The proposed Parliamentary constituencies changes and my area of Leeds.

[York Road Lad]

The reason that constituencies vary in size is that some variation is necessary to allow them to cover recognisable communities and communities of interest. As others have pointed out, some of the proposed boundaries are quite ridiculous and make a mockery of the claim that an MP should represent a local community - usually quoted as a 'strength' of the current electoral system. What the proposals are all about is giving the Tories more seats. Sure, the boundaries currently disadvantage the Tories - but all other parties apart from Labour and the Tories are grossly under-represented under 'first past the post'. If the Tories really wanted fair representation, then they would change to a system that reflected the fact that we are now a multi-party democracy and allocated seats broadly according to votes gained. Most other democracies made the change around a century ago - and the UK almost did too in the 1918 Representation of the Peoples Act. Unfortunately, whilst both houses of parliament agreed with the need for a change, they couldn't agree on the right system - and the issue was deferred so as not to endanger other proposals such as votes for women. As a result, we are still stuck with a system better suited to the politics of the Victorian era than the 21st century.

[majorhoundii]

But will it happen? Since the failure of House of Lords reform, Clegg has said the Lib/Dems will not support the redrawal of the electoral boundaries. Labour certainly won't support it so can the Tories find enough votes to put this through? I must admit I'm not sure of the arithmetic. I've no doubt that the Ulster Unionists will vote with the Tories (at a price presumably) but will this give Dave the Kipper enough votes to get this through?

[somme1916]

This subject always re-awakens the statistician in me for some reason.At the last (2010) election.....there was some interesting stuff that came out. The LibDems got 23% of the total vote(6.8million votes approx) but only 9% of the seats(57).Conservatives got 36% of the vote(10.7million votes approx) and approx 50% of the seats(306)Labour got 29% of the vote(8.6million votes approx) and approx 41% of the seats (25 two hundred and fifty eight.....i didn't put the smiley in.You could argue that the LibDems were massively outdone.....the case for PR would undoubtedly favour their cause(well,it would have back then).Interestingly,whilst the swing in votes favouring the Conservatives was only 3.7%,the actual difference in seats vis a vis the previous election was a gain of nearly 46% ....306 as opposed to the 210 previous !Labour fared totally differently in the swing....they lost 6.2% in the vote,but a loss of over 26% of total seats down to 258 from 349.It's only fair to point out that there were some boundary changes between the 2 elections,however the general trend is there to see.The Conservatives gained massively at the last election but not primarily from a huge swing in votes towards them.Just the first past the post present system we have.Any new changes may be seen as an attempt at gerrymandering but seeing as the Electoral Commission is meant to be entirely independent,this claim wouldn't hold much sway....or would it ? Decide for yourself.Do we have the fairest system now or ?    

[majorhoundii]

somme1916 wrote: This subject always re-awakens the statistician in me for some reason.At the last (2010) election.....there was some interesting stuff that came out. The LibDems got 23% of the total vote(6.8million votes approx) but only 9% of the seats(57).Conservatives got 36% of the vote(10.7million votes approx) and approx 50% of the seats(306)Labour got 29% of the vote(8.6million votes approx) and approx 41% of the seats (25 two hundred and fifty eight.....i didn't put the smiley in.You could argue that the LibDems were massively outdone.....the case for PR would undoubtedly favour their cause(well,it would have back then).Interestingly,whilst the swing in votes favouring the Conservatives was only 3.7%,the actual difference in seats vis a vis the previous election was a gain of nearly 46% ....306 as opposed to the 210 previous !Labour fared totally differently in the swing....they lost 6.2% in the vote,but a loss of over 26% of total seats down to 258 from 349.It's only fair to point out that there were some boundary changes between the 2 elections,however the general trend is there to see.The Conservatives gained massively at the last election but not primarily from a huge swing in votes towards them.Just the first past the post present system we have.Any new changes may be seen as an attempt at gerrymandering but seeing as the Electoral Commission is meant to be entirely independent,this claim wouldn't hold much sway....or would it ? Decide for yourself.Do we have the fairest system now or ?     I can't prove it but I reckon that the Tories gained massively from Labour voters switching to Lib/Dem - obviously the Lib/Dems benefitted too. I think this was cause by disillusion over the Iraq war - it started in 2005. What happens next time is anyone's guess. Obviously in places like Leeds NW (or Sheffield Hallam for that matter) where there are large numbers of students, the LIb/Dems promise on tuition fees must have affected the vote. But presumably those who voted Lib/Dem in those areas in 2010 - will no longer be residents and new students will be there. Will they feel just as betrayed by Clegg & co? I reckon forecasting the result next time will be very difficult. However, I sincerely hope that Clegg loses Sheffield Hallam - even if it's to a Tory. Had I lived in Leeds NW in 2010 I'd certainly have voted Lib/Dem to keep the Tories out and would have felt pretty annoyed at the outcome!

