Latest Site News

[vidcapper]

Great points

But as a socilaist, I kinda have an inkling of what it is...

I'm guessing the Venezuela kind is edited out from that?

You are ignoring what young people are set to lose. Young people will see other Europeans continuing to benefit from rights such as freedom of movement and won't like the fact that they don't have the same rights.

ISTM freedom of movement is more of a privilege than a right.

In any case, I see the issue as being misrepresented - people will *still* be able to travel & work in Europe - it just won't be quite as easy.

1. Reduce it to 15/16.

2. Recognise they are still affected by the changes, OR exclude under 15s when basing on population. Done.

3. P.R.

1 &2. Why should it be reduced that low? They are affected by changes, yes - but are also somewhat insulated from them, legally.

If voting age was reduced to 15, then, for example, it could be argued that 15yo's should be tried as adults, and be denied anonymity on conviction - they cannot expect to be granted adult rights without also facing adult responsibilities!

3. We agree on.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2018.html

This from Electoral Calculus suggests that under the proposed boundary revisions, which follow the rules you've suggested, the Tories would lose 16 seats and Labour would lose 22. That difference is far smaller than before the 2017 election, because the vote demographics for each party have changed.

But they could just as easily change back, then we'd be back at square one.

Broadly speaking, the largest seats (i.e. those where the incumbent party will do well if the changes were to go through) are in Southern England and include large swathes of the London commuter belt. This is an area where Labour's vote picked up a lot in 2017, partly because of the number of young-ish people living/moving there who wanted to live in London but were priced out of doing so. The Tory vote went up a lot where they gained votes from UKIP in declining areas of the North and Midlands where the population is shrinking.

But can't you see that who wins the seat is irrelevant to how large the seat is?

Is it fair that a Western Islander's vote (electorate 21.3k) is worth more than 5 times that of someone from the Isle of Wight (electorate 110.7k)?

Because the MP represents everyone in their seat, not just those eligible to vote.

I've addressed this above - those too young may not have the right to vote, but they are also sheltered from the the consequences of irresponsible actions they might undertake.

As I've said, that's a really simplistic picture. We do need to look at why some areas are experiencing population decline, but I don't really see how it's relevant to this discussion.

Possibly because an full examination would draw attention to some causes of demographic change that are anathema for the Left to even think about?

You stated taxation as stealing before there!!

To be fair, I did put that in quotes.