Boundary Commission - first proposed changes since 2010
Discussion
https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=R...
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
Actually looking at the guardian all regions are
n Ireland don’t lose any MPs
Wales lose 8
Scotland lose 2
England make the gains.
Then within England all the regions are +/-
I guess the change between Wales Scotland and England reflect the massive migration into England from the EU and non EU countries whereas Wales & Scotland & N Ireland were not really impacted.
n Ireland don’t lose any MPs
Wales lose 8
Scotland lose 2
England make the gains.
Then within England all the regions are +/-
I guess the change between Wales Scotland and England reflect the massive migration into England from the EU and non EU countries whereas Wales & Scotland & N Ireland were not really impacted.
Welshbeef said:
https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=R...
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
Constituency sizes should be roughly equal. Labour can't moan when something that they have been unfairly benefiting from is leveled. Ending inequality is something they bang on about all the time.Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
Welshbeef said:
https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=R...
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
I personally think they should all be set to 100k or higher - indeed, I'd like to see how one per 200,000 would look. i.e. fewer MP's in total. I just think it's too bloated currently and if Italy can reduce their bureaucracy then so can we.Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49979103
Iamnotkloot said:
Welshbeef said:
https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=R...
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
I personally think they should all be set to 100k or higher - indeed, I'd like to see how one per 200,000 would look. i.e. fewer MP's in total. I just think it's too bloated currently and if Italy can reduce their bureaucracy then so can we.Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49979103
Reduction in MPs was kyboshed, allegedly due to Brexit workload - wish I'd voted Remain now 
Change was needed ages ago. Clegg bounced it in a huff and May's Magical Minimised Majority screwed it during her tenure.
I'd like to see HoL reform next, but don't see that happening. Boris needs a next port of call to sponge from and the EU avenue is now closed
Change was needed ages ago. Clegg bounced it in a huff and May's Magical Minimised Majority screwed it during her tenure.
I'd like to see HoL reform next, but don't see that happening. Boris needs a next port of call to sponge from and the EU avenue is now closed
Randy Winkman said:
I'd always heard that such boundary changes would benefit the conservatives. Odd. 
It no doubt will, this time.As the Conservatives become more Northern and Labour more Southern this could easily change in the future, as the fundamental issue is boundaries not being adjusted in good time as some areas decline in population and other areas expand.
What should happen is census, then automatic boundary changes a couple of years afterwards, allowing time for consultation and planning . Parliament shouldn't be involved at all.
I wonder how many realise just how out of date the current boundaries are.
The current boundaries were set in the Fifth Periodic Review conducted between 2000 and 2007. The 2001 census data wasn't available at the time so it is based on the 2000 electoral register and the 1991 census.
The current boundaries were set in the Fifth Periodic Review conducted between 2000 and 2007. The 2001 census data wasn't available at the time so it is based on the 2000 electoral register and the 1991 census.
ralphrj said:
I wonder how many realise just how out of date the current boundaries are.
The current boundaries were set in the Fifth Periodic Review conducted between 2000 and 2007. The 2001 census data wasn't available at the time so it is based on the 2000 electoral register and the 1991 census.
As JL notes it should be automatic after every census (having young kids, every time I see that word I start singing "how many people in my land..."). The current boundaries were set in the Fifth Periodic Review conducted between 2000 and 2007. The 2001 census data wasn't available at the time so it is based on the 2000 electoral register and the 1991 census.
I'm not even sure why consultation should be required. Just notification of who you should now subscribe to porn sites and where to send dog poo in the post.
Murph7355 said:
As JL notes it should be automatic after every census (having young kids, every time I see that word I start singing "how many people in my land...").
Agreed. A review every 10 years would allow at least 2 general elections to take place with the updated boundaries and the more frequent the reviews, the less likelihood of dramatic changes.The timing of the last review was awkward (being too soon after a census was taken) but was done for a genuine reason - Scotland had been over-represented in the past due to the large geographic size of the country but following the establishment of a Scottish Parliament this was no longer seen as necessary.
oyster said:
Iamnotkloot said:
Welshbeef said:
https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/node/6488?postcode=R...
Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
I personally think they should all be set to 100k or higher - indeed, I'd like to see how one per 200,000 would look. i.e. fewer MP's in total. I just think it's too bloated currently and if Italy can reduce their bureaucracy then so can we.Today is the first day of public consultation and you can search to your own area (or any area) to see how the change will impact you.
Reason for the change is we now have constituencies with 50,000 voters and others at 100,000. This change with reduce that range to 67,000 to 77,000 making democracy fairer.
However one issue with boundary changes is that currently this setup benefits labour so any change will need more labour voters to gain a majority / they will shout cynical but will ignore fair democracy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49979103
In practice, decreasing the number of MP's would make them individually more powerful, with a wider brief (more interesting jobs for sure) - more akin to US Senators in a way, whilst reducing costs. I don't see the number of unelected bureaucrats automatically rising to compensate, as they perform different functions.
Welshbeef said:
It’s also why Torys need 47% to win a majority vs Labour needing 44-45%.
Something wrong with your maths - they currently have something like an 80 seat majority and 56% of the seats with only 42% of the vote. Labour have 31% of the seats broadly in line with their share of the vote. Arguably it's the Lib Dems who suffer most from the FPTP systemThe boundaries aren't just about the number of people in an area though, don't forget. They represent geographical, economic and societal ties to a significant extent as well. The difficulty is in balancing all of those without creating constituencies that are too big and too small.
For example, if everyone in my Village commutes to the same area to work, sends their kids to the same schools, spends money in the same places and is impacted by the same things, then we want to be represented by an MP that has responsibility for all of that geography. Without that we can't lobby the MP responsible for issues away from the home because we're not their constituent.
All the arguments that come out of the review will be around towns and villages falling under the 'wrong' Constituency because their society is more strongly associated with the neighbouring one and they do need to be worked through to find the best balance, regardless of how Labour will try to weaponise that.
For example, if everyone in my Village commutes to the same area to work, sends their kids to the same schools, spends money in the same places and is impacted by the same things, then we want to be represented by an MP that has responsibility for all of that geography. Without that we can't lobby the MP responsible for issues away from the home because we're not their constituent.
All the arguments that come out of the review will be around towns and villages falling under the 'wrong' Constituency because their society is more strongly associated with the neighbouring one and they do need to be worked through to find the best balance, regardless of how Labour will try to weaponise that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff