Undemocratic ?

[observer]

A long over-due reduction of MPs from 650 to 600, has been labelled "undemocratic" by some Labour MPs. As the objective is to equalise the representational ratio of constituencies - what's undemocratic about it?   The bonus is, of course, that it will save the tax-payers money; which could have been a lot more, if there had been a 50% reduction - still something is better than nothing.  If they really want to save money; they could now take the knife to the House of Lords !  However, the test comes later, will these Turkeys vote for Xmas ?

[Davy51]

Didn't Labour change the boundaries to suit their purposes when they were last in power ?

[asperity]

Boundary changes and MP number reduction are well overdue.

[Dizzy]

Is this different boundaries from the ones that have just been changed?  Yet another thing I just don't understand  

[Evil Sid]

It is all to do with simple politics. Which roughly translated means nobody understands what it is about. Boundaries change and constituencies get bigger but that will mean that we will need fewer politicians to represent those constituencies, giving us a net reduction in politicians elected of 50 less politicians. it will not mean we will have 50 less politicians, just that the extra politicians will have to campaign harder to keep their perks in parliament.

 

Never seem to see politicians at the dole office if they don.t get elected though do you. :lol:

[Davy51]

Unfortunately, by the time this happens, the ousted MPs won't have the choice of jobs in Brussels.

[observer]

They'll all get jobs as Mayors or Police Commissioners !

[Davy51]

[Paul Kennedy]

Is this different boundaries from the ones that have just been changed?  Yet another thing I just don't understand

No that was local government boundaries Dizzy, the latest one is Parliamentary Constituencies. Totally agree with the reduction in numbers and equalisation of electorate size. As the Boundary Commission is independent, MPs should not have the final say / veto on their proposals, there is a proper consultation process that MPs like all of us can participate in....and I have done, agreeing with the proposals for both Warrington Constituencies, the Commission then make their final proposals, which should come in to force for the schedules general election in May 2020....neither WBC or its Councillors could veto the Boundary review that took place in Warrington...it just had to be accepted...with a shrug of the shoulders....and guess what, the world didn't come to an end.......

[Davy51]

Paul, weren't there some changes not very long ago that affected the last Tory government & meant it had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems ? Hadn't a previous Labour government made some changes ?

[Paul Kennedy]

Paul, weren't there some changes not very long ago that affected the last Tory government & meant it had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems ? Hadn't a previous Labour government made some changes ?

I think the last major changes came in to force in 2007, then I think there were some minor changes in 2009. It is often the case that from a political party perspective there will be winners and losers, and each Party pushes hard for those changes that benefit it and conversely opposes those changes that do not benefit it. So taking the current proposal for Warrington North and South, the Conservatives in Warrington South, will, I think, be content to see Latchford East moving to Warrington North whilst Labour will not, and Labour in Warrington North will be content to receive Latchford East, whilst the Conservatives will not. Politics aside, I happen to think that in order to equalise voter numbers, the proposal makes sense, coupled to the fact that both Constituencies remain within and consist of the Borough Boundary. Because the Boundary Commission are being tasked to reduce the number of constituencies, and given Labour constituencies tend to have smaller electorate numbers, in this review Labour will tend to be most adversely affected.

[observer]

Whether or not constituencies are more equal in terms of MPs to electorates; we still have a glaring anomaly caused by the first past the post system. In the 2015 based on PR, UKIP should have has 80plus MPs, but got one. The SNP took all but three Scottish seats with less votes than UKIP. So despite this attempt at fairness; the basis of our electoral system is basically unfair and unrepresentative.

[asperity]

Itmay be fair and unrepresentative, but it appears to work better than PR where tiny minorities tend to find themselves wielding disproportionate power, and leading to "hung" decisions on many issues. Democracy depends on having decisive governance which isn't possible when there are "too many cooks", just look at the last coalition between the LibDims and the Tories!

[observer]

Think perhaps we've now moved beyond the old two party system Asp; which makes coalitions more likely than not. As for "tiny minorities" the SNP, even under first past the post; have secured a disproportionately high number of seats, relative to their actual support.  One doesn't associate democracy with decisive governance, as that tends to depend on the quality of leadership and ideas.

[Bazj]

The SNP got about 1.5 million votes and gained 52 seats. UKIP got 3.8 million votes and gained 1 seat.... There is no way that Wee Jimmy Krankie-Sturgeon should be allowed to wield the kind of power she thinks she can off such a small percentage of the overall UK vote.

 

The Lib Dems and even the greens got about the same as the SNP and got 9 seats between them. Giving the SNP that kind of power is simply dangerous. The boundary changes should make it so that there are 2 seats in Scotland.... that might shut them up a bit

[observer]

         There are umpteen ways to balance out our geographic and political interests through representation, but we are up against the entrenched interests of a  political elite, and as we all know - turkeys won't vote for Xmas.  For a start, there are over  800 geriatrics in the House of Lords, claiming £300 a day for just turning up;  this could be reduced to 100 Senators, elected in direct proportion to the vote at a General Election, from Party Lists; making it immediately more representative than the Commons.  There are over 7 million folk in the N/West; more than the 5million Scots or 1million Welsh; why shouldn't we have our own Regional Parliament?

[Davy51]

The 700 geriatrics you speak of Obs could be used as guinea pigs & moved around the elderly care system to spy on old folks homes as experienced by the great unwashed & paid the standard rate pension for their troubles. Perhaps their feedback to the government would raise standards in the homes.

[observer]

I think we have more politicians per capita than anyone else - so time for some radical pruning.