andrewducker | Political Question

At the moment the House of Lords are debating the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

I've heard numerous claims that this bill is incredibly unfair, and blatant gerrymandering by the Conservative Party.

Looking at the details, I'm feeling baffled. I can see a claim that the exemption for the three Scottish constituencies (Two Liberal Democrat, on Scottish National Party) are biased in their favour. But I can't see how a system whereby people are grouped together in what's going to be a massively arbitrary manner (each area must be within 5% of the national average, and are set up by independent bodies - the Boundary Commissions).

I don't really have a stake in this one - I'd just like someone to explain how this system would give an advantage to any one party. I can see that it could _remove_ advantage from a party if the old system with much less equal constituency sizes gave that party an advantage, but I'm totally failing to see how it's anything like gerrymandering.

Am I missing something obvious?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The thing is, with the new boundaries paying no attention to where the old boundaries (or communities) are, I'm not sure what grounds for challenges would be.

I'm sure, for instance, that there will be an endless stream of challenges from the Cornish that the boundaries pay no attention to the boundaries of Cornwall, but the answer to that will be "and?"

I'm beginning to wonder if the law should simply include an algorithm that will be used to create the boundaries, and any challenge would have to be to the algorithm, not the boundaries themselves :->

The bill *does* include an algorithm. (I've read it. ;-) I do think a valid challenge would be, for instance, if a constitunecy is frankensteined together from a rural and an urban area as you could argue that an MP would find it very difficult to adequately represent and address all their constituents' concern.

#include Grumble_about_how_single_member_constituencies_are_the_root_of_all_evil.h

Possibly you'll have better luck persuading me than

marrog did - I can't see why it's more of a problem representing consituents that are both rural and urban than it is representing ones that are both recent-immigrant and long settled, or ones that are both rich and poor, or ones that are both Capitalists and Communists. Can you explain why rural/urban is a special, magical split?

Oh, and can you point me towards the algorithm?

Oh, and apologies for not getting back to you about orphan works, my brain has only just recovered from being ill. Is it still worth sending you my thoughts?

Algorithm is here: http://bit.ly/fO7cjI (if I've picked up the right link ;-)

You ask a good question re why the rural/urban split is more valid than any other split. My answer is geography and infrastructure, which in turn influence access to your MP and how much they can do for you. If you have a constituency that comprises part of Newcastle and part of the middle of nowhere in Northumberland, chances are the constituency office will be in Newcastle, and the MP will spend most of their time in the constituency there, and probably not make much of an effort to make themselves accessible to their rural constituents. That's simply how the numbers work out: it pays for them to spend their effort int he population centre rather than outside it. If they have a purely rural constituency that temptation isn't there and they *have* to put the effort in to represent all their constituents. Yes, the office might still be in a town, but they're going to think differently about how they approach their work from the start.

My bigger problem is how unstable constituency boundaries will be. Any change in the population of a couple of areas, and you start from scratch - the way the formula is designed, it just has a knock-on impact on the rest of the country if one or two constituencies need to be adjusted. In my mind (I might have said this already), this pretty much breaks the constituency link anyway.

In my mind (I might have said this already), this pretty much breaks the constituency link anyway.

This is my issue. If the aim is to eventually have a system of PR that doesn't have single MP constituencies, then fine, go ahead. I just don't see that happening. If we're aiming for a system like AV+ or AMS, then there wouldn't be any harm in taking geographical concerns into account when drawing boundaries, or at least, any imbalance would be temporary.

Mind you, PR is still pretty much a pipe dream, so I suppose we take what we get.

Thinking further about what you (and

elmyra) have been saying, how much of a compromise would work, do you think?

I know that Labour are talking about a 10% variance making them a lot happier- do you think that would be enough to allow communities to be kept together in a useful manner, while keeping the value of votes fairly close?

It has to be a reasonably sized change though - there's a 10% leeway (from 95% to 105% of the mean), so the changes would have to be quite large to need a total redesign, rather than just shaving 2% off of one constituency and giving it to another.

Why should the Welsh get Wales to be Specially Separate but not the Cornish Cornwall?

I think you are vastly underestimating how tribal people feel about their region or city. And the difficulties then inherent in having an MP from OVER THERE in charge of US HERE (witness the complaints where parties "parachute" people in to safe seats rather than choosing local candidates).

Wales is being treated as a minor state, like NI and Scotland. I've not seen much of a push to make Cornwall into a separate state, but I'm prepared to believe I just don't see it...

Mebyon Kernow: The Party for Cornwall

Less than 5% though...

Similar proportion of the vote to UKIP, the Greens and the BNP.

Free Cornwall now, with every Pasty (limited offer, only one Cornwall per family for a limited time only).

Political Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject