Oh of course it is, such a touchy subject for lefties.
It's not a touchy subject at all for the Labour Party who are proud of their trade union heritage. Are the Tory Party equally proud that most of their funding is derived from the financial sector?
Trade union member defends trade unions. Well there's a surprise
I've not been a member of a trade union for over 5 years but I will always defend people that stand up for good and decent working people that try to do their best in their jobs.
Which is more than Labour got at the previous election yet they gained an absolute majority in the HoC - so paulchapman was correct, it was the bias in the election system is what prevented the Tories from getting an absolute majority.
No, had 50% of the electorate voted for the Tories they would have had an overall majority, however, almost two thirds of the electorate rejected their policies and voted against them. It was the same system that enabled Thatcher and Major to have a Parliamentary majority with less than 50% of the vote and they didn't whinge about the unfair electoral system.
No, had 50% of the electorate voted for the Tories they would have had an overall majority, however, almost two thirds of the electorate rejected their policies and voted against them. It was the same system that enabled Thatcher and Major to have a Parliamentary majority with less than 50% of the vote.
You seem somewhat confused with a majority in the HoC and a majority of the popular vote (which no party has had for decades). I see you swiftly avoided the point that the Tories had a larger electoral mandate than the last Labour Government.
You seem somewhat confused with a majority in the HoC and a majority of the popular vote (which no party has had for decades). I see you swiftly avoided the point that the Tories had a larger electoral mandate than the last Labour Government.
You are deliberately missing my point. Cameron would have had a majority if the majority of the electorate had voted for him. The reality is that two-thirds voted against him which is why the Tories failed to gain a majority. You are doing what the Tories do, blame everyone and everything but themselves.
You are deliberately missing my point. Cameron would have had a majority if the majority of the electorate had voted for him. The reality is that two-thirds voted against him which is why the Tories failed to gain a majority. You are doing what the Tories do, blame everyone and everything but themselves.
But an even larger percentage voted against the last Labour Government - however due to the bias of the electoral system they got enough seats to goven.
The plain fact is that Labour need a smaller proportion of the vote than the Tories to be able to form a Government - is that fair?
But an even larger percentage voted against the last Labour Government - however due to the bias of the electoral system they got enough seats to goven.
The plain fact is that Labour need a smaller proportion of the vote than the Tories to be able to form a Government - is that fair?
You have to accept that the country voted against moving to a voting system which would have resulted in the number of seats won more closely reflecting the percentage of the national vote gained. That being the case, each individual constituency is a separate election so I don't see how it can be biased as all parties have the same opportunity to win an individual constituency election.
Tories suggest that because Labour are better at proposing policies in certain constituencies that are more relevant to people that they vote Labour it is a sign of electoral bias, most people would call it democracy. Instead of trying to win over the electorate with policies that are more in touch with ordinary people, the Tories shamefully want to gerrymander constituencies so they have a better chance of winning.
the Tories shamefully want to gerrymander constituencies so they have a better chance of winning.
I keep hearing this from the Labour pack, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how equalising the size of constituencies is gerrymandering - do the Tories have some advantage in constituencies of a certain size?
I keep hearing this from the Labour pack, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how equalising the size of constituencies is gerrymandering - do the Tories have some advantage in constituencies of a certain size?
Firstly, as every candidate has the same opportunity to win any constituency if they can persuade the electorate to vote for them, there is no built in bias as the Tories claim. So the real reason why they are doing it is to gain some kind of political advantage. Breaking up natural communities to arbitrarily produce constituencies of the same size is not the right way to revise boundaries. Of course boundaries should be reviewed, but this current Tory exercise is not being done to be more representative but purely because they think it will give the Conservative Party more seats.
Firstly, as every candidate has the same opportunity to win any constituency if they can persuade the electorate to vote for them, there is no built in bias as the Tories claim. So the real reason why they are doing it is to gain some kind of political advantage. Breaking up natural communities to arbitrarily produce constituencies of the same size is not the right way to revise boundaries. Of course boundaries should be reviewed, but this current Tory exercise is not being done to be more representative but purely because they think it will give the Conservative Party more seats.
You have to accept that the country voted against moving to a voting system which would have resulted in the number of seats won more closely reflecting the percentage of the national vote gained. That being the case, each individual constituency is a separate election so I don't see how it can be biased as all parties have the same opportunity to win an individual constituency election.
PR has nothing to do with this issue, your avoidance is rather telling.
