Welcome to the News & Politics forum coi, it's always nice to see new faces in here. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of you around these parts.

 

Ah hi, thanks for the welcome.

It is indeed an independent body, but the government sets the rules. The Tories changed the rules so that the size of the electorate (rather than the overall population) was the principal factor. The effect of that was exacerbated by the introduction of individual registration as many voters (predominantly younger voters) were not included in the calculations.

 

They also ended the requirement to have due regard for local communities and called for greater homogeneity. Obviously total homogeneity would be impossible and would be a very bad thing. After all, the logical result of that would be for every constituency to vote in the same way, leading to one party winning all the seats. As it is, grater homogeneity is bound to exaggerate the advantage for whichever party gets the most votes.

 

The intention is that there will be a review in every parliament, rather than every ten years or so as is currently the case. That increases the incumbent's advantage if parties choose not to select their candidates until the boundaries are known. Even with a five-year parliament, that would not be until eighteen months before the election.

 

Of course, all this is another argument for STV. Instead of boundary changes, it would be a simple case of adjusting the number of seats in an individual constituency.

 

1. Automatic registration would help with that. Also, if opt-out was needed to be excluded from the electoral register, then people would only have themselves to blame if they couldn't vote.

 

2. I wasn't aware of this aspect. Was it done because communities tend not to be convenient constituency-sized chunks?

 

3. I think this would be impractical, as the implementation, if not the detail, would be at the mercy of whomever was in power at the time

 

4, I agree about STV. I think we're the only country in Europe that still has a FPTP system for national elections. :(

1. Automatic registration would help with that. Also, if opt-out was needed to be excluded from the electoral register, then people would only have themselves to blame if they couldn't vote.

 

2. I wasn't aware of this aspect. Was it done because communities tend not to be convenient constituency-sized chunks?

 

3. I think this would be impractical, as the implementation, if not the detail, would be at the mercy of whomever was in power at the time

 

4, I agree about STV. I think we're the only country in Europe that still has a FPTP system for national elections. :(

 

1. we live in a society where people move. Automatic registration would require enormous cross-referencing of data banks and staff to do the research. Local government has no cash. Data Protection legislation. People would start moaning about Big Brother. Not practical.

 

4. STV seems to be one thing we can agree on - just the electorate to convince, and the 2 main parties who were against it a few years back, and still are because they stand to lose so much.

 

 

Surely STV would just result in more coalition governments?

I disagree on point one, but it would require a substantial shift in approach (and more staff) across the country. Here in Germany you have the Anmeldung which means once you move you have 90days to register with the authorities at the town hall or other such designated establishment. If we were to have a similar process of registration/deregistration then that would allow for auto-enrolment.

 

It also allows for you to track EU migrants (this is provided for under freedom of movement law, and most EU countries enforce it), issue them with a Tax ID and then if you suspect that they are not working or actively looking for work then you can use the EU Freedom of Movement rules to send them home!

Surely STV would just result in more coalition governments?

I don’t see a problem with that personally.

 

STV is used in a number of elections at the sub-national level in the U.K. without major issues. For example, Scottish Council elections use STV and every council is under NOC forcing parties to work together for the good of their region, or as the case currently is - to actively team up and work against the SNP which means there are LabCon administrations in Scotland currently. (And people wonder why ScotLab are widely considered to be a f***ing joke)

Northern Ireland use it too, yes. But if there are going to be coalitions, how is there going to be a clear mandate?

The majority of European Parliaments including the European Parliament work just fine!

 

Typically the magic word “compromise” is used and parties will try to team up with those who have a similar platform. Or, as they did in Germany, do whatever they can to avoid working with or legitimising the Neo-Nazi AfD

Also, there’s nothing against minority administrations betting support on a vote by vote basis. Scotland’s Parliament has a minority administration and had one from 2007-2011.

 

They’ve been defeated on legislation, such as an anti-sectarianism at football bill that was somewhat clumsy but should have been reformed instead of repealed as it’s just emboldened the Tory supporting Orangemen (guess which party introduced the repeal), and it’s had to redraft key bills such as the Budget to get a consensus for passing.

 

But conversely by working strongly together the Parliament can send a strong message. The Scottish Brexit (f*** off with your power grab) Act was passed with the support of 4 of the 5 parties.

True, you do get the feeling that even the stubborn British parties would be able to work together when they feel they need to.

 

And FPTP definitely results in far too many votes being wasted, STV would at least sort out the proportionality issue.

1. we live in a society where people move. Automatic registration would require enormous cross-referencing of data banks and staff to do the research. Local government has no cash.

