Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Both Houses of Parliament are too large. I agree that the size of the Lords is a total joke, but that doesn't negate a rationalisation of the Commons.

    To your bolded point neither the Labour Party nor the Tories have any defence to the iniquities of differential vote shares per MP.

    UKIP is the party that REALLY loses out on that basis. No doubt to your pleasure as someone who disagrees with their politics.


    Party Votes per seat Conservatives 34,244 Labour 40,290 SNP 25,972 Lib Dem 301,986 DUP 23,032 Sinn Ffein 44,058 Plaid Cymru 60,564 SDLP 33,269 UUP 57,467 Ukip 3,881,129 Green 1,157,613
    I have long called for PR or STV which would mean parties like UKIP would get a lot more seats.
    I may dislike UKIP but it's ridiculous that they got four million votes and only one seat.

    However these proposed boundary reforms simply mean the Conservatives will require less votes for every seat it wins while near enough every other party will require more.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I have long called for PR or STV which would mean parties like UKIP would get a lot more seats.
    I may dislike UKIP but it's ridiculous that they got four million votes and only one seat.

    However these proposed boundary reforms simply mean the Conservatives will require less votes for every seat it wins while near enough every other party will require more.
    You may have called for PR, but the Party you support (I assume?) still does not. Which weakens their case about the iniquities of the number of votes needed per seat, somewhat, does it not?

    It is irrelevant what the Labour Party "protests" about anyway. They have to form another Government to actually take action on any of this stuff (they have never introduced PR when themselves elected under FPTP let it be noted). Until they do the Tories get to decide, and why would they change a system that serves them so well?

    If I were you I would worry less about the voting system and more about creating a Labour Party which isn't in the grip of a few loony lefties, with a smart, clever, credible leader who articulates the aspirations of most the British electorate. Because until that happens you will remain a pointless party of protest, while the Tories run things (like this process).

    That is your problem, not the boundary commission.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    You may have called for PR, but the Party you support (I assume?) still does not. Which weakens their case about the iniquities of the number of votes needed per seat, somewhat, does it not?

    It is irrelevant what the Labour Party "protests" about anyway. They have to form another Government to actually take action on any of this stuff (they have never introduced PR when themselves elected under FPTP let it be noted). Until they do the Tories get to decide, and why would they change a system that serves them so well?

    If I were you I would worry less about the voting system and more about creating a Labour Party which isn't in the grip of a few loony lefties, with a smart, clever, credible leader who articulates the aspirations of most the British electorate. Because until that happens you will remain a pointless party of protest, while the Tories run things (like this process).

    That is your problem, not the boundary commission
    .

    The bolded bit is veering off topic and while I am happy to discuss the failings of the Labour party, it is not relevant to the point being discussed. Let's stay on topic.

    I am not a representative of the Labour party. I am making the point that redrawing the boundaries will favour the tories even more than the current boundaries, making them need less votes per seat then they do now, even though bar the SNP, they have a better ratio than any other party.

    Whether or not Labour have called for PR in the past is irrelevant to the point I am making. I am not a representative of the Labour party. I have long called for PR or STV. I am not complaining about these boundary changes as a representative of the Labour party, I am complaining about them as an individual.

    I really do not see how my case is weakened by the previous position of the Labour party. I want a proportional system where every party should have around the same votes to seats ratio.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The bolded bit is veering off topic and while I am happy to discuss the failings of the Labour party, it is not relevant to the point being discussed. Let's stay on topic.

    I am not a representative of the Labour party. I am making the point that redrawing the boundaries will favour the tories even more than the current boundaries, making them need less votes per seat then they do now, even though bar the SNP, they have a better ratio than any other party.

    Whether or not Labour have called for PR in the past is irrelevant to the point I am making. I am not a representative of the Labour party. I have long called for PR or STV. I am not complaining about these boundary changes as a representative of the Labour party, I am complaining about them as an individual.

    I really do not see how my case is weakened by the previous position of the Labour party. I want a proportional system where every party should have around the same votes to seats ratio.
    It is my thread and I am more than comfortable with going off the original topic and into interesting areas that arise from it.

    But as a Labour supporter who is no doubt in despair about the Party's death spiral I can quite understand why you don't want to discuss it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    It is my thread and I am more than comfortable with going off the original topic and into interesting areas that arise from it.

    But as a Labour supporter who is no doubt in despair about the Party's death spiral I can quite understand why you don't want to discuss it.
    Just because it's your thread it does not mean you should take it wildly off topic. The thread is discussing the proposed boundary changes, it is not about the general failings of labour. If you want to discuss the failings of Labour with me I will gladly do so, either by PM or on another thread set up to discuss that topic.