Tories suggest that because Labour are better at proposing policies in certain constituencies that are more relevant to people that they vote Labour it is a sign of electoral bias, most people would call it democracy. Instead of trying to win over the electorate with policies that are more in touch with ordinary people, the Tories shamefully want to gerrymander constituencies so they have a better chance of winning.
So, how do you account for Majlis's previous point? Forget your constituency party and Labour HQ propaganda, how do you account for it?
The Children in charge of the parties now do nothing for me at all, they all remind me of managers at the local Beefeater.
I have no confidence in any of them.
I keep hearing this from the Labour pack, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how equalising the size of constituencies is gerrymandering - do the Tories have some advantage in constituencies of a certain size?
I did answer the question but clearly you didn't like the answer. I said every party has the same opportunity to win every constituency if the can persuade the electorate to support their policies. So the Tories have no advantage in winning a larger constituency. Maybe you can answer my question now. Why do you think labour have an advantage of winning smaller constituencies?
I did answer the question but clearly you didn't like the answer. I said every party has the same opportunity to win every constituency if the can persuade the electorate to support their policies. So the Tories have no advantage in winning a larger constituency. Maybe you can answer my question now. Why do you think labour have an advantage of winning smaller constituencies?
You need to have a level playing field so that people are represented equally. Constituencies of radically different sizes do not achieve that. That aspect of the Boundary Commissions work has been in place for decades (i.e. across many different governments) and is an inevitable consequence of the ongoing move by people from inner city areas (which tend to vote Labour) into more rural and suburban areas (which tend to vote Conservative)
It is in the Conservatives interests to ensure that boundary reviews are conducted as the growing imbalance of boundaries gives Labour a clear advantage. Essentially, the Conservatives keep having to reset the playing field back to being level. However, that is never achieved as the reviews have to use data that is 10 years (minimum) out of date. Once again, that aspect favours Labour.
If you're interested about bias in the electoral system - more here.
Firstly, as every candidate has the same opportunity to win any constituency if they can persuade the electorate to vote for them, there is no built in bias as the Tories claim. So the real reason why they are doing it is to gain some kind of political advantage.
yes you keep saying this - but exactly how does having equal-sized constituencies give an advantage to the Tories?
In 2010 despite spending god knows how much, up against a very unpopular PM, full wrath of a discredited newspaper run by people with dubious ethics & facing trial to rubbish anything the incumbent PM said /policys stated they somehow managed to not secure the outright victory they seemingly thought was in the bag & so now cosied up in bed with Mr Clegg they are trying a different method to keep England in a vice like grip of CONservatism. The boundary changes would equal up constituencies therby giving the tories based on the last election 24 extra seats. On Current polls though Ed Milliband would have something like a 95 seat majority , wheras under the proposed boundary changes that would be down to about 40-55. Its been shown that the tories just cant win in places they once held when Thatcher was in power, these areas are lost, Scotland treats them with the contempt they deserve & Wales is hardly fertile ground & so redrawing the map to create more winnable seats stands to reason from a party that cant hack the fact that they need the Lib Dems to take us back to the 1880's. the discredited DR Fox is still seething at the last election result, hence his impassioned viewspaper articles.
Its a wise move bringing in the king of presentation & spin on board. One only has to look at the Leveson inquiry, one looked every inch a PM , the other just goes red, gets angry, acosts dissenters , waves his finger about a lot , insults his own MP's let alone opposition ones who are getting on in years & has no attention to detail. The Labour party is a broad church, & so its stands to reason that a fully united outfit is geared up to the task of turfing the Bullingdon boys 1880's tribute show & its stooges out & if that means getting Mr Blair in then so be it. Doesnt matter who was PM, we would still have gone to war
I did answer the question but clearly you didn't like the answer. I said every party has the same opportunity to win every constituency if the can persuade the electorate to support their policies. So the Tories have no advantage in winning a larger constituency. Maybe you can answer my question now. Why do you think labour have an advantage of winning smaller constituencies?
Ask yourself why the PM with the largest popular vote had such a small majority (it was John Major who got over 14m).
Clearly the Tories have to get more votes than Labour hence the claims that the electoral system has a bias to Labour. The Boundary Commission which is equally aware of this is apolitical - and that is why they changed the boundaries in favour of the Tories before the last election.
There is no gerrymandering over the boundary changes.
yes you keep saying this - but exactly how does having equal-sized constituencies give an advantage to the Tories?
You keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine which says a lot about the weakness of you position. Let me try you with another question: can you name a single constituency which you think is biased towards Labour or to the Tories?
There is no fundamental problem with equalising the size of constituencies if you believe in reducing people down to numbers. However, I think of people as living in communities and those communities should have to right to elect their own MP. Take the largest constituency in the country, The Isle of Wight, that is a single community so hould have a single MP. The Tory proposals would be to syphon off a small section of that community and lump it in with Portsmouth. The people of*The Isle of Wight are against it. The MP of the new constituency would no longer be able to speak for the whole community and the The Isle of Wight voters absorbed in Portsmouth will feel lost and under-represented by being considered with Portsmouth.*
Similarily for one of the smallest constituencies, Orkney and Shetland, the proposal is to absorb this community into a *mainland Scottish constituency, against the views of he people. The islanders correctly recognise that their community has individual views and issues which would be lost in a mainland seat.*
Politicians should represent communities and not numbers.*
Ask yourself why the PM with the largest popular vote had such a small majority (it was John Major who got over 14m).
Clearly the Tories have to get more votes than Labour hence the claims that the electoral system has a bias to Labour. The Boundary Commission which is equally aware of this is apolitical - and that is why they changed the boundaries in favour of the Tories before the last election.
There is no gerrymandering over the boundary changes.
Our Parliamentary system is not based on a national vote but on the result of individual onstituency elections. If we wanted a more proportional system, we would have voted for one in the referendum.*
It shouldn't be the role of the Boundry Commission to change "the boundaries in favour of the Tories" but to ensure that constituencies fairly represent communities. If every party has an equal opportunity of winning any constituency, then I don't see how any one can say that system is biased. If we want to move to a national voting system, where the percentage of the votes cast is more directly reflected in number of sets won, then that's a different matter.
You keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine which says a lot about the weakness of you position.
Sorry I was unaware that you had asked a question - but do you always answer a question with another question?.
I'm trying to leave the Political Party bullshit out of the discussion - you claimed that having constituencies of equal size is gerrymandering by the Tories, I'm simply trying to get you to explain why you believe that equal sized constituencies favour the Tories over the other parties.
You keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine which says a lot about the weakness of you position. Let me try you with another question: can you name a single constituency which you think is biased towards Labour or to the Tories?
There is no fundamental problem with equalising the size of constituencies if you believe in reducing people down to numbers. However, I think of people as living in communities and those communities should have to right to elect their own MP. Take the largest constituency in the country, The Isle of Wight, that is a single community so hould have a single MP. The Tory proposals would be to syphon off a small section of that community and lump it in with Portsmouth. The people of*The Isle of Wight are against it. The MP of the new constituency would no longer be able to speak for the whole community and the The Isle of Wight voters absorbed in Portsmouth will feel lost and under-represented by being considered with Portsmouth.*
Similarily for one of the smallest constituencies, Orkney and Shetland, the proposal is to absorb this community into a *mainland Scottish constituency, against the views of he people. The islanders correctly recognise that their community has individual views and issues which would be lost in a mainland seat.*
Politicians should represent communities and not numbers.*
Last sentence - a meaningless soundbite. Politicians should represent the interests of the people they've been elected to serve. And, whether you like it or not, "people" is a collective term that is invariably quantified in numbers.
There will always be odd geographical exceptions, but for the main part they are exactly that - exceptions. What we're talking about here is redressing imbalances in constituencies where there are no major exceptional circumstances.
200 years ago the electoral system was a shambles, with rotten and pocket boroughs up and down the country totally skewing representation. Even as far back as 1867 Parliament accepted the principle that constituencies should have the roughly the same number of voters. You seem to advocating something we got rid of 150 years ago.
I'm trying to leave the Political Party bullshit out of the discussion - you claimed that having constituencies of equal size is gerrymandering by the Tories, I'm simply trying to get you to explain why you believe that equal sized constituencies favour the Tories over the other parties.
The answer is simple it is thought changing constituency sizes so they are more equal in terms of voter numbers will adversely impact Labour who do better in urban areas which tend to have smaller numbers of voters per constituency than more rural areas.
The answer is simple it is thought changing constituency sizes so they are more equal in terms of voter numbers will adversely impact Labour who do better in urban areas which tend to have smaller numbers of voters per constituency than more rural areas.
thanks - one wonders why the other poster couldnt simply say that.;)
The answer is simple it is thought changing constituency sizes so they are more equal in terms of voter numbers will adversely impact Labour who do better in urban areas which tend to have smaller numbers of voters per constituency than more rural areas.
