Cleggover/'Call me Dave' Dave - get a room!

LizEstelle

I thought Tories were keen on 'maintaining the constituency basis' of our general elections and hence (as if) the reluctance to go down the PR route.

So how does this fit with Camertoff's idea of making all constituencies the same size, population-wise, then..?

Are we going to add half of Dorset to three quarters of Wiltshire to make up this 'ideal number'? Is this any better than the current situation where at least you have many identifiably homogeneous towns or areas as voting for one MP, even if they are of differing population sizes?

nickmason

I'm not convinced about this constitutional crisis.
In 1997, Tony Blair got fewer votes than John Major 5 years before.
In 2005, Tony Blair got fewer votes than John Major in 1997, with only 36% of the vote.
Our political history is full of anomalies and oddities, and is littered with excuses for a constitutional crisis; especially if you refuse the two-party hegemony, or embrace the devolution agenda. Yet none of them have actually come to pass. I suspect the media narrative will be something else.

lostinrates

LizEstelle wrote: »

Are we going to add half of Dorset to three quarters of Wiltshire to make up this 'ideal number'? Is this any better than the current situation where at least you have many identifiably homogeneous towns or areas as voting for one MP, even if they are of differing population sizes?

I would suggest Country boundaries might be more sensible. some constituencies are very peculiar shapes. This would of course increase the workload/size of an area, but reduced the number of mps and thus the cost.

Sir humprey, your post on PR at lunchtime is the first really convincing argument I've ''got''. Thank you. I think I begin to agree this would be a good thing...in many ways. The timing of speed important decisions does concern me though.

nickmason

LizEstelle wrote: »

I thought Tories were keen on 'maintaining the constituency basis' of our general elections and hence (as if) the reluctance to go down the PR route.

So how does this fit with Camertoff's idea of making all constituencies the same size, population-wise, then..?

Are we going to add half of Dorset to three quarters of Wiltshire to make up this 'ideal number'? Is this any better than the current situation where at least you have many identifiably homogeneous towns or areas as voting for one MP, even if they are of differing population sizes?

No, although I imagine that the convention that constituencies don't cross county borders might be challenged.

Of course there's no "ideal number" (just as, see posts passim, there's no perfectly fair arrangement). But that doesn't mean that the glaring anomalies can't be resolved.

Your point about PR is a non-sequitur by the way.

LizEstelle

nickmason wrote: »

No, although I imagine that the convention that constituencies don't cross county borders might be challenged.

Of course there's no "ideal number" (just as, see posts passim, there's no perfectly fair arrangement). But that doesn't mean that the glaring anomalies can't be resolved.

Your point about PR is a non-sequitur by the way.

And your point about 'no ideal number' is one which sets you distinctly at odds with dear Camertoff.

There is no rocket science about this. He wants to reduce the number of MPs, presumably to something like 500.

Ok, so that's a UK electorate of 45million divided by 500.

I make that 90,000, personally. Now what will we do with poor ol' Walthamstow which has 80,000? Presumably the Dear Leader will suggest gluing on part of Chingford..? Would this appeal to Norman Tebbit, do you think..?

nickmason

Regarding Brighton, I agree it's going to be fascinating. It's a two horse race, and it seems as if the whole of the Green party is there, campaigning for Caroline Lucas!

As another observation - it appears that the LD bounce has knocked the minor parties - not necessarily the Greens (who are carving out the old Labour space for themselves) but particularly the UKIP vote seems to be drying up, presumably as they are coming back to the Conservatives.

re PR - it's anybody's guess as to how the parties would fragment. I agree with Sir Humphrey to an extent, except that (as PR allows multiple issues, rather than FPTP's propensity to squash to a left-right axis) I would imagine regional and religious schisms would probably split parties further (and possibly facilitate semi-permanent coalitions).

The pro-European wing of the Conservative party is dead, by the way. The new intake is almost entirely eurosceptic.

nickmason

LizEstelle wrote: »

And your point about 'no ideal number' is one which sets you distinctly at odds with dear Camertoff.

There is no rocket science about this. He wants to reduce the number of MPs, presumably to something like 500.

Ok, so that's a UK electorate of 45million divided by 500.

I make that 90,000, personally. Now what will we do with poor ol' Walthamstow which has 80,000? Presumably the Dear Leader will suggest gluing on part of Chingford..? Would this appeal to Norman Tebbit, do you think..?

Not at odds at all. He is not arguing that there exists an ideal number - after all populations do change on a continuous basis! The point is that there has been - because of internal migration and birth trends - a systemic imbalancing of the constituencies, and the incremental boundary changes never catch up. A wholescale review is the obvious sensible solution.

By the way, Walthamstow, after 2006, had an electorate of 63000. So presumably 17,000 of its residents are already in the wrong constituency.

LizEstelle

Glad to know you agree.

Camertoff speaka da drivel, Camertoff getta sussed.

nickmason

LizEstelle wrote: »

Glad to know you agree.

Camertoff speaka da drivel, Camertoff getta sussed.

Wow. Glad to be engaging with you.

apt

The Tories' equalising constituency sizes but keeping FPTP would turn into a gerrymandering exercise on an even greater scale than than practised by Thatcher in the 1980s and Labour since 1997. 'Dave' was quoting the unfairness of the Isle of Wight having 111,000 electors. What's he going to do about that? Have 80odd% of the residents in one constituency and the rest somewhere else?