tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post7188741481609904448..comments2024-03-20T07:12:19.838+00:00Comments on A VIEW FROM HAM COMMON: Under the new boundary changes, we would have won 10 fewer seats last year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-79083948654669972432011-09-14T11:49:28.495+01:002011-09-14T11:49:28.495+01:00Ha ha Indeed! :-)
apologies also for all the terr...Ha ha Indeed! :-)<br /><br />apologies also for all the terrible typos in my comments. Multitasking my only excuse...Richard Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546947405923306990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-26212961125499540672011-09-14T11:04:55.098+01:002011-09-14T11:04:55.098+01:00@Chris - Yes, there are differences between the US...@Chris - Yes, there are differences between the US and UK systems, but that doesn't mean there isn't a fair point in comparing the size of their respective legislatures.<br /><br />@Richard - the Guardian's analysis isn't the only thing with a hole the size of the Mersey Tunnel in it, one of their proposed new constituencies has exactly that!Liberal Neilhttp://liberalneil.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-15777933375520370062011-09-13T14:37:19.920+01:002011-09-13T14:37:19.920+01:00Ah yes Mr Pack - i know, I know...its got holes in...Ah yes Mr Pack - i know, I know...its got holes in it the size of the Mersey Tunnel. But it IS rather fun...<br /><br />and Chris - yep - quite agree. Was just shooting from the hip. There's a much better post in me about All of this. Not sure when I'll actually get to right it but still...Richard Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546947405923306990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-1510074296579222562011-09-13T14:32:28.242+01:002011-09-13T14:32:28.242+01:00US comparison is a complete red herring due to (1)...US comparison is a complete red herring due to (1) separation of powers between Federal and State government and (2) Senators are two per state regardless to size and this was to explicitly prevent small states being ignore. Representatives in the House have constituencies of about 700K people.Chris Lowenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-14243146134939554442011-09-13T14:23:27.166+01:002011-09-13T14:23:27.166+01:00The extent of The Guardian's caveats on their ...The extent of The Guardian's caveats on their own data highlight how loose a connection there is between their map and likely actual results. Note in particular the reference to assuming party support is evenly distributed across seats - it most certainly isn't in practice.<br /><br />Even more refined predictions in the past which try to account for that have a pretty patchy record (see http://www.markpack.org.uk/22591/the-perils-of-projecting-the-impact-of-boundary-changes-from-previous-election-results/).<br /><br />That's in part because Lib Dem support is much more dependent on where the party campaigns rather than the inherent demographics of an area than support is for the other parties.<br /><br />And all of that is without even getting into how political support patterns may change between now and then...Mark Packhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596137350950820090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-30070152909699796182011-09-13T14:03:00.142+01:002011-09-13T14:03:00.142+01:00Well, there is an argument that constituencies wer...Well, there is an argument that constituencies were always too small - eg there are 100 American Senators covering a population of 300 million.<br /><br />But it's an interesting issue to debate...Richard Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546947405923306990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-31093455466065764222011-09-13T13:22:33.640+01:002011-09-13T13:22:33.640+01:00yep, unclear why reducing 650 to 600 helps. Isn&#...yep, unclear why reducing 650 to 600 helps. Isn't this just a bit knee jerk to the expenses scandal.<br /><br />Also without AV or a more appropriate form of PR it means even less - larger constituencies are likely to produce a more distorted result still under first past the post - hence Greens loosing and a hard hit for the Libdems.<br /><br />Without PR this change is fairly meaningless.<br /><br />Lords reform is much more important.GHmltnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08420475365803049630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-34815790502685591412011-09-13T09:40:44.576+01:002011-09-13T09:40:44.576+01:00aha - an excellent point. There's a great post...aha - an excellent point. There's a great post in that. Boundary revisions and reductions in MP numbers was part of a wider vision of a fairer electoral system - the changes would have made perfect sense under AV!!<br /><br />I will attempt to blog on this at some point but I'm a bit stuffed workwise today so someone might beat me to it...Richard Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546947405923306990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8221901955641373488.post-50764571582227392102011-09-13T09:33:37.961+01:002011-09-13T09:33:37.961+01:00I may well be in the minority but I still don'...I may well be in the minority but I still don't understand why reducing the number of MPs is even in theory a good thing. Surely it will just lead to larger constituencies and therefore more pressure on the work loads of MPs whilst leading more of the public to feel disconnected to their MP. I also feel it will dilute the pool of people who become MPs - leading to even more elitism and less pluralism.Radarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03576211677243672083noreply@blogger.com