vote in the last election, rather than those who registered solely for a referendum (many of whom had never and will never vote in a general election) is unfair. Those who are interested in their parliamentary representation have been accounted for. Those who were not, have not. Besides, there are practical issues: this process has been in train since the tories won the last election. Calculations have been based on the data that has been available since then. To ask for those calculations to be torn up and the process put back another year for this data is ridiculous.

3/ MPs represent their constituents, but that is not the same as asking the Boundary Commission to take account of a nebulous and unquantifiable number of people who aren't registered to vote. That's holding any change hostage to specious guesswork about those too lazy, feckless or uninterested to register to vote.

2. We could quickly redraw the boundaries based on the new data. It would still be in place long before the next election is called. If we want to get every constituency at c.75k voters, then if we know that Bogville central has 80k not 75k, we must take that into account.

I moved from Brixton back to Hackney a couple of years ago. I was registered at Brixton. I didn't bother changing because I live in a safe Lab seat and couldn't be arsed. I did register for the referendum as my vote mattered. Given that I have written to my Hackney MP many times, you can't claim that I was uninterested in parliamentary representation during the period before I registered for the referendum.

We could use the new data quite quickly and simply if we chose to. Common sense dictates that we should.

3. Using the census figures wouldn't be guesswork, would it? And while we have safe seats, there is no great incentive to register, except for things like the referendum, as your MP will still ask questions on your behalf whether you are registered or not. All you need is a post code in the constituency.

The simple point is that historically, our MPs have represented those in the constituency whether they had the right to vote or not and that we could also easily use the post-Brexit roll.

[Burney]

2. We could quickly redraw the boundaries based on the new data. It would still be in place long before the next election is called. If we want to get every constituency at c.75k voters, then if we know that Bogville central has 80k not 75k, we must take that into account.

I moved from Brixton back to Hackney a couple of years ago. I was registered at Brixton. I didn't bother changing because I live in a safe Lab seat and couldn't be arsed. I did register for the referendum as my vote mattered. Given that I have written to my Hackney MP many times, you can't claim that I was uninterested in parliamentary representation during the period before I registered for the referendum.

We could use the new data quite quickly and simply if we chose to. Common sense dictates that we should.

3. Using the census figures wouldn't be guesswork, would it? And while we have safe seats, there is no great incentive to register, except for things like the referendum, as your MP will still ask questions on your behalf whether you are registered or not. All you need is a post code in the constituency.

The simple point is that historically, our MPs have represented those in the constituency whether they had the right to vote or not and that we could also easily use the post-Brexit roll.

The last census was in 2011. That's five years ago. And you want to use it to draw up electoral boundaries in preference to data from last year?

Ultimately, your point rests - ludicrously - on the idea that the current government should show a degree of flexibility, selflessness and even-handedness in these boundary changes that no Labour government would ever dream of showing. You want the tories to bend over backwards to help out Labour when in fact what is being done - even if inadequate in your view - represents a much fairer situation than obtained previously. The tories do not have to and will not go out of their way to help the Labour party. Why on earth would you imagine they would?

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

The last census was in 2011. That's five years ago. And you want to use it to draw up electoral boundaries in preference to data from last year?

Ultimately, your point rests - ludicrously - on the idea that the current government should show a degree of flexibility, selflessness and even-handedness in these boundary changes that no Labour government would ever dream of showing. You want the tories to bend over backwards to help out Labour when in fact what is being done - even if inadequate in your view - represents a much fairer situation than obtained previously. The tories do not have to and will not go out of their way to help the Labour party. Why on earth would you imagine they would?

a. I want to use the latest electoral roll (from the referendum) in preference to the out of date one which omits 2m of our citizens. If we know they exist, they should be counted.

b. The reason I want the Tories to do the decent thing as opposed to abusing the fact that they're in power to give themselves an advantage is because this is what makes us better than the third world countries that don't really get democracy and use power to give as much power, patronage and money to their tribe as opposed to thinking of the nation as a whole.

Again, B, I would have thought you of all people would have understood this.