On 6 Jun 2011 at 6:52am Paul Newman wrote:
Not sure if this is any more true than most of the Guardian but according to them Norman Baker will lose his seat following boundary changes
On 6 Jun 2011 at 8:25am Clifford wrote:
What a nice way of having your cake and eating it - saying the Guardian lies and then quoting it to support your case.
Having said that, I've thought Baker was finished the moment he joined a Tory government.
On 6 Jun 2011 at 8:43am 'ere be monsters wrote:
It's the ex politician in him Clifford, he can't help it. S.O.B.
On 6 Jun 2011 at 9:26am Paul Newman wrote:
For some reason the link disappeared , hope this works. I have since looked at it on Political betting and in the New-statesman and the outcome looks less certain.
New Statesman is looking at the possibility of Labour losing 50 seats in Scotland Union funding ( under a £50,000 limit ) and more seats at the boundary change. It would be the end of New Labour as a governing Party leaving an Atlanticist fiscally conservative Economically and socially liberal England. I could find it in my heart to bear the ordeal I think. Yes it could be born.
Check it out here »
On 6 Jun 2011 at 9:45am 'ere be monsters wrote:
That just confirms it.
On 6 Jun 2011 at 11:38am PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
The strange thing is that it automatically assumes that Brighton Kemptown will be merged with Lewes town (and nearby bits of countryside); and that the other part of Lewes (Seaford) would be merged with Hailsham and smaller towns/village just north of Eastbourne.
Could well be that, if any plans do go through, it would be the other way - eg Hove is merged with other nearby areas rather than Kemptown, leaving Lewes more or less as it is now.
Of course, Turkeys generally don't like voting for Christmas, so as politcial betting makes clear, it may well be the new proposals don't get parliamentary support.
On 7 Jun 2011 at 12:29am Sfb wrote:
I can see the national Conservative Party being more that happy to loose the local Lewes Conservative Association nutters thanks to boundary changes
On 7 Jun 2011 at 12:37am Marginally Interested wrote:
The information at guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2011/jun/06/boundary-change-constituency-lewis-baston?intcmp=239#data has us down as "Brighton East and Lewes" - a Tory marginal.
On 7 Jun 2011 at 6:06am Deelite wrote:
In whose world does merging East Brighton and Lewes into one constituency make any sense? Or even merging Hove with anywhere but Brighton?
Sounds like there are devious shenanigans occurring. Can't expect anything else from Tories though.
On 7 Jun 2011 at 10:57am sfb wrote:
Outgrageous! - those nasty Tories, trying to gerrymander the system and remove the pro-Labour bias that's existed since the mid-90s
It's sooo unfair!!!!!
On 7 Jun 2011 at 11:40am MC wrote:
So in your world Hove belongs with some spurious bit of the countryside and not with Brighton, and East Brighton belongs with Lewes? Why?
On 7 Jun 2011 at 11:52am Paul Newman wrote:
Oh dear me, funny how those people who wanted to sever the constituency connection altogether with PR are suddenly concerned about the integrity of traditional boundaries.
The point is to equalise the numbers so votes are worth the same .The gerrymandering took place during the years of New Labour delaying the boundary commission .Their inner city welfare strongholds were emptying but this was not reflected in elections.( And thats on top of giving Scots two votes and being financed almost entirely by vast contributions from a tiny clutch of single interest donors - Public Sector Unions )
On 7 Jun 2011 at 12:13pm MC wrote:
Please don't put words into my mouth Paul. Just because I think that the first past the post system is not fit for today's requirements does not necessarily mean that 'i want' to sever the local connection.
It strikes me that PR is much better placed to make sense of geography and population density than FPTP.
On 7 Jun 2011 at 12:17pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
AV would not have ended the constituency boundaries.
And yes, a fairer equalisation of numbers per constituency is nothing new - it was a key demand of the Chartists.
It will be up to the non-tory MPs to vote against if they feel the boundaries are not fairly drawn up.
Personally I would favour keeping the number of MPs we have now.