ForumGarden

How is it reasonable with a population that increases all the time that their representation in Government can be decreased ?

Boundary Reform

Pernicious Gerrymandering

Thats been happening for ages here.

Even at council level. I still remember being stunned when a councillor actually admitted that budget measures had to pass through too many people.So they were cutting back on jobs so less people were involved.

Fewer people seeing budget measures? Nobody else i know sees a problem. I find it disturbing and not transparent enough.

I am a simple soul, but as populations increase, so do the need for roads, refuse collections, Doctors, etc. etc. so why cut back on access to representation ?

Bruv;1501098 wrote: I am a simple soul


Clearly

Bruv;1501098 wrote: I am a simple soul, but as populations increase, so do the need for roads, refuse collections, Doctors, etc. etc. so why cut back on access to representation ?


It's to reduce Seats in Westminster from 650 to 600. The boundaries of constituencies are based on registered voters and not by population, first of all. It's bad news for Labour. In fact, one of the 50 constituencies being abolished, is Corbyn's Seat of Islington North. Worst affected are MP's in the Midlands.

Not to worry the ones that lose their seats can get in to the house of lords instead except maybe labour would have a problem getting in under tory rule.

On a more serious note we have a prime minister that sems intent on bypassing parliament and invoking article 50 thus setting s precedent in british democracy that does not bode well. primus inter pares indeed. This crap[ about needxing a strong "leader" annoys me intensely. Thatcher and blair were strong leaders and both will go down in history for the part they played in detroying our economy and the rise of the right bun the UK.

Momus;1501101 wrote: Clearly


I could be your straight man.

Momus;1501102 wrote: It's to reduce Seats in Westminster from 650 to 600.


To reduce seats......while the population rises ?

Think that was my concern.......and don't mention 'Registered Voters' again......cos at any time those may.....just may.....register to vote.

Bruv;1501115 wrote: To reduce seats......while the population rises ?

Think that was my concern.......and don't mention 'Registered Voters' again......cos at any time those may.....just may.....register to vote.


Population does not dictate boundaries, registered voters do. It's claimed that the changes will make constituency turn out, more equal. Yet, as we speak, the new boundaries are being drawn up, based on an incomplete electoral register. Constituencies at present can range from as little as 20,000 voters to 110,000. That leads to problems where, urban and under investment area's get shoddily represented when affluent area's have disproportionate representation due to high numbers of registered voters. It's pernicious permutation.

Pernicious......that word is becoming boring now.

MP's are still getting more people to represent, making them less accessible.

Bruv;1501128 wrote: Pernicious......that word is becoming boring now.

MP's are still getting more people to represent, making them less accessible. Unsubstantiated and counterfactual assumption. MP's become less accessible when involved in quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations for personal gain or outside interests. You'll find in many examples, those MP's with the largest constituencies, registered voters and populations, represent their constituents more diligently than those with smaller constituencies. Unless of course, you'd care to show me some evidence to show otherwise? Those MP's with larger constituencies, have greater populations, bringing about greater demand from constituents ensuring the MP has little time for outside interests and commitments.