HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 No, and I keep shouting at the radio about this, the biggest factor is to reduce the number of seats. Boundary reviews **ALWAYS** have to get seats equally-sized, the whole point of this review is to REDUCE the number of seats. For the last hundred and fifty years, that I know of, constituencies have not been equally sized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bludragonfly Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I heard on the radio that Clegg's current Constituency will disappear - great news to get rid of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 And it's the reduction in the number of seats that I have a big problem with. It reduces the ability of the commons to hold the government to account (which is very likely why the government is so keen on it in the 1st place) and it increases MP's workload, thus making them less able to deal with individual queries and issues. As much as I detest politicans, I don't think that reducing the numbers of politicans who are elected is going to be of any benefit to the electorate, only to those who wish to weild power over the electorate. The USA has twenty times our geographical area, six times our population, and manages with only 435; it's hard to argue that we need six hundred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 What about the possibility of those Tories voting "tactically" for the Lib Dems, as seems to happen in the more affluent wards of Sheffield? Possible but the constituency could be a 3-way split - Lab/Lib Dem/Tory. At the last election the Tories weren't that far from winning Stocksbridge & Penistone. At the next one it will be less likely to be Tory but as the Lib-Dems have no track record in Barnsley, Tories may not be likely to vote for a Lib-Dem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHJ21 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I had a model which I thought worked for five seats; I don't have the details to hand so I don't know the numbers but it was something like: - 11 wards in the west of the city (west of the Sheaf and the upper Don, including the city centre). Split into a NW seat and a SW seat; the exact border is slightly awkward but I had it along the upper Porter, and nearer the city centre including Broomhill and the south of Walkley (Upperthorpe and Netherthorpe) in the SW one. - 6 wards in the north (north of the Don); a small part needs to be removed to make it small enough for a seat, perhaps the Brightside part of Shiregreen & Brightside. - 11 wards in the south and east of the city. Split into a Heeley seat which is essentially the current one plus Manor Castle and an Attercliffe seat which also includes Brightside. One problem is that there probably also needs to be a plan for the rest of South Yorkshire, as the Boundary Commission have completely ignored Sheffield's external boundary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 One problem is that there probably also needs to be a plan for the rest of South Yorkshire, as the Boundary Commission have completely ignored Sheffield's external boundary. That's just about inevitable. Sheffield is fairly central to Britain; you cannot start there and work outwards, because you'd end up with problems in all sorts of coastal areas. When looking at the country as a whole, you need to start around the edges and work inwards - because central constituencies can always be adjusted to suit, they border on other consituencies in all directions. If Grimsby's size is wrong, throwing in some areas of the North Sea won't help. If Sheffield South West's size is wrong, you have options all over the place to help you fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHJ21 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The USA has twenty times our geographical area, six times our population, and manages with only 435; it's hard to argue that we need six hundred. They also have state governments with lots of representatives of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://rr-bce-static.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sheffield-South-West-BC.pdf?9d7bd4 Looking at this map they're lumping Arbourthorne, Gleadless Valley and Netheredge into what was Hallam and taking out Fulwood and Ranmoor. So it's likely to be Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHJ21 Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Looking at this map they're lumping Arbourthorne, Gleadless Valley and Netheredge into what was Hallam and taking out Fulwood and Ranmoor. So it's likely to be Labour. That's "Sheffield South West". Clegg is more likely to stand in "Sheffield West and Penistone" which contains all of his current seat except Dore & Totley, but also Stocksbridge and Penistone West. That's if these proposals survive the consulation process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 They also have state governments with lots of representatives of their own. Yes, indeed; just like our local councils. MPs only have to deal with national-level issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.