sure i had a grumble about this earlier on the EU thread. we are moaning about representation in the EU while the house of lords is growing and the number of MP's are reducing. think we are getting our priories back to front.
That was the case I believe and, because of boundary issues, it took more voters to elect a Conservative MP than a Labour MP. So I am not surprised that they have redressed the balance in the Lords after the Lib Dems in the first parliament scuppered boundary reform.
It's all got a bit arse about face, hasn't it? Surely the original idea was that you ennobled people because they had done something exceptional which the country should recognise. Then you'd gather all these exceptional people together in the Upper House so that the country could benefit from their collective wisdom. Well, that's what I thought the idea was. The recent interpretation is that you see how many hacks you need in the Upper House to ensure that you always get your legislation through with the least hassle, then you invent as many peers as you require. Anyone will do pretty much, especially if they have had a history of staunch service to your cause. So that means all ministers and all senior civil servants who were on your side. Thus is British democracy served.
I know that books been mentioned numerous times (probably by you!) so I have now added it to my Amazon wish list. I'll buy it soon, at the next Amazon splurge.
It is probably an interesting read, it is just such a pity that Owen Jones is a politically correct twat who is a key supporter of both Corbyn and Momentum, the 21st century version of Militant.
£40k to live in London? Not surprising the guy has to write books on the side to have a decent life. Good luck to him. 35% royalties on the cover price seems a little utopian. Half the things will have been sold by Amazon for peanuts in any case. You can currently buy the book for £3.58 and I'd be amazed if he got a quid out of that. More like 50p. Still, no point letting idle speculation getting in the way of a good story, eh?
I hope you are not suggesting that Guido Fawkes is being less than honest :Wideyed:. Owen Jones is still a twat though.
someone mentioned readdressing the balance in constituencies (i thought that manifestos where supposed to address that issue) anyhoo, did removing 69 left leaning seats not do that? missed the perfect opportunity for a devolved English parliament there.
It is the credit of the Conservative and Unionist party that they did not do that. The boundary issue is to do with the location and size of the constituencies. Labour tend to do well in inner cities where the constituencies are smaller and the Conservatives tend to do well in more rural constituencies where the constituencies are larger. Therefore, on average, it takes fewer voters to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative MP.
they didn't remove 69MP's (almost always left leaning )?. because inner city residents tend to vote in opposition to the conservatives there fore we need to change the boundaries? sounds like they need to change their policies. again. arse over elbow.
It's not that inner city residents vote against the Conservatives it is that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP. I don't know what the figures are now but some years ago it took on average 14,000 votes to elect a Labour MP whist it took 16,000 votes to elect a Conservative MP. What that means is that nationally Labour is over represented at Westminster.
Some more good stories from Guido, he holds all politicians in equal contempt. Milne Orders Corbynistas to “Isolate” Moderate MPs | Guido Fawkes
It's not quite as simple as that, needless to say. There is a countervailing factor, which is that Labour has many constituencies with very large Labour majorities, whereas there are more Conservative seats with modest majorities. The effect of this was illustrated most starkly in 1951 when Labour got over 50% of the vote* but the Tories got more seats and formed the government. Even if boundaries were adjusted so that all 650 seats were equal in population, that would not mean that the number of seats won was in proportion to the number of votes cast - not by a long way. And even if the seats were in proportion, it is by no means clear that would be a good thing. Another complication is that the pattern changes with each General Election. Whatever changes might be made to reflect the outcome of the last election are only going to distort the outcome of the next one. * The only time in modern UK history that one party has got over 50%, incidentally.
As ever, the Devil is in the detail. However a simple calculation of total votes divided by seats won should be broadly in balance for the two main parties, unless one has an overwhelming majority.
