What a load of rubbish. Birdwell is to be represented by the same MP as ravenfield and mexborough. Crofton and Walton to share with Bolton Clayton and Thurnscoe to share with tickhill Cawthorne to share with lowedges in shitfield How can people be represented when the makeup of these areas and the needs and wants of the areas differ so greatly? How can an mp looking after the interests of people living in Crouton in Wakefield also represent the needs of somebody living in Bolton on dearness in Rotherham? The areas are so vastly different and so vastly spread out and cross boundary that it can't be in the interest of the public. Tory gerrymandering in action?
Your spellchecker is working overtime The new boundaries would make it much easier for a conservative government to win an election.
Im so fkn angry at the Liberals for not making the most of the best opportunity we'll probably ever have had to get rid of this appalling electoral system. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
There is only 1 reason for proposing these changes as you say, and that is to favour the Tories and strengthen their hand. Perhaps they're more frightened of labour than they're letting on. Just wish the ordinary people of this country would wake up and smell the coffee before it's far too late.
The bigger scandal by far is that they are based on numbers of registered voters rather than population. Thus, those disenfranchised by temporary work, housing, social deprivation (mostly labour's target market) are not included. Many voters (I think I read 2 million) registered to vote in the run up for the referendum, but, surprise surprise, the tories don't want to include them in the figures.
Its not just the Labour seats that are going - other parties are losing seats including 17 Tory (the size of the majority), but many are merging or having boundaries altered and that could affect the outcome of the vote in that area. As an example, you could have two constituencies for Labour that merge - leaving one MP, and one Tory split giving 2 MPs without affecting the overall number of seats but giving an advantage to one party. It might balance out, but I suspect not.
The Boundary Commission in effect consists of three independent members, the chair of whom is a High Court Judge. They are directed to make their recommendations without regard to voting patterns in the areas affected. The recommendations may or may not be accepted by Parliament but may not be amended. The relevant legislation requires that the electorate under consideration must be that which was registered at the time the review commenced. In the case of the current review that would have been the electorate registered before the register for the referendum was completed. I can see no evidence that the commission in this case has departed from the principle of independence or that they are not considering the electorate in the format required by statute. So while the current recommendations (which are still to be publicly consulted upon before being finalised for parliamentary consideration) will undoubtedly have an effect on the parties in one way or another, there seems little to support the idea that this is as a result of bias.
a. If people can't be bothered to register to vote then they have no cause for complaint if the political system doesn't work in their favour. b. The electoral Commission's findings, when questioned about the missing 2 million, is that those registrations in the lead up to the referendum were spread pretty evenly across the country, so including them would not have a drastic effect on the split of constituencies when compared to what the current proposal is. c. It is not up to the Tories whether to include them or not.
a) moralising about those who deserve a vote is completely out of place. There are many factors affecting this, not just being 'bothered'. People who due to precarious finances etc do not have the luxury of a permanent residence, for instance. Much of the austerity policies of the last few years have meant that many have felt like they have been neglected by politics and politicians, as evidenced by the huge rise in votes in the referendum in which people had the chance for a simple vote, 'yes' or 'no' which meant as much as anyone else's vote. This is not just a matter of being 'bothered'. Besides, the right of every citizen to vote, whether they exercise it or not, is central to democracy and should be counted as such. b)really? spread how? geographically? demographically? please elaborate. c) come on. this is a tory policy which benefits tories and is opposed by all the other parties.
Will MPs be able to claim even more exorbitant expenses under this, they may need a house in both areas or maybe a spa stop to recuperate after such gruelling 45 minute journey between the two areas, perhaps a masseuse to help them through their back breaking day
I now live near Nottingham. Watching the local news the other evening they were showing the effects of the proposals. Labour areas are basically being split up and divided into safe Tory areas. If it goes through I’m likely to have the delightful Anna Soubry as my MP! And the venue for the consultancy meeting, where most of the effects are in the Nottingham area….is in Derby!
