Boundary change - odds on a general election in 2017?

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,179
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37337175

Seems like these boundary changes are quite good for the Tories, both directly and because of the trouble going on in Labour. May has a small majority but with Corbyn at the head of the Labour party it could be quite advantageous to call a general election after the changes take effect.

Added bonus is that Corbyn's Labour party could also use the boundary changes as an excuse to purge the 'blarites', 'red tories' and make themselves even more unelectable with a bunch of full on loonie left Labour candidates.

(please don't try and turn this into a brexit thread)
 
"quite good for the Tories" is an understatement. Look what they've done with Brighton: split the city centre into three and combined each third with a large chunk of suburb/countryside. The Greens have no chance of retaining a seat now.
 
Frankly labour are screwed with or without these changes, which is a real shame because having a viable opposition is extremely important.
 
It's long overdue to equalise the size of seats in the fptp system. I doubt we will see an election before them, there is too much to do implementing the outcome of the referendum.
 
Tunney said:
"quite good for the Tories" is an understatement. Look what they've done with Brighton: split the city centre into three and combined each third with a large chunk of suburb/countryside. The Greens have no chance of retaining a seat now.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing the boundary commission of bias? Sorting out the variance in electorate sizes is long overdue.
 
A snap election wont be held, or is highly unlikely, because it needs 75% of the MPs to support it. The fixed parliament act was a good thing to stop elections being called to suit the government politically.

The boundary changes are expected to be in place before the next election.
I wonder what would happen if a by-election was needed in one of the changed constits though, could elect an MP for a very short period of time.
 
Ignoring how one party may benefit from boundary changes, personally i think the boundaries should have been changed a long time ago. 650 MP's is likely way overboard, bringing that number down to even around 400 would save the Treasury at least 20 million a year.

Also there's no equality on the MP when some constituents have 20k people versus some that have 500k people.
 
Dolph said:
Are you accusing the boundary commission of bias? Sorting out the variance in electorate sizes is long overdue.
Click to expand...

I'm accusing the Tories of gaming the system. Changing boundaries so soon after changing the rules on voter registration is bound to cause issues. Boundaries are being decided based not on the number of potential voters but the current number of registered voters.
 
Tunney said:
I'm accusing the Tories of gaming the system. Changing boundaries so soon after changing the rules on voter registration is bound to cause issues. Boundaries are being decided based not on the number of potential voters but the current number of registered voters.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken (and I may be) but I thought that was how the system was worked out previously and for many years before that so it isn't something new. Hardly Tories gaming the system as it benefited Labour last time.
 
Tunney said:
I'm accusing the Tories of gaming the system. Changing boundaries so soon after changing the rules on voter registration is bound to cause issues. Boundaries are being decided based not on the number of potential voters but the current number of registered voters.
Click to expand...

How do you tally it with potential voters though - or are you taking into account those 16/17 year olds now they will be up for the next one. Otherwise if you havent bothered to vote before now I guess the chances are you probably wont for the next one either. All MP's should have an equal share of registered voters - the current system where each MP vote is not equal is unfair to those in large constituencies
 
I listened to the fuss on R4 Today programme yesterday and couldn't understand Labour's position. The boundary change review was voted through in January 2013, at which time I assume the timetable for choosing the register was made. The EU referendum was announced February 2016 by which time the register had already been compiled and selected following 2015 general election. Ok a newer register now exists as of June 2016 but the process had already started on an agreed basis prior to that register update being predictable.

Ultimately the process is doing what it is supposed to and we're getting a lot of whinging from a party that is going to lose an unfair advantage it has had. My heart bleeds.

edit: mistake didn't get voted through in 2013.
 
Last edited:
I heard something about a couple of hundred more lords being snuck into the upper chamber (or something?)

Ok, maybe it was 22?
 
Tunney said:
I'm accusing the Tories of gaming the system. Changing boundaries so soon after changing the rules on voter registration is bound to cause issues. Boundaries are being decided based not on the number of potential voters but the current number of registered voters.
Click to expand...

How do you determine the number of potential voters without using the voter registration process?

If only the lib dems hadn't voted against their own pledges in 2013, this would be longreat done now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom