General British politics discussion thread

ArmaniJeanss

First poll in a long time putting Labour ahead. Yougov for the Times. Interesting to see whether it's a one off or start of a trend.

Five-point Tory poll slump gives Labour its first lead since January | Daily Mail Online

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117870944#Comment_117870944

You treat the 2011 Act and the 2020 Act as something that happened to the government. They were government bills; they were introduced by the government, and piloted through parliament, to give effect to government policy.

You can argue, if you like, that it is a sound policy and was rightly adopted. But what you can't argue - without attracting derision, which presumably you don't want - is that the government has no responsibility for it. It's their policy; they have total responsibility.

The same goes for the UK government's decision not to subject Jersey to money-laundering treaties, etc, with the agreement of the Jersey government. That's a constraint that the UK government chose to impose on itself, and chooses to maintain. You can't argue that they have no responsibility for the choices that they make. Only Brexiters think like that, and you wouldn't want to be taken for a Brexiter, would you?

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117870944#Comment_117870944

You manage to cite the 2011 legislation and then say it's nothing to do with the government. The Boundary Commission may be independent but its recommendations are merely based on the wishes expressed in that 2011 Act, critically that no constituency should have an electorate more or less than 5% of the national average. So, yes, this has been very much engineered by the politicians.

And while they'll no doubt argue that this is all correctly taking into account population shifts, the upshot is we get a proposal that removes 10 or so seats in what are or were traditional non tory voting areas and adds 10 or so seats to what were and are very much tory voting areas. Makings of a potentially nice swing there.

All fair in love and war, but you might wonder if the opposite had been the case, whether we'd ever have seen the need for such a stipulation in the first place.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871164#Comment_117871164

If the opposite were the case, the people on here crying foul would all be in favour of it, there does after all appear to be a distinct lack of recognition that Simon Hart, the Welsh Secretary, could well lose his seat.

The government of ten years ago is not the government of today. Open to correction but Michael Gove aside, the cabinet has entirely changed. For starters, there are distinctly less Lib-Dems in the cabinet now.

What is the fairest way to draw up constituent boundaries? Surely population size is the most open and fair way of doing it.

I'm not so sure that it automatically means more seats for the Tories. The South East of England is the area that will get more MPs and presumably most of these will be in London, where over 50% of MPs are already Labour.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871275#Comment_117871275

London is to get two extra seats. The regions around London, which are predominantly Tory-voting, get ten extra seats. The rest of England - South-West, Midlands, North - loses two seats.

SFAIK the proposed boundaries for the English seats have not yet been settled, so I don't know if there's any detailed modelling on the likely impact for various parties. But I think the expectation is that, overall, the redistribution will materially benefit the Tories.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871328#Comment_117871328

Those new London commuter seats with be interesting though. The population boom there is filled by people coming out of London a lot of whom are Labour voters.

I have seen people predict a south east blue wall collapse as the next big moment in UK voting patterns as demographics change

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871275#Comment_117871275

It's not being done on population size, though, but on the electoral register. So, inevitably, it's going to lead to a situation where well off areas are more represented, less well off areas under represented, because, as we already know, people are less likely to be on the register in poorer areas.

Is this fair? If you think it's people's fault for not voting and that they should be punished for failing to do so, then you'll have no issue with it. Doesn't feel very progressive or suggestive of the "levelling up" mantra they keep wittering on about, though.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871328#Comment_117871328

I don't think any seats have been settled yet, that is the next step of the review process

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871400#Comment_117871400

I think having equal sized constituencies as per the register is actually the fairest way of doing it. If people choose not to register, or not to vote, then that's just a pity. It's up to local activists to get the voters organised, much like that lady in Georgia USA did. In fairness Momentum were decent at doing this.

If it swings the balance in the direction of the Tories then so be it, just something that the other parties have to deal with. It never sat right with me (despite me being a Labour supporter) that Labour had so many constituencies with 50K electorate whilst the Tories had some with 80K electorate.

Though I suppose you could argue that of all the fundamental problems within the UK electoral system, that this was not really a priority to deal with.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871400#Comment_117871400

how else do you do it, give poorer areas smaller constituencies?

Peregrinus

An MP represents everybody - those who voted for him or her, those who voted against, those who didn't vote, and those who couldn't vote - e.g. children, non-citizens. So, logically, the relevant ratio should MP to population, not MP to registered voters.

But that begs the question of whether there should be a similar MP:people ratio for all (or nearly all) constituencies across the UK. We have that in Ireland, of course, because it's a constitutional requirement; the Supreme Court has held that it's a consequence of the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. But the UK has no such constitutional constraint, and equality of voters is not a consideration which weighs heavily in the design of their electoral system; if it were, they'd have ditched first-past-the-post long ago.

Still, the intuitive appeal of a similar MP:people ratio for all constituencies across the UK is obvious. But it's worth asking why, if it's so obvious, they haven't had it up to now?

In the past, they didn't have it because of a tacit recognition that more remote areas of the UK - the North of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland/Northern Ireland - were disadvanted by their geographic, cultural and social distance from London, in what was a highly centralised country with a ruling class drawn from a very narrow group. The over-representation of more remote areas was an attempt to offset this disadvantage. They have moved progressively towards a more equal reprsentation as devolution has proceeded on the thinking that people are not so disadvantaged by distance from London which large government functions are transferred to governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff, etc.

Except, of course, that doesn't address the situation of people in North of England. They are as far from London as they ever were, and nothing has been devolved to them. And the decision to reduce the North's representation in Parliament - the North East and the North West regions are to lose four seats between them - may sit slightly oddly with Johnson's commitment to 'levelling up". Is this really the time to be reducing the North's representation in Parliament?