    Let's keep threads on topic.

    You firstly accused me of not supporting PR because it would favour UKIP which was flatly wrong, given that I fully support it. You then said that I couldn't complain about it because Labour don't support it. That was bizarre, I am not a representative of the Labour party and just because they do not support PR does not make my support for it any less valid.

    Of course I am concerned about the fate of the Labour party and I am more than happy to discuss that with you in a more suitable thread but this thread was discussing the boundary changes which are very undemocratic and will end up meaning the tories require less votes for every seat while other parties will require more.

    If you wish to debate the boundaries issue then lets carry on on this thread, if you wish to debate issues which are not related to that then let's do it on a thread more suitable or via DM.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Just because it's your thread it does not mean you should take it wildly off topic. The thread is discussing the proposed boundary changes, it is not about the general failings of labour. If you want to discuss the failings of Labour with me I will gladly do so, either by PM or on another thread set up to discuss that topic.

    Let's keep threads on topic.

    You firstly accused me of not supporting PR because it would favour UKIP which was flatly wrong, given that I fully support it. You then said that I couldn't complain about it because Labour don't support it. That was bizarre, I am not a representative of the Labour party and just because they do not support PR does not make my lack support for it any less valid.

    Of course I am concerned about the fate of the Labour party and I am more than happy to discuss that with you in a more suitable thread but this thread was discussing the boundary changes which are very undemocratic and will end up meaning the tories require less votes for every seat while other parties will require more.

    If you wish to debate the boundaries issue then lets carry on on this thread, if you wish to debate issues which are not related to that then let's do it on a thread more suitable or via DM.
    You haven't got an answer to my point so you have tried to deflect the discussion onto the grounds of the irrelevance of that point to this thread.

    I'll repeat it, so that anyone else reading it can see your transparent attempt at distraction, but won't discuss it further. If you start a thread on the hopeless state of the Labour Party however, I will certainly contribute.

    My point (for which you have no answer because you know it to be true) was this.

    Labour is unfit to govern and unelectable and this will certainly not change in the short term, in fact it is getting worse for the Party every day.. Since we are have a two party FPTP system this is the major factor in the the whole of British politics, Everything flows from it including these boundary changes.

    These were always going to happen in this Parliament (they would have happened in the last but Nick Clegg reneged on a deal) which is why it was important for Labour to win the last election so as to been in charge of the rubric (or even delay the whole process still further).

    They didn't and now will suffer. It may not be fair or right, but that is how politics works.. It is all about power. In order to change things, to make the society how you want it to be (including the electoral system) you have to win elections under whatever system then exists.

    You don't want to face up to that uncomfortable truth. Or admit it on this thread, so you desperately obfuscate, and make pedantic points about its irrelevance to a post on boundary changes.

    Labour's existential crisis is not irrelevant to any subject in British politics, however arcane. It IS British politics. At last until a viable Opposition emerges from the flames we can all see engulfing it. If it ever does.




    .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    You haven't got an answer to my point so you have tried to deflect the discussion onto the grounds of the irrelevance of that point to this thread.

    I'll repeat it, so that anyone else reading it can see your transparent attempt at distraction, but won't discuss it further. If you start a thread on the hopeless state of the Labour Party however, I will certainly contribute.

    My point (for which you have no answer because you know it to be true) was this.

    Labour is unfit to govern and unelectable and this will certainly not change in the short term, in fact it is getting worse for the Party every day.. Since we are have a two party FPTP system this is the major factor in the the whole of British politics, Everything flows from it including these boundary changes.

    These were always going to happen in this Parliament (they would have happened in the last but Nick Clegg reneged on a deal) which is why it was important for Labour to win the last election so as to been in charge of the rubric (or even delay the whole process still further).

    They didn't and now will suffer. It may not be fair or right, but that is how politics works.. It is all about power. In order to change things, to make the society how you want it to be (including the electoral system) you have to win elections under whatever system then exists.

    You don't want to face up to that uncomfortable truth. Or admit it on this thread, so you desperately obfuscate, and make pedantic points about its irrelevance to a post on boundary changes.

    Labour's existential crisis is not irrelevant to any subject in British politics, however arcane. It IS British politics. At last until a viable Opposition emerges from the flames we can all see engulfing it. If it ever does.




    .
    Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not a representative of the Labour Party. I am not a 'supporter' of the labour party. Ideologically I'm closer to Tim Farron than Corbyn. Please don't make false assumptions about my political allegiances without asking me what they actually are.