Wouldn't there be more people living in urban areas though than in rural areas ?
What I find fascinating about the Labour party right now is that they are terrific at explaining what they are against, and yet when asked simple questions about what they are for, they are totally and completely unable to answer.
The answer is simple it is thought changing constituency sizes so they are more equal in terms of voter numbers will adversely impact Labour who do better in urban areas which tend to have smaller numbers of voters per constituency than more rural areas.
Why break up communities? The Tories should be asking themselves why they are not winning enough urban seats in the way that Thatcher did instead of redrawing the political map in their favour.
It shouldn't be the role of the Boundry Commission to change "the boundaries in favour of the Tories" but to ensure that constituencies fairly represent communities.
Precisely my point. The current boundaries make it easier to elect a Labour MP than a Tory, and a Tory MP has it easier than a Liberal one
The boundary commission regularly evaluates boundaries and would have done so regardless of the changes Cameron introduced and it would have made it easier to elect a Tory MP.
Of course in the 1980's that bias was in favour of the Tories and so at that time the Boundary Commission changed them and favoured Labour.
Comments
It's not a touchy subject at all for the Labour Party who are proud of their trade union heritage. Are the Tory Party equally proud that most of their funding is derived from the financial sector?
I've not been a member of a trade union for over 5 years but I will always defend people that stand up for good and decent working people that try to do their best in their jobs.
No, had 50% of the electorate voted for the Tories they would have had an overall majority, however, almost two thirds of the electorate rejected their policies and voted against them. It was the same system that enabled Thatcher and Major to have a Parliamentary majority with less than 50% of the vote and they didn't whinge about the unfair electoral system.
You seem somewhat confused with a majority in the HoC and a majority of the popular vote (which no party has had for decades). I see you swiftly avoided the point that the Tories had a larger electoral mandate than the last Labour Government.
You are deliberately missing my point. Cameron would have had a majority if the majority of the electorate had voted for him. The reality is that two-thirds voted against him which is why the Tories failed to gain a majority. You are doing what the Tories do, blame everyone and everything but themselves.
But an even larger percentage voted against the last Labour Government - however due to the bias of the electoral system they got enough seats to goven.
The plain fact is that Labour need a smaller proportion of the vote than the Tories to be able to form a Government - is that fair?
You have to accept that the country voted against moving to a voting system which would have resulted in the number of seats won more closely reflecting the percentage of the national vote gained. That being the case, each individual constituency is a separate election so I don't see how it can be biased as all parties have the same opportunity to win an individual constituency election.
Tories suggest that because Labour are better at proposing policies in certain constituencies that are more relevant to people that they vote Labour it is a sign of electoral bias, most people would call it democracy. Instead of trying to win over the electorate with policies that are more in touch with ordinary people, the Tories shamefully want to gerrymander constituencies so they have a better chance of winning.
I keep hearing this from the Labour pack, but I have yet to hear anyone explain how equalising the size of constituencies is gerrymandering - do the Tories have some advantage in constituencies of a certain size?
Firstly, as every candidate has the same opportunity to win any constituency if they can persuade the electorate to vote for them, there is no built in bias as the Tories claim. So the real reason why they are doing it is to gain some kind of political advantage. Breaking up natural communities to arbitrarily produce constituencies of the same size is not the right way to revise boundaries. Of course boundaries should be reviewed, but this current Tory exercise is not being done to be more representative but purely because they think it will give the Conservative Party more seats.
I have no confidence in any of them.
I did answer the question but clearly you didn't like the answer. I said every party has the same opportunity to win every constituency if the can persuade the electorate to support their policies. So the Tories have no advantage in winning a larger constituency. Maybe you can answer my question now. Why do you think labour have an advantage of winning smaller constituencies?
You need to have a level playing field so that people are represented equally. Constituencies of radically different sizes do not achieve that. That aspect of the Boundary Commissions work has been in place for decades (i.e. across many different governments) and is an inevitable consequence of the ongoing move by people from inner city areas (which tend to vote Labour) into more rural and suburban areas (which tend to vote Conservative)
It is in the Conservatives interests to ensure that boundary reviews are conducted as the growing imbalance of boundaries gives Labour a clear advantage. Essentially, the Conservatives keep having to reset the playing field back to being level. However, that is never achieved as the reviews have to use data that is 10 years (minimum) out of date. Once again, that aspect favours Labour.