[somme1916]

majorhoundii wrote: somme1916 wrote: This subject always re-awakens the statistician in me for some reason.At the last (2010) election.....there was some interesting stuff that came out. The LibDems got 23% of the total vote(6.8million votes approx) but only 9% of the seats(57).Conservatives got 36% of the vote(10.7million votes approx) and approx 50% of the seats(306)Labour got 29% of the vote(8.6million votes approx) and approx 41% of the seats (25 two hundred and fifty eight.....i didn't put the smiley in.You could argue that the LibDems were massively outdone.....the case for PR would undoubtedly favour their cause(well,it would have back then).Interestingly,whilst the swing in votes favouring the Conservatives was only 3.7%,the actual difference in seats vis a vis the previous election was a gain of nearly 46% ....306 as opposed to the 210 previous !Labour fared totally differently in the swing....they lost 6.2% in the vote,but a loss of over 26% of total seats down to 258 from 349.It's only fair to point out that there were some boundary changes between the 2 elections,however the general trend is there to see.The Conservatives gained massively at the last election but not primarily from a huge swing in votes towards them.Just the first past the post present system we have.Any new changes may be seen as an attempt at gerrymandering but seeing as the Electoral Commission is meant to be entirely independent,this claim wouldn't hold much sway....or would it ? Decide for yourself.Do we have the fairest system now or ?     I can't prove it but I reckon that the Tories gained massively from Labour voters switching to Lib/Dem - obviously the Lib/Dems benefitted too. I think this was cause by disillusion over the Iraq war - it started in 2005. What happens next time is anyone's guess. Obviously in places like Leeds NW (or Sheffield Hallam for that matter) where there are large numbers of students, the LIb/Dems promise on tuition fees must have affected the vote. But presumably those who voted Lib/Dem in those areas in 2010 - will no longer be residents and new students will be there. Will they feel just as betrayed by Clegg & co? I reckon forecasting the result next time will be very difficult. However, I sincerely hope that Clegg loses Sheffield Hallam - even if it's to a Tory. Had I lived in Leeds NW in 2010 I'd certainly have voted Lib/Dem to keep the Tories out and would have felt pretty annoyed at the outcome! Good points majorhoundii.I think what it also shows is that the Conservatives are very adept at selectively targeting certain seats(based on only a 3.7% swing in their favour leading to a massive 46% gain in seats won).Something for the other parties to bear in mind/learn from ? I'm sure their campaign managers and planning whizz kids are actively working on this point constantly.How this is further enhanced or otherwise by new boundary proposals is not something i've looked at.

[York Road Lad]

It's not just the Tories that have become more adept at targeting. Back in 1987, the Alliance, as it was then, got around 23% of the vote - the same as Lib Dems last time, but won less than half as many seats. I agree that it would be fantastic to see Nick Clegg lose next time - but it would be to the Tories. Sheffield Hallam is 'out of range' for Labour. As for Leeds NW, Greg Mulholland might be an unashamed populist, but at least he kept to the pledge to vote against an increase in tuition fees. Sadly, from his point of view, I don't think it will make much difference. Fury against Clegg's betrayal could well cost him the seat.

[York Road Lad]

Of course, I should have added that small swings between the two main parties are ALWAYS magnified into much greater swings in terms of seats. It's one of the effects of an electoral system based on the principle of electing individual MPs rather than allocating seats to political parties. As I have already said, it is a system designed for the politics of the Victorian era - not the 21st Century. No party since the second world war has won half of the votes cast in a General Election - yet governments with an overall majority have been the norm. Tony Blair got just 36% of the votes cast in 2005 - but got well over 50% of the seats. Cameron also got just 36% last time - but did not fall far short of an overall majority. Worst of all, it's not even the party with most votes that always wins. Atlee's Labour Party won the most votes in 1951 - but Churchill's Tories had an overall majority in parliament. In February 1974, Heath's Tories got the most votes - but Harold Wilson was back in Number 10.    

[somme1916]

York Road Lad wrote: Of course, I should have added that small swings between the two main parties are ALWAYS magnified into much greater swings in terms of seats. It's one of the effects of an electoral system based on the principle of electing individual MPs rather than allocating seats to political parties. As I have already said, it is a system designed for the politics of the Victorian era - not the 21st Century. No party since the second world war has won half of the votes cast in a General Election - yet governments with an overall majority have been the norm. Tony Blair got just 36% of the votes cast in 2005 - but got well over 50% of the seats. Cameron also got just 36% last time - but did not fall far short of an overall majority. Worst of all, it's not even the party with most votes that always wins. Atlee's Labour Party won the most votes in 1951 - but Churchill's Tories had an overall majority in parliament. In February 1974, Heath's Tories got the most votes - but Harold Wilson was back in Number 10.     All very good valid points YRL.......where does it leave us ? Stuck with the same old,same old where it's patently obvious the majority voice in the country doesn't always get to have a go at running the country.....fair/not fair ? I don't bother with any of 'em these days sadly.They are more interested(mostly) with feathering their own nests.Best left alone for me......the poor amongst society always seem to lose out choose whoever rules the roost....sad but true.Anyway,supposed to be nice out tomorrow...