Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 January 2009
16:0712978This is the first chance I have had to post on this subject.
David Cameron has declared that after the next election he will submit legislation to reduce the number of MPs by about 60 from the present 650.
He will also ensure that the size of the new Constituencies are balanced to a fairly equal number of electors.
This will help level the electoral playing field between the two main parties. Currently the electoral system has become so unbalanced Labour can get a majority in Parliament even of they lose the popular vote by quite a large margin.
As a downside it may also result in more hung Parliaments but that is a price worth paying for a more level playing field.
Apparently it wont get through in time for the election after next but should be operational by the election after that. Largely this is because of the time it will take to draw up the new boundaries.
Sid Pollitt
16 January 2009
16:3212980It does all sound a bit slight of hand, for my next trick I will reduce the number of MPs before the next general election!
Kapow! There are now 646 members of parliament. Clever aint I?
To be honest the number was reduced, for those who cant keep up, at the last election.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 January 2009
17:2812984To follow up on previous here is some interesting information on seats and electorate:
The table below shows the 10 largest and 10 smallest constituency electorates in the UK
Highest constituency, electorates, Difference from UK average, Electorate Electors %
1 Isle of Wight, 107,737, +39,245, +57%
2 South West Norfolk, 89,727, +21,235, +31%
3 Northampton South, 88,378, +19,886, +29%
4 Brentford & Isleworth, 88,236, +19,744, +29%
5 Daventry, 88,058 , +19,566, +29%
6 Banbury 88,006, +19,514 , +28%
7 Teignbridge, 87,681 , +19,189, +28%
8 North Cornwall, 86,841, +18,349, +27%
9 Devizes, 86,324 , +17,832, +26%
10 South East Cambridgeshire, 85,901, +17,409, +25%
UK average 68,492 - -
Lowest electorates
637 Ross, Skye & Lochaber, 50,351, -18,141, -26%
638 Islwyn, 50,095, -18,397, -27%
639 Wrexham, 48,016, -20,476, -30%
640 Montgomeryshire, 46,766, -21,726, -32%
641 Caithness, Sutherland, 46,629, -21,863, -32%
642 Caernarfon, 46,404, -22,088, -32%
643 Cynon Valley, 44,803, -23,689, -51%
644 Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, 33,392, -35,100, -51%
645 Orkney & Shetland, 32,639, -35,853, -52%
646 Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 21,169, -47,323, -69%
Put it another way - the largest consituency has 108,000 electors and the smallest just 21,000.
It is the rural areas that are losing out to the inner cities and this creates an situation that no-one who believes in democracy can defend.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
16 January 2009
17:3512986Brian - just numbers!!!
These are number of voters, people, these numbers seriously disadvantage the rural areas and distorts our electoral results.
How can anyone justify that?
In the last election as a result of this inbalance Labour polled 9.6 million votes.
That is equivalent to 35.2% of the total, the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party at a UK General Election and 5.5% points lower than in 2001.
It is equivalent to 21.6% of the electorate, again a record low for a winning party.
The Conservatives took 8.8 million votes, 32.4% of the total, up 0.7% points on 2001.
Yet with that, the lowest ever share of the vote Labour had a 65 seat majority with 355 seats in the Commons.
Conservatives had 198 seats.
I do not approve of proportional representation because I value the single member/single constituency representation arrangement. The best option to correct what is wrong is not to change the electoral system but to level the consituency playing field.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
16 January 2009
17:5712990Taking it just as numbers would tell you one thing but look at where the constituancies are. It must be obvious that the concerns of the Orkney and Shetland islanders are going to be different to those of people living in North Cornwall. If we were just concerned with having a home base from which MP's could represent their parties working on numbers would be fine but we are not. People vote for candidates to represent their interests to government and, while they will (often out of habit) vote along party lines in the hope that that party will speak for their aspirations, they are voting for a person they hope will speak for their concerns relevant to where they live. All elected persons should owe their first alliagance to those who elect them. Above party or personal wants, that should always be their highest priority and consituancy bounderies should reflect this.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
16 January 2009
20:0012992I can see the point to this, although I pretty sure it's not quite that simple. I think we have to accept, to certain extent, that we live within a representative electoral system, more than a true democracy. These boundaries are relatively arbitary in high density areas but profoundly important in other areas such as islands! In the cases of an island (we see at the top and bottom of that list) how on earth would a satifactory(fair) outcome be decided without denying the the idea of a unified sense of 'place' or community. I don't quite know how these decisions would be made when many of factors are subjective and immeasurable.
On the point of Democracy (which is very important) I think there are bigger fish to fry, as I said about the House of Lords, more reform is needed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 January 2009
20:4812998i rather favour a system of people having 2 or more votes at each election.
the truth of the matter is, that people vote for who they dislike the least.
for example in folkestone area, there is no real labour vote, so potential labour voters will vote lib dem in order that the blue person will not get in.
this also applies in areas where there is no great conservative vote.
if we could put 2 crosses against our least hated candidate then 1 cross against our second choice, i think a fairer result would emerge.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 January 2009
22:5913018the problem here is that all of our candidates are such lovely people.
gwynfor, charles and victor make up a triple whammy to those who dislike politicians.
maybe paul b could organise a meeting where all three could expound their views to us forumites??
