A Democratic Audit study has today revealed that the Tories' proposed "equalisation" of constituency sizes would mean that, if they applied at this year's election, the Lib Dems would've have 12% less MPs (7 out of their 57), Labour would have 10% less (25 out of their 258) and the Tories would have only 4% less (13 out of their 307). That would've meant the Tories would have 294 seats and, if you add in the seven DUP MPs (the Tories' natural allies), it would give them 301, which conveniently would be exactly the number to give them a majority in the cut down House of Commons of 600. Huh. Funny how that worked out.

 

Although it's actually not certain it'll be passed, because, in an attempt to evade scrutiny, the government has bundled this fix up into the same Parliamentary Bill as the one calling for an AV referendum. Labour have already said they'll be voting against the bill in protest at the fix (even though they support an AV referendum), while 45 Tory MPs have also said they won't be supporting the bill because they're against the AV referendum. And if the Lib Dems have any sense they'll no longer support the "equalisation" after seeing this survey's results. My guess is the Tories will be forced into a humiliating u-turn and drop their fix proposal, and just present the Bill as a proposal for the referendum.

Can't give a detailed answer as am off for a pub quiz and a few games of pool but it is totally right to balance out the boundaries, it takes a lot less votes to elect a Labour MP than it does a Tory MP and it is right to balance that out and have near enough equal constituencies, of course it will benefit the Tories and rightly so but Labour had it too good for too long with a fundamentally flawed system

 

AV will never be voted in favour of by the public IMHO

Can't give a detailed answer as am off for a pub quiz and a few games of pool but it is totally right to balance out the boundaries, it takes a lot less votes to elect a Labour MP than it does a Tory MP and it is right to balance that out and have near enough equal constituencies, of course it will benefit the Tories and rightly so but Labour had it too good for too long with a fundamentally flawed system

 

AV will never be voted in favour of by the public IMHO

 

What a surprise. :lol:

 

Fyi, in terms of people on the Electoral Register, the constituencies already ARE virtually equal-sized for the most part.

Which is why we need an independent commission to decide this...

Can't give a detailed answer as am off for a pub quiz and a few games of pool but it is totally right to balance out the boundaries, it takes a lot less votes to elect a Labour MP than it does a Tory MP and it is right to balance that out and have near enough equal constituencies, of course it will benefit the Tories and rightly so but Labour had it too good for too long with a fundamentally flawed system

 

AV will never be voted in favour of by the public IMHO

First, it's fewer votes, not less. One of the main reasons it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP is differential turnout. The average turnout in safe Tory seats (a majority of 10% or more) was 68%. In safe Labour seats it was 60%. Funny how you failed to mention that while it took 33,000 votes to elect a Labour MP and 35,000 to elect a Tory MP (so not that big a difference), it took 120,000 votes to elect a Lib Dem MP.

 

I'll post a more detailed analysis of the proposals tomorrow.

A bit later than promised but here are some thoughts on the proposed changes.

 

A reduction in the number of MPs was in both Tory and Lib Dem manifestos. I would have preferred it to be done only when more powers have been devolved downwards, whether to regional assemblies or to local councils. Without that, it’s really just a populist measure in response to the expenses saga.

 

There are a number of concerns. First, the timing. The plan is to have the new boundaries in place for the next election, scheduled for May 2015. This will be one of the biggest redistributions ever and it is not due to be complete until 18 months before the election. Before then parties can do nothing about getting constituency organisations in place and selecting candidates. Candidates are likely to be selected little more than a year before the election which is not long enough to get established.

 

Second, the use of the electoral register rather than census data. The (reasonable)assumption in the past has been that the proportion of the population of voting age doesn’t vary by very much across the country. Of course, the current census data is nearly ten years old which is another reason for delaying the change. We know that the proportion of people who register is generally lower in Labour areas. This is one reason why Labour are set to lose seats. If people currently unregistered are added tot the register when individual registration is introduced, the new boundaries could be skewed towards the Tories.

 

Then there’s the proposal to revise the boundaries before every election. Some people could find themselves changing constituency frequently without ever moving. How does that fit in with the link between an MP and their constituents which the Tories always use as an argument against multi-member constituencies?

 

Finally, my biggest concern. Under the current rules the Boundary Commission call for representations from organisations including local political parties. The parties will always look at how to get boundaries most suited to them. However, they always have to stick to the requirement that boundaries should reflect “natural boundaries and communities”. That is an important safeguard against blatant gerrymandering. However, that requirement is to go. At the very least that can create the impression that the party in power will manipulate the boundaries to their advantage.

 

At the moment, constituencies rarely cross county boundaries. That won’t be the case in the future. It will also be possible for a small town to be split across two (or even more) constituencies.

 

Logistically it will be a nightmare for political parties and election organisers. With General Elections set to take place on the same day as local elections, there will always be two campaigns and two elections to organise. But the abandonment of the “natural boundaries and communities” rule will mean more places where ballot papers have to go to two different places for counting.

 

The Isle of Wight has the highest electorate in the UK - by a long way. At each boundary review the islanders have been given the option of splitting the island and linking one part with mainland Hampshire. That proposal has always been rejected overwhelmingly by they islanders. A lot of islanders are more concerned with whether their prospective MP is from the island than their party allegiance. Therefore, the parties in the split constituency will feel under pressure to pick an islander. So, the people on the mainland will almost certainly always have an islander as their MP.