If you're interested about bias in the electoral system - more here.
yes you keep saying this - but exactly how does having equal-sized constituencies give an advantage to the Tories?
Its a wise move bringing in the king of presentation & spin on board. One only has to look at the Leveson inquiry, one looked every inch a PM , the other just goes red, gets angry, acosts dissenters , waves his finger about a lot , insults his own MP's let alone opposition ones who are getting on in years & has no attention to detail. The Labour party is a broad church, & so its stands to reason that a fully united outfit is geared up to the task of turfing the Bullingdon boys 1880's tribute show & its stooges out & if that means getting Mr Blair in then so be it. Doesnt matter who was PM, we would still have gone to war
Ask yourself why the PM with the largest popular vote had such a small majority (it was John Major who got over 14m).
Clearly the Tories have to get more votes than Labour hence the claims that the electoral system has a bias to Labour. The Boundary Commission which is equally aware of this is apolitical - and that is why they changed the boundaries in favour of the Tories before the last election.
There is no gerrymandering over the boundary changes.
You keep asking me questions but refuse to answer mine which says a lot about the weakness of you position. Let me try you with another question: can you name a single constituency which you think is biased towards Labour or to the Tories?
There is no fundamental problem with equalising the size of constituencies if you believe in reducing people down to numbers. However, I think of people as living in communities and those communities should have to right to elect their own MP. Take the largest constituency in the country, The Isle of Wight, that is a single community so hould have a single MP. The Tory proposals would be to syphon off a small section of that community and lump it in with Portsmouth. The people of*The Isle of Wight are against it. The MP of the new constituency would no longer be able to speak for the whole community and the The Isle of Wight voters absorbed in Portsmouth will feel lost and under-represented by being considered with Portsmouth.*
Similarily for one of the smallest constituencies, Orkney and Shetland, the proposal is to absorb this community into a *mainland Scottish constituency, against the views of he people. The islanders correctly recognise that their community has individual views and issues which would be lost in a mainland seat.*
Politicians should represent communities and not numbers.*
Our Parliamentary system is not based on a national vote but on the result of individual onstituency elections. If we wanted a more proportional system, we would have voted for one in the referendum.*
It shouldn't be the role of the Boundry Commission to change "the boundaries in favour of the Tories" but to ensure that constituencies fairly represent communities. If every party has an equal opportunity of winning any constituency, then I don't see how any one can say that system is biased. If we want to move to a national voting system, where the percentage of the votes cast is more directly reflected in number of sets won, then that's a different matter.
Sorry I was unaware that you had asked a question - but do you always answer a question with another question?.
I'm trying to leave the Political Party bullshit out of the discussion - you claimed that having constituencies of equal size is gerrymandering by the Tories, I'm simply trying to get you to explain why you believe that equal sized constituencies favour the Tories over the other parties.
Last sentence - a meaningless soundbite. Politicians should represent the interests of the people they've been elected to serve. And, whether you like it or not, "people" is a collective term that is invariably quantified in numbers.
There will always be odd geographical exceptions, but for the main part they are exactly that - exceptions. What we're talking about here is redressing imbalances in constituencies where there are no major exceptional circumstances.
200 years ago the electoral system was a shambles, with rotten and pocket boroughs up and down the country totally skewing representation. Even as far back as 1867 Parliament accepted the principle that constituencies should have the roughly the same number of voters. You seem to advocating something we got rid of 150 years ago.
The answer is simple it is thought changing constituency sizes so they are more equal in terms of voter numbers will adversely impact Labour who do better in urban areas which tend to have smaller numbers of voters per constituency than more rural areas.
thanks - one wonders why the other poster couldnt simply say that.;)
Wouldn't there be more people living in urban areas though than in rural areas ?
Why break up communities? The Tories should be asking themselves why they are not winning enough urban seats in the way that Thatcher did instead of redrawing the political map in their favour.
Precisely my point. The current boundaries make it easier to elect a Labour MP than a Tory, and a Tory MP has it easier than a Liberal one
The boundary commission regularly evaluates boundaries and would have done so regardless of the changes Cameron introduced and it would have made it easier to elect a Tory MP.
Of course in the 1980's that bias was in favour of the Tories and so at that time the Boundary Commission changed them and favoured Labour.