Electoral Disaster

nickmason

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The latest boundary changes favoured the Tories. Sometimes boundary changes favour one party, sometimes the other. AIUI, the political parties make their arguments to the boundary commission between the elections.

Most boundary changes favour, incrementally, Tories, but never enough. In part this is because - surprise, surprise - people continue to move to wealthier areas, and these tend to vote Tory. In part it is because the system is so skewed that the changes don't do enough.

I remember attending a Council meeting in Oxford once and was flabbergasted to see how the boundary review process worked. The recommendations from the LDs were acutely political, but couched in non -political terms. Most of the Conservative councillors didn't appear to have done their homework, and so accepted the arguments put by the LDs as being an accurate representation of local wishes, blissfully unaware of the impact that it would have.
I remember being stuck as to whether I thought less of the Conservatives or the LDs for their respective roles in this charade...

tomterm8

nickmason wrote: »

I remember being stuck as to whether I thought less of the Conservatives or the LDs for their respective roles in this charade...

Um, I would have thought less of the Conservatives... after all, it is their job to reflect the interests of their members.

Boundary changes in our system are accutly political.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The latest boundary changes favoured the Tories. Sometimes boundary changes favour one party, sometimes the other. AIUI, the political parties make their arguments to the boundary commission between the elections.

Is that a typo Sir H? Everything I heard and read said the opposite.

I'd be very interested to know your reasoning.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Is that a typo Sir H? Everything I heard and read said the opposite.

I'd be very interested to know your reasoning.

I meant it favoured the Tories more than it did in 2005. It cut Labour's notional majority to 48% IIRC.

ash28

Generali wrote: »

Is that a typo Sir H? Everything I heard and read said the opposite.

I'd be very interested to know your reasoning.

It's fact, not reasoning.

If the 2005 election had
been fought on the new boundaries the Conservatives would have gained

around 12 additional seats and Labour seven fewer.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05280.pdf

nickmason

tomterm8 wrote: »

Um, I would have thought less of the Conservatives... after all, it is their job to reflect the interests of their members.

Boundary changes in our system are accutly political.

Once someone is elected, is it their job to reflect the interests of those who worked to get them there - what I presume you mean by their members - or the interests of those who voted for them, or the interests of all?

My understanding has always been that it should be the last. Trying to be non-partisan about it, I suspect that all elected people think they put "all the people" first, equally, but that their own personal slant/biases will corrupt that intention. Of course different parties have different views as to how you serve "all the people", but I don't believe it is acceptable to "favour your own".

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Is that a typo Sir H? Everything I heard and read said the opposite.

I'd be very interested to know your reasoning.

Its not as Sir H. pointed out - the last changes helped the Tories but only by a small amount.

The irony is that we have had close to 80 years of mainly Tory governments & people think that Gordon Brown gerry-mandered the boundaries to suit his own ends.

I am sure there has always been a north / south split, but it seems that it is more pronounced than ever - this will surely lead to alternate sets of "them" governing "us".

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I meant it favoured the Tories more than it did in 2005. It cut Labour's notional majority to 48% IIRC.

Ok, comparative not absolute. The Generali brain can cope with that, even on a Friday night.

tomterm8

nickmason wrote: »

Once someone is elected, is it their job to reflect the interests of those who worked to get them there - what I presume you mean by their members - or the interests of those who voted for them, or the interests of all?
".

My understanding is that they are making representations to the boundary commission as party officials, not as members of parliament.

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Its not as Sir H. pointed out - the last changes helped the Tories but only by a small amount.

The irony is that we have had close to 80 years of mainly Tory governments & people think that Gordon Brown gerry-mandered the boundaries to suit his own ends.

I am sure there has always been a north / south split, but it seems that it is more pronounced than ever - this will surely lead to alternate sets of "them" governing "us".

It could lead to the end of the Union.

The Tories have absolutely stuck to the line that there was a UK wide vote for a UK Parliament and good on them for toeing the Unionist line despite it being harmful to their electoral prospects.

It would also be reasonable for them to say, "Hang on, power has been devolved to Wales & Scotland. You have local power so you don't need so much say in what happens at the centre".