New parliamentary map

Ian

The Electoral Reform society have produced some maps and tables of what the new constituencies might look like if the reform of Parliament goes through and constituencies are reduced in number and unified in size. Despite reducing Parliament in size, Inner London gains two constituencies. Where those two are is quite complicated if you take the Electoral Reform Societies' word for it as their analysis would create constituencies that makes Parliamentary constituencies that go across boroughs. Us West Siders would end up in their 'Kentish Town & Holloway' with bits of the Islington South and Holborn & St Pancras constituency. Bit odd if you think about it as I wouldn't expect that MPs would want to increase the number of boroughs they have to deal with and I wouldn't see us as having much to do with Kentish Town now I am too old for the Forum. Stroud Green goes into a new Haringey constituency in their model which looks a bit more coherent. The [data based on current wards is here](http://www.caci.co.uk/downloads/New_Parliamentary_Constituency_Data.xls). Press release and links to stuff [is here](http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=484).

andy

Really interesting. Looks like it creates two marginals and breaks open the People's Republic of Islington North. I suppose there are easier ways to get Jeremy Corbyn to retire, but this might do it.

Cllr Richard Watts

Interesting stuff, although I think ERS are being a bit provocative in order to generate media interest.

The problem with the Government redistributing seats this way is, of course, that they're counting voters eligible to vote in Parliamentary elections, which discriminates against areas like ours where it's more difficult to register everyone - quick turnover of people, hard to reach groups etc. We also have a very large number of EU nationals who can vote in local but not general elections further skewing the new boundaries against us.

ADGS

Registering to vote in UK elections is incredibly easy - perhaps too much so, given some of the fraud people get away with. As such, I have no objection to penalising people who can't be arsed to participate.

Papa

Makes you question what the Electoral Reform people actually know about areas they are dealing with. For example, common sense would suggest it would be a better bet to go east of Hornsey Road in with Haringey, west of it in this new Kentish Town thing. That would remove the crazy Stroud Green/Finsbury Park/Crouch Hill split down the middle thing.

Arkady

I agree with ADGS. If people can't be bothered to make the effort to participate then they shouldn't be represented.

Ali

Fine them they do in Australia where voting is compulsorary

ADGS

Also an eminently acceptable alternative, and one which would hopefully draw the centre of political gravity away from identikit Davids Miliband and Cameron. Albeit quite probably towards even more loathsome populist elements, but it has to be worth a try.

andy

Homeless people often struggle to register. Due to not having an address and all the other wonderful opportunities that come, you know, with being homeless. I think we'd certainly agree that politics, and the outcomes of politics, isn't for people like that and all in all it serves them right. That's the line we're taking here, isn't it?

wisteria53

I am a non-EU foreigner and as such can't vote in national or local elections. However, I was excited to receive a ballot for both the Labour Party Leader and Labour candidate for the London Mayoral elections from my union last week. I had been ignoring all the debates and newspaper articles re the Millibands et al. Now I'll have to catch up....

Arkady

The homeless can use any shelter's address, regardless of residency, in order to register to vote. I have helped some to do so. They are also a tiny fraction of the non-registered population. Not a factor worthy of consideration.

andy

They'll be pleased to hear that

Arkady

Stop trying to make this about something it's not. Your point was groundless. The homeless can register just like everyone else - they are not a factor needing to be considered here. Stating so is not 'anti-homeless'. Your high-horse is a lame Shetland.

miss annie

Aren't the homeless only something like 4% of the population? This wouldn't have a massive impact on the outcome of most elections. St Mungo's (and others) do fabulous work in helping them to register if they want to, but it's perfectly understandable that voting is not top priority for many homeless people.

Ali

Wisteria are you non Commonwealth either as I think commonwealth citizens can vote ?

andy

Thanks for sorting all this out. I'm glad you're in charge of everything.

twinspark

Well this is the stuff the electorate were just screaming out for! It was so popular on the hustings. Tinkering with the process and bypassing any proper debate in the house whilst brazenly pretending there's no political gain,just a fluke that it reduces the number of votes required to elect a Liberal - classic stuff. [I'm sure the blip suggesting they might have less seats under this will be taken care of] Given the 'target' is to achieve constituencies that are numerically similar - how will they maintain these numbers once the lines have been re-drawn? Will 18 & 19 year olds be bussed to other constituencies to ensure a fair re-distribution of new voters - or perhaps they'll be denied the vote if they're still living at home or until they've repaid the student loan. That Clegg you gotta love his appetite for ignoring any mandate whilst devouring all those manuals on govt., looking for loopholes - the phrase 'Risen Without Trace' could have been coined for him. [Leon Brittan must be so proud]

David

Fined for not voting? I have rights you know.

ADGS

"just a fluke that it reduces the number of votes required to elect a Liberal" - well, that's one way of putting it. But those of us not engaged in desperate partisan spinning would tend to think of it as more 'equalising the number of votes needed to elect a member of any party, as against the current massive disparity'.

As for keeping constituencies equal - well, yes, maybe they'll do that via the measures you propose in your ludicrous dystopian fantasy. Or maybe they'll just, y'know, keep redrawing boundaries as appropriate every decade or so when demographics demand it. And if you don't like that, I can only presume you also think Old Sarum should still have its two MPs.

twinspark

@ADGS which part of the electorate has been aching for this change then? When was it ever a pithy debate during election time? [Though actually they're not ignoring a mandate because they don't have one do they] I think changing constituency boundaries should require a cross-party proposal as should anything that affects the mechanics of Parliament - Queens speech, voting reform etc. These are not just for a precocious self-interested Govt of the day who prefer to announce to the media first and then try to merely explain to the House. I'm sure Nick could find an argument for Old Sarum or anywhere to have two MP's if there was something in it for him and Dave. [ he will do anything for self-promotion after all] Pluralism eh! no better veil for duplicity it seems.

Arkady

It was in the manifesto of the larger of the governing parties. That's how it works here, or at least that's how it's supposed to work.

ADGS

Right, except what is being done is the EXACT OPPOSITE of finding members for Old Sarum. You just fling accusations at random like a monkey flings poop, don't you?

As for the whole 'mandate' complaint so beloved of people dissing the coalition (and believe me, there's plenty they've been up to which I can't abide either) - do you fancy telling the governments of everywhere else with a coalition in charge, ie most of Europe and Australia for starters, that their current governments and those of decades previous are somehow illegitimate? Or is it that Britain is somehow a special case where different rules of legitimacy apply?

wisteria53

@ali: my historic compatriots dumped your tea in the bay and booted out the English in the name of independence. However, in practice they don't always like independent thinkers. So, being a union member is my first ever chance to vote in the UK.

twinspark

@ADGS @Arkady

Not sure you got the Old Sarum point - the irony bypass seems to have worked well. Never mind, for the record what Nick is doing is for him and Dave not for you or the party or the voters or the country - and is anything but fair unless you're a millionaire govt.minister. I'm listening to him fib his way at conference whilst attempting to talk tough - in a speech many of us had read before breakfast - striving for gravitas and importance but to be filed under deep and meaningless - before he scuffs of for an international photo-op. It will all end in tears, a serialisation in the Murdoch press no doubt, a renewed Trident, still no PR and a single figure poll support for the Liberals
[p.s has anybody watched Featherstone in the house? ]