The end of the Labour party

[Robin-H]

what many folk may have missed is the timing of all this. Between now and the next election there is a boundary reveiw so a large number of seats will cease to exist and mps will face selection to fight for totally new parliamentary seats.Of course this means that the local parties will also cease to exist and so are not in a position to deselect anyone. Virtually every seat in the uk will be effected either by boundary changes or simply ceasing to exist.

It would seem to be the case that after 2018 there will be 600 new seats to fight over in 2020 and anyone wishing to fight those seats will need the nomination of whatever local party sets up base there or they could stand as an independent.

 

I hope the boundary changes will finally remove the bias that Labour currently has.

[unbeliever]

I hope the boundary changes will finally remove the bias that Labour currently has.

 

Yes, that's the idea.

[Localman]

That would be fair enough, i wouldnt mind if they gave him a try and he wasnt up to the job, but we all know, he was never even given a chance, labour figures openly said from day one they would get him out, ...FACT...they undermined him from day one, they didnt like the direction the party was going in, so they were never going to give him a chance,

 

It's a bit difficult to understand why you keep ignoring the evidence from that group of MPs who voted for Corbyn in the leadership election and who Corbyn then appointed to the Shadow Cabinet, but resigned some 9 months later because they said he was [i paraphrase] incompetent, not up to the job, and surrounded himself with sectarian sycophants.

 

There's an example in Huffington Post this week from Kerry McCarthy at

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kerry-mccarthy/defra-badger-cull-pmqs_b_11705704.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[unbeliever]

 

Yes, that is indeed the idea. As the Daily Telegraph put it, the purpose of the boundary review is not to improve the representativeness of Parliament or any of that nonsense, but "to lock Labour out of power for decades". Another nail in the coffin of the UK's already ropey democracy.

 

I've heard this before but it makes zero sense to me.

 

Under the current arrangement urban constituencies are small and rural constituencies are large. This is in terms of the number of electors per constituency. As a result of this an urban MP typically represents substantially fewer electors than a rural MP.

Under the new arrangement, the constituencies will be equal size.

 

Labour are strong in urban areas and weak in rural areas, so they have been getting a few extra MPs out of the fact that urban constituencies are smaller.

The new system will remove this advantage.

 

What exactly is the objection? Why are Labour entitled to this advantage?

[unbeliever]

Because the boundaries are being revised with respect to the number of registered electors, rather than the number of eligible electors. For obvious reasons, people in more deprived areas are less likely to register. If the Tories were interested in improving democracy, they'd focus on getting more people registered, and maybe introduce some universal education in Civics. Not to mention bringing in proportional representation, which we've discussed at length elsewhere. Reducing the number of constituencies also reduces the representativeness, again as discussed elsewhere.

 

The fact that they're not doing any of these things, quite the reverse, shows that they're not at all interested in democracy. [And before you say anything, yes of course they're all as bad as each other in that respect.]

 

 

I'm inclined to say that if people don't register than they're responsible for their own disenfranchisement. This is a relatively small effect anyway as mid-term registration numbers are a good guide to election-time registration numbers.

 

Setting that aside, there should be a standard review not long after the 10 year census in 2021 at which point it will be straightened out.

I'm unconvinced by this argument. I think Labour supporters are just miffed at losing their unfair advantage.

[truman]

Because the boundaries are being revised with respect to the number of registered electors, rather than the number of eligible electors. For obvious reasons, people in more deprived areas are less likely to register. If the Tories were interested in improving democracy, they'd focus on getting more people registered, and maybe introduce some universal education in Civics. Not to mention bringing in proportional representation, which we've discussed at length elsewhere. Reducing the number of constituencies also reduces the representativeness, again as discussed elsewhere.

 

The fact that they're not doing any of these things, quite the reverse, shows that they're not at all interested in democracy. [And before you say anything, yes of course they're all as bad as each other in that respect.]

 

Why's that? It's not obvious to me...what am I missing?

[pacifica]

 

 

 

 

Yes, that is indeed the idea. As the Daily Telegraph put it, the purpose of the boundary review is not to improve the representativeness of Parliament or any of that nonsense, but "to lock Labour out of power for decades". Another nail in the coffin of the UK's already ropey democracy.

 

Isn't democracy best served if all parties get an equal shake of the dice rather than one where one party is given an unequal advantage?

 

---------- Post added 02-09-2016 at 16:12 ----------

 

I've heard this before but it makes zero sense to me.

 

Under the current arrangement urban constituencies are small and rural constituencies are large. This is in terms of the number of electors per constituency. As a result of this an urban MP typically represents substantially fewer electors than a rural MP.

Under the new arrangement, the constituencies will be equal size.

 

Labour are strong in urban areas and weak in rural areas, so they have been getting a few extra MPs out of the fact that urban constituencies are smaller.

The new system will remove this advantage.

 

What exactly is the objection? Why are Labour entitled to this advantage?

 

If you think back to when there were villages scattered around a coal mine and the local constituency represented 60,000 voters. The pits closed and the workforce moved away. Those constituencies now have half the number of voters. As times change the boundaries need revising otherwise a new town like Milton Keynes or even Halfway wouldn't have an MP.

Edited September 2, 2016 by pacifica

[unbeliever]

Isn't democracy best served if all parties get an equal shake of the dice rather than one where one party is given an unequal advantage?

 

---------- Post added 02-09-2016 at 16:12 ----------

 

 

If you think back to when there were villages scattered around a coal mine and the local constituency represented 60,000 voters. The pits closed and the workforce moved away. Those constituencies now have half the number of voters. As times change the boundaries need revising otherwise a new town like Milton Keynes or even Halfway wouldn't have an MP.

 

I don't think that's in contention.

[truman]

It's not hard to google stuff about this.

 

Here's a random example.

 

Here's another.

 

And another.

 

And another.

 

Pretty much common knowledge, really.

 

None of those explain why people don't register...

[Robin-H]

It's not hard to google stuff about this.

 

Here's a random example.

 

Here's another.

 

And another.

 

And another.

 

Pretty much common knowledge, really.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think they were disputing that it is true that people in more deprived areas are less likely to vote, only that it was obvious as to why that happens..