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871551#Comment_117871551

Well, you could go on population as opposed to electoral register. After all, we don't say an mp is elected merely to represent constituents who partook in the voting process. He or she is elected to represent all constituents, regardless of whom they voted for or whether they voted at all.

And you could feasibly say, yes we might like to see poorer constituencies being slightly favoured on the basis their needs might be that much higher. Or they could have at least made the 5% stipulation higher, 10 or even 15%, so that the resulting balance wouldn't be as skewed towards more well off areas as seems to be happening.

Anyway, they made their choices and, if it all goes to plan, it looks like it won't turn out too badly for them.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871453#Comment_117871453

That's fine, I'm sure lots of people feel the same way about people who don't vote. Regardless of the myriad reasons why so many millions seem entirely alienated from the voting process, the view seems to be, it's ultimately their fault for not making the effort and they have to suffer the consequences of that.

What Stacey Abrams did in Georgia was outstanding, but she was able to generate big funding in order to achieve it. In the uk, labour entirely disbanded its community activist unit before summer, around the time of the hartlepool vote. I don't know was that a funding issue or the fact those units tended to be driven by younger left wing activists, possibly a combination of both, but upshot is nothing along the lines of what Abrams did is remotely likely in the UK in the near future.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871636#Comment_117871636

so we basically adjust the size of the constituency to suit Labour?

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871768#Comment_117871768

It's pretty simple for me. Same as the question regarding funding for social care or voter id, I will almost always come down on the side of the less socio economic advantaged who more often than not are the ones who end up getting stiffed in these processes. That's the root of it.

moon2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871453#Comment_117871453

The EU itself is a great counter example to this.

The allocation of seats to each member state is based on the principle of degressive proportionality, so that, while the size of the population of each country is taken into account, smaller states elect more MEPs than is proportional to their populations.

This avoids a handful of heavily populated countries singlehandedly driving the agenda for the entire EU. I'd argue a similar system for the UK would be better, and more likely to bring about actual positive change to the areas which need it most.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871827#Comment_117871827

I wouldn't disagree with you.

it isn't that simple though, just take a look at Kier Starmer's constituency, or his colleague Tulip Siddiq.

Both represent constituencies that as a whole would be considered affluent, both have sizeable majorities, but both constituencies have relatively low turnout of <70%

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871844#Comment_117871844

The EU parliament does that, but the EU parliament isn't the sole method of governing the EU, it is just one body. The population discrepancies are also much higher than they would be in the UK.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871893#Comment_117871893

Not to argue appoint but I'd argue <60 percent would be relatively low turnout not 65-70

breezy1985

It's all stupid anyway while FPTP still exists. You can move constituencies around all you want and it will be nothing more than cosmetic due to the fact that a sizable portion of people have nothing more than a dud vote due to being on the wrong side in a solid red or blue area

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871893#Comment_117871893

The principle, i think, is basic enough but, of course, there will always be outliers and exceptions, that goes without saying.

Where would those particular constituencies lie on ghe uk deprivation index? Certainly, nowhere close to the highest, but not among the top either, I'd wager. Open to correction, but both those constituencies would be home to some affluent areas but also some very socially deprived ones too, a mixed bag.

And anyway, we're talking here about the electoral register, not turnout. Once they're on register is all that counts in this instance.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117871893#Comment_117871893

Starmers constituency is a bit of a mad one. In terms of business and tourism it has some absolute powerhouses in Covent Garden, Camden, Kings Cross and Holborn but those areas would have quite poor or non existent populations although like anywhere in central it will have rich too. But the odd shape of the constituency means it also spreads up to the very affluent Highgate.

To me it's really not an area that should be or can be represented by one MP. Far too many divergent needs and wants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872075#Comment_117872075

well, they could carve out Hampstead and Highgate from the two constituencies to form a new one.....

Sam Russell

Well at least they are retaining that bastion of democracy - the House of Lords, where they do not even bother with elections.

They also retain the Monarchy, which also does not bother with the nastiness of having to be elected. The Monarchy have even made sure that not just the current holder will keep the job, but the son, and the son's son, and the son's son's son will also get the gig.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872163#Comment_117872163

well that is kind of how hereditary monarchy generally works.

I fail to see how they have ensured that they have ensured the son, his son etc will get the job. If Parliament decides the UK should be a republic, then the UK will be a republic.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872381#Comment_117872381

I doubt that particular bill will get Royal Asset.

Last time they tried that, they tried the King for treason and chopped off his head.

Cannot see that happening at this time - or ever.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872163#Comment_117872163

Retaining and ever expanding. When a report recommended the number in the HoL be reduced in 2017, the number of lords was around 700. Four years on it's now pushing 800. One tory peer argued recently that it should even be more.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872520#Comment_117872520

So how have the royal family ensured the son etc will get the job?

Sam Russell

It is not the Royal Family, it is the Monarch. 'The King is dead, long live the King!' That is how.

The Royal Family have tried their hardest to bring about a republic, particularly Philip, Charles, and Andrew.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117872652#Comment_117872652

My understanding of the check and balances within the UK constitution are

• that the PM can appoint new lords on an ad hoc basis.
• the PM and two lackeys out of the 800+ members of the Privy Council can force Her Nibbs to rubber stamp it.
• The new lords could then approve a House of Commons bill to dissolve the upper chamber.

Over 10 years the number of Labour peers has declined from 211 to 179, while the number of Conservatives has grown from 189 to 261.

Note 1 : Tony Blair made 374 peerage appointments in just over 10 years

Note 2 : Tony Blair PM is an anagram of I'm Tory Plan B and sometimes I wonder if Labour have been infiltrated or if it's just incompetence and the usual infighting.