 

Odd - they seem to take a large amount of Council Tax off me every month... :rolleyes:

 

 

In the year 2013-14 Councils in England had a total income of £157,554 million. Of which, £23,371m was from council tax. 14.8%

 

Even after deeeeeeeep cut backs, councils in England spent £156,622m in that same year

 

Council tax is a drop in the ocean

 

 

 

Source: Local Government Financial Statistics England No. 25 2015 accessed via gov.uk

In the year 2013-14 Councils in England had a total income of £157,554 million. Of which, £23,371m was from council tax. 14.8%

 

Even after deeeeeeeep cut backs, councils in England spent £156,622m in that same year

 

Council tax is a drop in the ocean

 

In terms of gov't finance, perhaps - but not necessarily for individuals!

Edited August 1, 20186 yr by vidcapper

I disagree on point one, but it would require a substantial shift in approach (and more staff) across the country. Here in Germany you have the Anmeldung which means once you move you have 90days to register with the authorities at the town hall or other such designated establishment. If we were to have a similar process of registration/deregistration then that would allow for auto-enrolment.

 

It also allows for you to track EU migrants (this is provided for under freedom of movement law, and most EU countries enforce it), issue them with a Tax ID and then if you suspect that they are not working or actively looking for work then you can use the EU Freedom of Movement rules to send them home!

 

Staff is the key, assuming you can get over the other hurdles - if people don't register then you have to have finances to chase them up, prosecute. I could see how staff currently used for registering voters can be used more long-term, but it certainly isn't a full-time job currently and Local Gov are having to cut key services as it is. So, yes it could be done but the substantial shift in approach would need to be more money. My Council is merging with 2 others, staff are leaving in droves, we can't recruit because we don't pay enough, and everyone knows there will be another wave of job losses once the merger is complete, and I just don't see there being any cash (cough, Brexit!) in the foreseeable future. Love it to be otherwise though.

Odd - they seem to take a large amount of Council Tax off me every month... :rolleyes:

 

try paying annually.... :P

 

(plus it's still a bargain despite what everyone moans)

You are to assume that it is a short sighted solution when topography is brought into it!!! If this happened in the US, Montana would have 0 senators to New York's 50!! It is an anti democratic right wing coup. Again. And it just so HAPPENS, coincidentally to make the Tories win with less vote share than Labour when otherwise the government is on its way out, probably forever. Disgusting disgusting disgusting Tory party. No other party would be so brazen as the Toey newspapers would tear them a new one. This whole system should be scraped. It should not be reformed as it is undemocratic enough anyway - gerrymandering will be the biggest feat of electoral manipulation since the rotten boroughs the landed gentry proto Tories invented hundreds of years ago. Oh. Same people doing it again now. Okay.

 

Or since the artificial creation of the state called Northern Ireland!

A quick update :

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

Also, another article that may be of interest :

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/where-...ound-new-party/

 

It offers evidence to support my claim that many people don't think the justice system is harsh enough.

A quick update :

 

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

Also, another article that may be of interest :

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/where-...ound-new-party/

 

It offers evidence to support my claim that many people don't think the justice system is harsh enough.

Polls have shown that many people think only around half of convicted rapists receive a custodial sentence. The actual figure is well over 90%. In surveys where people are given details of a case and are asked to suggest an appropriate sentence they have generally come up with a sentence close to the one likely to have been passed in a real case.

Polls have shown that many people think only around half of convicted rapists receive a custodial sentence. The actual figure is well over 90%.

 

The main problem is the low overall conviction rate of rapists, surely?

 

In surveys where people are given details of a case and are asked to suggest an appropriate sentence they have generally come up with a sentence close to the one likely to have been passed in a real case.

 

All I can say to that, is that no-one has ever asked *me* to take part in such a survey... :thinking:

 

Low conviction rates have nothing to do with not having a “harsh” justice system. Victims of sexual assault are put off reporting offences through fear they won’t be believed or through fear of repercussions. Much of the time there is a lack of physical evidence which reduces it to the word of the alleged victim vs the word of the alleged accused and the willingness of the court to believe the alleged victim.

 

One big difference I think we can make here is to ensure than unless explicitly and demonstrably relevant to the case at hand, the victims sexual history is just irrelevant. The footballer whose conviction was overturned relied quite heavily on victim shaming in the retrial. That cannot be allowed to happen. That someone is promiscuous is irrelevant to the case at hand, just because you are promiscuous doesn’t mean you lose the right to say no.