Who the hell is Gerry Manderling?

[Josquius]

LONDON — Forget Brexit and the historic realignment of the U.K.'s place in the world. As of next week there will be a new topic raising the blood pressure of British MPs: the biggest redrawing of Britain's electoral map since the 1920s.

From noon on Monday, MPs will be visiting the Boothroyd Room in the heart of the Westminster village. There they will receive, under condition of confidentiality, copies of a proposed new political map with 50 fewer parliamentary seats.

The plans for England and Wales, which will be made public Tuesday (proposals for Scotland will follow in October, while Northern Ireland's were released earlier this week), are expected to put a bomb under the opposition Labour party: It is projected to lose 25 to 30 of its seats and see up to 200 affected by boundary shifts, according to an independent analysis by the Conservative peer and political reform specialist Robert Hayward.

The cull will disproportionately hit Labour seats in Wales and the north of England, at a time when the party is languishing in the polls and riven by infighting. If the plans do win parliamentary approval — a vote is due in 2018 — it would be a coup for new Prime Minister Theresa May, smoothing her passage to a second term. But with many Conservative MPs worried about the future of their own seats and disgruntled that as the House of Commons takes a cut, the unelected House of Lords continues to grow, May could face an uphill struggle to push the reforms over the line.

Every MP will be looking anxiously for their seats," a Labour source said. "For those affected, this is literally going to take over people's lives."

The Conservatives are set to lose between 10 and 15 seats, with the other losses shared between the Scottish National Party and smaller parties, according to Lord Hayward's independent analysis, which has circulated around Westminster in recent days, and appears to confirm Labour's fears of a big electoral hit.

The proposals will also trigger a months-long process of horse-trading that will pit MPs of all parties against their colleagues, as parliamentarians whose seats are going to disappear vie for somewhere to stand in the 2020 general election — like a giant game of musical chairs.

With 50 seats cut, it will be the biggest reduction in the number of U.K. MPs since Ireland became independent in 1922.

Size matters

Originally ordered by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011, the cull is ostensibly aimed at leveling out variations in population sizes between constituencies to ensure each has between 71,000 and 78,500 registered voters. Currently, they vary in size from less than 41,000 in Arfon, Wales, to more than 110,000 on the Isle of Wight (the Scottish Western Isles, and Orkney and Shetland islands, with their tiny populations, are outliers that will be excluded from the review).

The rationale behind the cut, according to Lord Hayward, is that the U.K. has "overlarge legislatures" for a Western democracy. The government argues it will make every vote more equal in value, while cutting the cost of parliament by £66 million every five years.

The number of constituencies has fluctuated in the past, but cutting 50 MPs is a radical step that Labour MPs — and, privately, some Tories — believe is little more than a Tory plot to tighten their grip on the House of Commons.

The final map, drawn up by the independent Boundary Commissions, remains under wraps until Tuesday. While the judge-led commissions from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been praised by all parties for the way they have undertaken the review, the decision to cut 50 MPs rather than just redrawing existing boundaries is set in stone by legislation passed by the last Tory-led government. In other words, the commissions' hands are tied.

Labour anticipate that the plan could bear resemblance to 2013's aborted Boundary Review, which was blocked by the Conservatives' then coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, who voted alongside Labour. Then, the seats of senior figures, including the new Brexit minister David Davis, then a backbencher, and the new International Development Minister Priti Patel, were put at risk.

But it is Labour who have the greatest cause for concern this time. On top of the threat to their number of seats, with the majority of the party's MPs in revolt against leader Jeremy Corbyn, there are fears that grassroots "Corbynistas" will use the boundary changes as an excuse to oust his critics.

The constituencies of former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie, and prominent figures including London MPs Stella Creasy and Mike Gapes, could see significant reshaping. Under Labour rules, local constituency party members would choose the new parliamentary candidates in cases of significantly re-shaped constituencies, with standing MPs potentially having to seek re-nomination against hard-left candidates.

But any such moves are still a long way off. The proposals published on Tuesday will undergo a 12-week public consultation during which the parties will have a chance to air their grievances. Another round of consultation will follow before revised plans are published in autumn next year, with final ratification by parliament by the fall of 2018.

Peer pressure

Already, however, there are signs that the plans could meet the same fate as their 2013 predecessor. Labour are fiercely opposed, the SNP also have concerns, and a number of Conservatives have already broken ranks — despite the obvious political gain awaiting them in 2020; a prize Theresa May will not want to relinquish.

"It does seem completely perverse and an utter nonsense to reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50. That's 50 people who are elected, while we continue to pump people into the unelected House of Lords," said the Conservative Chair of the House of Commons Procedures Committee Charles Walker.

Disquiet among MPs over the rapidly expanding House of Lords — the unelected chamber has gained 205 new peers since 2010 — peaked when it was revealed over the summer that Cameron had created 16 new peers in his resignation honors list.

One Conservative MP said the move had caused "significant irritation" and could hinder May's attempts to ensure all her MPs get behind the boundary changes. Some Tory MPs are also expected to push for the number of ministers to be cut proportionate to the number of MPs.

Whips of all parties are also expected to face a difficult task over the coming months ensuring favored parliamentary candidates are able to enter the House of Commons at the next election — a process that one Conservative figure said would involve persuading older MPs that the next election might be the right time to retire.

Another senior Tory, former minister Ed Vaizey, said that while there would be some "hard cases" for the Tory whips, he expected the plans to pass a Commons vote in 2018.


The redrawing of the boundaries could damage the Labour party | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
74
SHARES
66 Shares
Twitter
8 Shares
Email
Comment
Print
LONDON — Forget Brexit and the historic realignment of the U.K.'s place in the world. As of next week there will be a new topic raising the blood pressure of British MPs: the biggest redrawing of Britain's electoral map since the 1920s.

From noon on Monday, MPs will be visiting the Boothroyd Room in the heart of the Westminster village. There they will receive, under condition of confidentiality, copies of a proposed new political map with 50 fewer parliamentary seats.

The plans for England and Wales, which will be made public Tuesday (proposals for Scotland will follow in October, while Northern Ireland's were released earlier this week), are expected to put a bomb under the opposition Labour party: It is projected to lose 25 to 30 of its seats and see up to 200 affected by boundary shifts, according to an independent analysis by the Conservative peer and political reform specialist Robert Hayward.

The cull will disproportionately hit Labour seats in Wales and the north of England, at a time when the party is languishing in the polls and riven by infighting. If the plans do win parliamentary approval — a vote is due in 2018 — it would be a coup for new Prime Minister Theresa May, smoothing her passage to a second term. But with many Conservative MPs worried about the future of their own seats and disgruntled that as the House of Commons takes a cut, the unelected House of Lords continues to grow, May could face an uphill struggle to push the reforms over the line.

The proposals will also trigger a months-long process of horse-trading that will pit MPs of all parties against their colleagues.
"Every MP will be looking anxiously for their seats," a Labour source said. "For those affected, this is literally going to take over people's lives."

The Conservatives are set to lose between 10 and 15 seats, with the other losses shared between the Scottish National Party and smaller parties, according to Lord Hayward's independent analysis, which has circulated around Westminster in recent days, and appears to confirm Labour's fears of a big electoral hit.

The proposals will also trigger a months-long process of horse-trading that will pit MPs of all parties against their colleagues, as parliamentarians whose seats are going to disappear vie for somewhere to stand in the 2020 general election — like a giant game of musical chairs.

With 50 seats cut, it will be the biggest reduction in the number of U.K. MPs since Ireland became independent in 1922.

Size matters

Originally ordered by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2011, the cull is ostensibly aimed at leveling out variations in population sizes between constituencies to ensure each has between 71,000 and 78,500 registered voters. Currently, they vary in size from less than 41,000 in Arfon, Wales, to more than 110,000 on the Isle of Wight (the Scottish Western Isles, and Orkney and Shetland islands, with their tiny populations, are outliers that will be excluded from the review).

The rationale behind the cut, according to Lord Hayward, is that the U.K. has "overlarge legislatures" for a Western democracy. The government argues it will make every vote more equal in value, while cutting the cost of parliament by £66 million every five years.

The number of constituencies has fluctuated in the past, but cutting 50 MPs is a radical step that Labour MPs — and, privately, some Tories — believe is little more than a Tory plot to tighten their grip on the House of Commons.

The final map, drawn up by the independent Boundary Commissions, remains under wraps until Tuesday. While the judge-led commissions from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been praised by all parties for the way they have undertaken the review, the decision to cut 50 MPs rather than just redrawing existing boundaries is set in stone by legislation passed by the last Tory-led government. In other words, the commissions' hands are tied.

Labour anticipate that the plan could bear resemblance to 2013's aborted Boundary Review, which was blocked by the Conservatives' then coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, who voted alongside Labour. Then, the seats of senior figures, including the new Brexit minister David Davis, then a backbencher, and the new International Development Minister Priti Patel, were put at risk.

But it is Labour who have the greatest cause for concern this time. On top of the threat to their number of seats, with the majority of the party's MPs in revolt against leader Jeremy Corbyn, there are fears that grassroots "Corbynistas" will use the boundary changes as an excuse to oust his critics.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
The constituencies of former Shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie, and prominent figures including London MPs Stella Creasy and Mike Gapes, could see significant reshaping. Under Labour rules, local constituency party members would choose the new parliamentary candidates in cases of significantly re-shaped constituencies, with standing MPs potentially having to seek re-nomination against hard-left candidates.

But any such moves are still a long way off. The proposals published on Tuesday will undergo a 12-week public consultation during which the parties will have a chance to air their grievances. Another round of consultation will follow before revised plans are published in autumn next year, with final ratification by parliament by the fall of 2018.

Peer pressure

Already, however, there are signs that the plans could meet the same fate as their 2013 predecessor. Labour are fiercely opposed, the SNP also have concerns, and a number of Conservatives have already broken ranks — despite the obvious political gain awaiting them in 2020; a prize Theresa May will not want to relinquish.

"It does seem completely perverse and an utter nonsense to reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50. That's 50 people who are elected, while we continue to pump people into the unelected House of Lords," said the Conservative Chair of the House of Commons Procedures Committee Charles Walker.

Disquiet among MPs over the rapidly expanding House of Lords — the unelected chamber has gained 205 new peers since 2010 — peaked when it was revealed over the summer that Cameron had created 16 new peers in his resignation honors list.

One Conservative MP said the move had caused "significant irritation" and could hinder May's attempts to ensure all her MPs get behind the boundary changes. Some Tory MPs are also expected to push for the number of ministers to be cut proportionate to the number of MPs.

Whips of all parties are also expected to face a difficult task over the coming months ensuring favored parliamentary candidates are able to enter the House of Commons at the next election — a process that one Conservative figure said would involve persuading older MPs that the next election might be the right time to retire.

Another senior Tory, former minister Ed Vaizey, said that while there would be some "hard cases" for the Tory whips, he expected the plans to pass a Commons vote in 2018.

Ed Vaizey says changes will be tough but are bound to happen | Oli Scarff/Getty Images
Ed Vaizey says changes will be tough but are bound to happen | Oli Scarff/Getty Images
"I see why it would concern colleagues, if your constituency is going to be broken up," he said. "But a lot of us do recognize that there are huge disparities between populations in what are largely Tory seats and those in some largely Labour seats. It's an anomaly that has to be corrected."

Others are not so supportive. The Electoral Reform Society campaign group opposes the decision to base the constituency map on the number of registered voters, rather than local population figures.

"This is a risky and potentially worrying move, given that areas of greatest need and often with the highest proportion of marginalized groups are frequently those with lowest levels of registration," said campaigner and lawyer Katie Ghose, the group's chief executive. "And while we understand the desire to even out the size of constituencies, fair political boundaries are crucial to ensure our communities are fairly represented in parliament and we shouldn't tear apart close-knit areas in a rush to equalize numbers."

The government, however, insists that the shake-up is necessary and senior Conservative figures remain convinced that, with careful people management, enough potential rebels can be persuaded to back the reforms. One senior Conservative suggested that, with a retirement rate of 35 MPs in each five-year parliament, the party would have a far easier time freeing up constituency seats for MPs left high and dry than the Labour party will.

"As it stands some constituencies have twice as many electors than other constituencies and this cannot be right," said Cabinet Office Minister Chris Skidmore. "These reforms will ensure fair and equal representation for the voting public across the United Kingdom by the next general election."

That last paragraph. Sigh. Totally missing the point.
The purpose of MPs is to represent communities. Not to be random people standing for another random x thousand people.
In some urban areas fair enough, the need to adjust boundaries stands. But in rural areas to do the same.... at least they're excluding the northern isles from this.

[CountDeMoney]

When MTV wanted to make itself politically relevant to young people that didn't give a shit in covering the 1992 campaign, Senior Dumbass College Correspondent Tabitha Soren asked Bill Clinton about his favorite musician of all time.
She had no idea who "The Loneliest Monk" was.

True story.

[citizen k]

When MTV wanted to make itself politically relevant to young people that didn't give a shit in covering the 1992 campaign, Senior Dumbass College Correspondent Tabitha Soren asked Bill Clinton about his favorite musician of all time.
She had no idea who "The Loneliest Monk" was.

True story.

I think Tabitha Soren married author,Michael Lewis.

[citizen k]

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/14/style/from-mtv-to-nbc.html?pagewanted=2

MS. SOREN knows that a lot of her more experienced colleagues who work for more established news organizations do not take her terribly seriously. It is this condescending attitude that she blamed for what she said was an entirely erroneous quote attributed to her by Liz Smith, the gossip columnist.       
Shortly after the inauguration, Ms. Smith wrote that Ms. Soren was confused by Mr. Clinton's naming Thelonious Monk as one of his favorite jazz musicians. Ms. Smith wrote that Ms. Soren publicly lamented, "So far we have not been able to find the person he wants to play with -- the Loneliest Monk."       
Ms. Soren said she had never said any such thing. "Because of my association with MTV and because I'm a young woman, people are always waiting for some ditzy comment," she added. "They didn't get it through the whole campaign, so they made one up."       
(The day after the original item ran, Ms. Smith acknowledged that it had been based on a rumor.)

[jimmy olsen]

When MTV wanted to make itself politically relevant to young people that didn't give a shit in covering the 1992 campaign, Senior Dumbass College Correspondent Tabitha Soren asked Bill Clinton about his favorite musician of all time.
She had no idea who "The Loneliest Monk" was.

True story.

Woah! He could like, see the future man!    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Loneliest_Monk 

[Josquius]

I'm lost

[grumbler]

When MTV wanted to make itself politically relevant to young people that didn't give a shit in covering the 1992 campaign, Senior Dumbass College Correspondent Tabitha Soren asked Bill Clinton about his favorite musician of all time.
She had no idea who "The Loneliest Monk" was.

True story.

That story always reminded me of the one where Dan Quail, as VP, announces that he's excited to go on his first official visit, to Latin America, and notes that he is brushing up on his Latin to get ready.

[Gups]

That last paragraph. Sigh. Totally missing the point.
The purpose of MPs is to represent communities. Not to be random people standing for another random x thousand people.
In some urban areas fair enough, the need to adjust boundaries stands. But in rural areas to do the same.... at least they're excluding the northern isles from this.

With a few exceptions (mainly islands and mid-size towns), I don't think there's any real difference between rural and urban constituencies. People don't feel any particular affinity to North Norfolk or North West Durham any more than they do Bristol East or Dulwich & West Norwood.  They are almost all artificial constructs with no historical meaning.

[crazy canuck]

That last paragraph. Sigh. Totally missing the point.
The purpose of MPs is to represent communities. Not to be random people standing for another random x thousand people.
In some urban areas fair enough, the need to adjust boundaries stands. But in rural areas to do the same.... at least they're excluding the northern isles from this.

With a few exceptions (mainly islands and mid-size towns), I don't think there's any real difference between rural and urban constituencies. People don't feel any particular affinity to North Norfolk or North West Durham any more than they do Bristol East or Dulwich & West Norwood.  They are almost all artificial constructs with no historical meaning.

Yeah, no real differences, other than the fact that one is rural and the other is urban and those two areas often have largely different concerns.

edit: great thread title 

[Gups]

Yeah, no real differences, other than the fact that one is rural and the other is urban and those two areas often have largely different concerns.

What's that got to do with what I said? . Tyr is contending that parliamentary constituencies boundaries should be drawn around communities. He thinks rural constituencies represent communities but urban ones do not. I disagree. North Wiltshire is no more of a "community" than is East Ham. In fact rather less so.

[Josquius]

That last paragraph. Sigh. Totally missing the point.
The purpose of MPs is to represent communities. Not to be random people standing for another random x thousand people.
In some urban areas fair enough, the need to adjust boundaries stands. But in rural areas to do the same.... at least they're excluding the northern isles from this.

With a few exceptions (mainly islands and mid-size towns), I don't think there's any real difference between rural and urban constituencies. People don't feel any particular affinity to North Norfolk or North West Durham any more than they do Bristol East or Dulwich & West Norwood.  They are almost all artificial constructs with no historical meaning.

They do however feel affinity for their particular town/village.
Grouping them in with a few nearbouring towns- unavoidable, and generally not too huge a deal, favouritism does happen but as long as its kept local at least everyone can benefit a little. Issues that affect one of the towns generally affect the others too.
Grouping them with towns on the other side of the country- there things can get rather awry. 20 miles can be a long way and quite different issues can interest different towns.

[garbon]

I'm not a voter but as part of Islington South & Finsbury, I feel definitely distinct form Islington North. And even moreso from Holborn & St. Pancras.

[CountDeMoney]

That story always reminded me of the one where Dan Quail, as VP, announces that he's excited to go on his first official visit, to Latin America, and notes that he is brushing up on his Latin to get ready.

If I had known that about SA as well, I wouldn't have taken so many semesters.

[Gups]

I'm not a voter but as part of Islington South & Finsbury, I feel definitely distinct form Islington North. And even moreso from Holborn & St. Pancras.

Obviously not that much of an affinity. Your are either in Islington South & Shoreditch (beardy, hipster, city banker/lawyer) or Islington North and Finsbury (crazy Muslim fundie and/or sandal wearing, muesli knitting Corbynista).

[Gups]

That last paragraph. Sigh. Totally missing the point.
The purpose of MPs is to represent communities. Not to be random people standing for another random x thousand people.
In some urban areas fair enough, the need to adjust boundaries stands. But in rural areas to do the same.... at least they're excluding the northern isles from this.

With a few exceptions (mainly islands and mid-size towns), I don't think there's any real difference between rural and urban constituencies. People don't feel any particular affinity to North Norfolk or North West Durham any more than they do Bristol East or Dulwich & West Norwood.  They are almost all artificial constructs with no historical meaning.

They do however feel affinity for their particular town/village.
Grouping them in with a few nearbouring towns- unavoidable, and generally not too huge a deal, favouritism does happen but as long as its kept local at least everyone can benefit a little. Issues that affect one of the towns generally affect the others too.
Grouping them with towns on the other side of the country- there things can get rather awry. 20 miles can be a long way and quite different issues can interest different towns.

Why isn't that true in urban areas as well, if not much more so? In London we have £5m houses within a few hundred yards of dodgy council estates.