HoLords reform hits the skids

[french frank]

The reform of the House of Lords is a long overdue necessity and Clegg's proposal was a mess and unworkable

So you sympathise with the Tory rebels?

The redrawing of parliamentary boundaries is a distraction at the present time.

It has to be done well before a general election is due. So essentially you're saying don't bother with it until after the next election. At which time I'm sure there will be other matters which should take precedence. But one could say constitutional reform is a distractio too - at any time.

The West Lothian question is far more urgent

Then the Tories are to be complimented, aren't they, for not making it a matter of urgency and theoretically allowing all those Scottish Labour MPs influence the Commons votes. (Though as gentlemen they usually don't)

[JohnSkelton]

Does anyone think this particular solution to the HoL problem was a good one? 15 year terms and lists drawn up by the political parties locally sounds pretty rum to me, if anything worse than the current situation.

That's a good question, isn't it? Which seems to have got lost in the argument about the Tories and the Liberals and the Coalition and New Labour's opportunism.

Does anyone think a 15 year term is a good idea? At first glance it seems an extraordinarily bad idea to me, from almost any democratic perspective (as does repetition of the mainstream party mechanism).

[aeolium]

the redrawing of parliamentary boundaries

It's not simply a matter of redrawing parliamentary boundaries but of reducing the number of MPs to 600, which will not only alter quite a number of traditional constituencies but increase their size while not reducing the number of ministerial and other positions under the control of the government. I'd say that was not good for democracy, particularly given that - unlike with House of Lords reform - there is not cross-party support for the principle.

[amateur51]

So you sympathise with the Tory rebels?
It has to be done well before a general election is due. So essentially you're saying don't bother with it until after the next election. At which time I'm sure there will be other matters which should take precedence. But one could say constitutional reform is a distractio too - at any time. Then the Tories are to be complimented, aren't they, for not making it a matter of urgency and theoretically allowing all those Scottish Labour MPs influence the Commons votes. (Though as gentlemen they usually don't)

So remind me, O Sister Sarcastic - what has the coalition achieved on these issues?

[amateur51]

That's a good question, isn't it? Which seems to have got lost in the argument about the Tories and the Liberals and the Coalition and New Labour's opportunism.

Does anyone think a 15 year term is a good idea? At first glance it seems an extraordinarily bad idea to me, from almost any democratic perspective (as does repetition of the mainstream party mechanism).

I haven't heard the rationale (what am I saying? ) behind it, but it does seem to be a remarkably flawed idea, and it's one of only a few that the media and the public have got hold of.

[french frank]

One factor is that we don't know what the Clegg Bill would have been if he hadn't had the prospect of a Tory revolt jostling behind him. His usual fault (in my view ) of compromising too soon in order to please the Conservatives who don't seem to want any reform except the boundary changes that will adjust the balance in their favour (or, to be accurate, remove the Labour advantage).

The Bill doesn't sound much like the original, pre-election policy on Lords reform which was for a fully-elected second chamber. I imagine the 15 year-term was designed for retiring Tory MPs who thought 15 years would see them out!

[Flosshilde]

One factor is that we don't know what the Clegg Bill would have been if he hadn't had the prospect of a Tory revolt jostling behind him. His usual fault (in my view ) of compromising too soon in order to please the Conservatives who don't seem to want any reform except the boundary changes that will adjust the balance in their favour (or, to be accurate, remove the Labour advantage).

There isn't a labour advantage over-all, if you mean getting a majority. Some constituencies will always vote Labour, and some will always vote Conservative, and some will always vote LibDem, but there is always enough of the doubtful ones to make any election uncertain. The Tory proposals would have reduced some of the Labour (& LibDem) safe constituencies, & increased their own. To say that there is a 'Labour advantage' when, since 1945, there have been an equal number of Labour and Conservative governments suggests that you are letting your dislike of Labour cloud your (usually sharp) view.

[cloughie]

And the good news is -

Certainly good news if it means the end of Devonwall! The Tamar is not the Amazon, it's more important than that!

[french frank]

There isn't a labour advantage over-all, if you mean getting a majority. Some constituencies will always vote Labour, and some will always vote Conservative, and some will always vote LibDem, but there is always enough of the doubtful ones to make any election uncertain. The Tory proposals would have reduced some of the Labour (& LibDem) safe constituencies, & increased their own.

By 'Labour advantage' I mean what I referred to in my Msg #81 - which was a response to your claim of gerrymandering.

The fairest thing is for each MP to represent roughly the same number of constituents. (And to have PR, of course).

At a very quick tally (E&OE), I reckon that of the 100 constituencies with the biggest electorates, 61 are held by Tories and 29 by Labour; for the 100 smallest, 62 are Labour and 19 Tory. So a Tory MP represents a much larger number of constituents than a Labour one when winning a seat.

[But I really ought to check my totals ]

[Resurrection Man]

There is a political point: the boundaries currently favour the Labour party, against the Tories. The Tories' legislation wanted to change that. .....

Not quite true. A study (2010) by the LSE shows that post-boundary change the Tories and Labour are unaffected overall but LibDems lose out.

[Flosshilde]

By 'Labour advantage' I mean what I referred to in my Msg #81 - which was a response to your claim of gerrymandering.

msg 81 -

Only by the Labour party which has long benefited from the fact that many inner city constituencies which return a Labour MP have relatively very small numbers of voters.

I'm not sure where the 'advantage' lies in that - unless it's that the Labour MPs have fewer constituents to look after. As far as winning a majority of constituencies & being able to form a government is concerned then there is no advantage. One constituency is one constituency. Unless you think that it's more difficult to win a constituency with more voters? I don't know what evidence there might be for that belief.

The fairest thing is for each MP to represent roughly the same number of constituents. (And to have PR, of course).

The 'fairest' thing would be for each constituency to be the same geographical size & have the same transport facilities, so that all MPs can get to see their constituents with the same ease, & vice-versa. Tory proposals meant that in some constituencys (the proposed merger of the Shetland & Orkney Islands, for example) it would be almost impossible for constituents to meet their MP.

[french frank]

Not quite true. A study (2010) by the LSE shows that post-boundary change the Tories and Labour are unaffected overall but LibDems lose out.

Do you have the reference?

It's not what Jack Straw thinks - he's with Floss on that!

2010? Does that relate to the current proposals?

[french frank]

Tory proposals meant that in some constituencys (the proposed merger of the Shetland & Orkney Islands, for example) it would be almost impossible for constituents to meet their MP.

So are we talking about the specific detail (as in 15 years for a second-chamber term) - or the reform of the boundaries in general?

Changing boundaries always meets with protests. The next round will probably see me changing constituencies - and I don't want to move!

I don't think your stipulation would work. Do you mean that every constituency should be the same geogaphical size as Orkney - or Shetland?

[french frank]

msg 81 -

Only by the Labour party which has long benefited from the fact that many inner city constituencies which return a Labour MP have relatively very small numbers of voters.

I'm not sure where the 'advantage' lies in that - unless it's that the Labour MPs have fewer constituents to look after.

Well the argument goes that two tiny inner city constituencies of, say 50,000, would give Labour two MPs, whereas the Tories in the Isle of Wight only get one MP for 100,000 constituents.

[cloughie]

Well the argument goes that two tiny inner city constituencies of, say 50,000, would give Labour two MPs, whereas the Tories in the Isle of Wight only get one MP for 100,000 constituents.

So there's a Vectic anomoly! Were there plans to split the Isle of Wight and share a bit of it with the mainland or is that kind of treatment reserved for Cornwall, which like IoW is an historic entity?