    I haven't tried to 'deflect the discussion' or to 'distract it'. In fact it was you who has tried to take the discussion off on a tangent which is not relevant to the topic of the thread. All I have done is tried to keep it on topic, which is about the proposed boundary changes and whether or not they are justified. The governing party should not be able to rig the boundaries in their favour to give them an electoral advantage.

    I don't support the boundary changes because they will push the system further to the advantage to the governing party. I utterly oppose all gerrymandering by governments. That is why I have long supported PR even though it will favour UKIP the most. It's absurd that they got just one seat for four million votes.

    I am more than happy to discuss the failings of the labour party and have offered you the opportunity to either dm me or to speak about it in a more suitable thread and I will happily respond. However this thread has nothing to do with that, it's about the boundary changes and we should stay on that topic.

    I agree labour are unfit to govern. Again I am not a supporter of the party, but that has nothing to do with boundary changes which I think are completely undemocratic, regardless of the state of the labour party.

    You made a hugely false assumption about me that I wouldn't support PR because it favoured UKIP and when that turned out to be false you have said I cannot complain because labour didn't vote for it. Which is bizarre.


    I thoroughly believe that the government should not be able to determine the borders and I really want PR even though it will favour right wing parties.

    If you and to discuss the boundaries and the associated electoral system accompanying them then I am all for that. If you want to discuss a completely unrelated issue about the labour party then I will happily do that but in a more suitable thread or over dm to prevent this thread being taken off topic.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't care about Corbyn and don't want him as leader. I care about the government pushing through boundary changes for the sole purposed of increasing their majority. The reason for the boundary changes is to reduce the number of MPs and equalise constituencies.
    I would complain if Labour did it, it's incredibly undemocratic.

    Why should the 2 million people who registered after 2015 for the EU referendum not be included in the data for the boundary review? Why should they not be done on population instead of the electoral register? Why work out election statistics based on non-electors? There is no logic in that.
    Why should we get rid of 50 elected MPs when we have just let Cameron stuff the lords with tory peers? Because parliament couldn't agree a way forward on the Lords. Reform of the Lords will come (I hope).


    The government should not be able to gerrymander the boundaries.
    You statistics are merely looking at one election where there had been a large swing against Labour. In 2010, the figures were 35,000 for the Tories and 33,000 for Labour. It varies; if it didn't we'd always get the same result.

    The government is not gerrymandering. The Boundary Commission is independent.

    The truth is that Labour has been allowed to develop a hidden advantage and this will set things roughly right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You statistics are merely looking at one election where there had been a large swing against Labour. In 2010, the figures were 35,000 for the Tories and 33,000 for Labour. It varies; if it didn't we'd always get the same result.

    The government is not gerrymandering. The Boundary Commission is independent.

    The truth is that Labour has been allowed to develop a hidden advantage and this will set things roughly right.
    Clearly Labour do not have an inbuilt advantage or else the Tories would not have had a better votes to seat ratio. The fact that it varies shows there is no inbuilt advantage.
    Lets not pretend that the conservatives are doing this for any other reason than the fact it will favour them.

    Labours advantage came from Scotland, that is now gone and probably forever.
    At the least election 36% of the vote gave the Tories around 53% of the seats. With the he proposed boundary changes it is estimated that the same percentage would now give the Tories closer to around 60% of the seats.

    The conservatives already require less votes for every seat than labour do, why should we make it more in their favour?

    No government should be allowed to push through boundary reform. The governing party should not get to determine the electoral boundaries and certainly they should not be allowed to remove democratically elected MPs to give themselves a greater advantage.


    If you or the Conservatives truly cared about fair elections the you would support PR or STV which would genuinely give a result for more reflective of the British public.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Clearly Labour do not have an inbuilt advantage or else the Tories would not have had a better votes to seat ratio.
    Lets not pretend that the conservatives are doing this for any other reason than the fact it will favour them.

    Labours advantage came from Scotland, that is now gone and probably forever.
    At the least election 36% of the vote gave the Tories around 53% of the seats. With the he proposed boundary changes it is estimated that the same percentage would now give the Tories closer to around 60% of the seats.

    The conservatives already require less votes for every seat than labour do, why should we make it more in their favour?

    No government should be allowed to push through boundary reform. The governing party should not get to determine the electoral boundaries and certainly they should not be allowed to remove democratically elected MPs to give themselves a greater advantage.


    If you or the Conservatives truly cared about fair procedures the you would support PR or STV which would genuinely give a result for more reflective of the British public.

    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.