Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ianrobo1

economic situation is dire

Recommended Posts

Did someone mention gerrymandering?

It seems like far too modest a word for what is actually planned.

Shocked MPs told electoral plan could remove 10m voters

Dramatic implications of individual voter registration spelt out to members on constitutional reform select committee

As many as 10 million voters, predominantly poor, young or black, and more liable to vote Labour, could fall off the electoral register under government plans, the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and psephologists warned .

The changes will pave the way for a further review of constituency boundaries that will reduce the number of safe Labour seats before the 2020 election.

MPs on the political and constitutional reform select committee only realised the implications of the plans following three evidence sessions with election experts over the past week to examine the white paper which proposes to introduce individual electoral registration rather than household registration before the 2015 election.

The committee chairman, Labour MP Graham Allen, said they were "genuinely shocked". Even Tory members such as Eleanor Laing expressed surprise.

The policy has been described by Jenny Russell, the chair of the electoral commission, as the biggest change to voting since the introduction of the universal franchise.

Ministers have unexpectedly proposed that it should no longer be compulsory to co-operate with electoral registration officers (EROs) when they try to compile an accurate register, in effect downgrading the civic duty to engage with politics.

Russell warned: "It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90%completeness that we currently have to 60-65%."

John Stewart, chairman of the electoral registration officers, said the drop-off was likely to be 10% in "the leafy shires" but closer to 30% in inner city areas. He said there would be an incentive not to register as the list is used for jury service and to combat credit fraud. He said he expected large numbers of young voters would not register.

The Cabinet Office, overseen by Nick Clegg, which had already decided there would be no household canvass in 2014 to save money, is introducing individual registration before the 2015 general election. The Electoral Commission said the change would mean 10% of the electorate could fall off the register in as many as 300 local authority areas.

The full effect of voluntary individual registration will be felt at the 2020 general election because the constituency boundaries for that election will be based on a voluntary individual register compiled in December 2015.

The projected 30% fall off in registered voters, weighted towards poorer voters, would require the boundary commission to reduce the number of inner-city Labour seats because the Boundary Commission is required to draw up constituencies with the sole objective of equalising the size of the electorates and not to take into account natural or political borders.

It is already estimated that as many as 3 million people currently eligible to vote do not register even though it is compulsory to co-operate with the compilation of the registry.

Although individual registration will be introduced before the 2015 general election, ministers have said the names on the existing household register can be carried over on to the election register, so reducing the impact.

Tristam Hunt, a Labour committee member, said: "These plans show how little this government really cares about democracy or fairness. If they get away with it, the effect on the 2020 general election will make the chaotic boundary review published this week look minor. This is designed to wipe the poor and the young off the political map.

"We are moving from a notion of registering as part as a civic duty to something akin to personal choice like a Nectar card or BA miles."

Russell said the government's plans had "unforeseen consequences".

It is currently an offence, liable to a maximum fine of £1,000, to fail to comply with a request for information from an ERO or to give false information.

The Cabinet Office white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."

Roger Mortimore from pollsters Ipsos Mori warned: "It is a very dramatic change and I am opposed to it. So far there is a political effect, it is most likely to disadvantage Labour", because "people that are least engaged in politics — the poor, the young and the ethnic minorities and all those groups, when they do vote at all are more likely to vote Labour".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cabinet Office white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."

Spot ... on.

Where's the problem, Peter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Torries know they will not get in.

So the only way they can do this is by changing the voting boundaries so it suits them.

I say lets have a vote on it - after all we are all in this together....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cabinet Office white paper, published in the summer said: "While we strongly encourage people to register to vote, the government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote."

Spot ... on.

Where's the problem, Peter?

I agree as well.

However, they should not alter the sizes of constituencies based on the turnout of the electorate which this looks like it will do.

The projected 30% fall off in registered voters, weighted towards poorer voters, would require the boundary commission to reduce the number of inner-city Labour seats because the Boundary Commission is required to draw up constituencies with the sole objective of equalising the size of the electorates and not to take into account natural or political borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, they should not alter the sizes of constituencies based on the turnout of the electorate which this looks like it will do.

Agreed, they should be doing it on X total of population = 1 MP, not on X total of population who can (or can't) be hooped to vote = 1 MP.

The former is a good solution imo and gives a more equal representation per head of population, I can't see the latter getting through Parliament in that form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, they should not alter the sizes of constituencies based on the turnout of the electorate which this looks like it will do.

Agreed, they should be doing it on X total of population = 1 MP, not on X total of population who can (or can't) be hooped to vote = 1 MP.

The former is a good solution imo and gives a more equal representation per head of population, I can't see the latter getting through Parliament in that form.

Agreed. If people can't be arsed to vote, then on the face of it, it probably doesn't matter if they register or not. However, the "electorate" should be counted as the actual population, NOT the number of people registered to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the boundary changes make sense. No reason that some constituencies should be bigger than others. Not sure why anyone would disagree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched "Too Big to Fail" last night, which is currently being shown on Sky & is available on Sky anytime.

Based on the best seller.

If anyone needed to know what is one of the main reasons the global economy is in a pile of poo....then to me this docu-drams hits the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add fuel to the fire (pardon the pun) that the ultimate power has actually passed from governments to major financial mega institutions......apparently the Sun are reporting this morning...that they have evidence that JP Morgan Chase the investment bank has been hoarding oil offshore in tankers in order to remove a supply that was released by Western governments to artificially push the price up further so they can later sell the oil for a much higher price.

I was told years ago by an investment manager that this goes on... and the Russians in particular have been doing it for ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, they should not alter the sizes of constituencies based on the turnout of the electorate which this looks like it will do.

Agreed, they should be doing it on X total of population = 1 MP, not on X total of population who can (or can't) be hooped to vote = 1 MP.

The former is a good solution imo and gives a more equal representation per head of population, I can't see the latter getting through Parliament in that form.

Agreed. If people can't be arsed to vote, then on the face of it, it probably doesn't matter if they register or not. However, the "electorate" should be counted as the actual population, NOT the number of people registered to vote.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, there is the argument that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, the boundary changes make sense. No reason that some constituencies should be bigger than others. Not sure why anyone would disagree with that?

Make sense for who thats the question...! Couple of questions:-

Who would bennifit and who would not?

How would it be fair when

10 million people voted Torie and they had 306 seats

7 million people voted Lib Dem and got 57 seats.

We need a voting system that is proportionality fairer.

The Tories know the only way they can win an election to to draw up new boundaries that benefit them. Its nothing to do with it being fair, better ect ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a voting system that is proportionality fairer.

Haven't the overwhelming majority of voters at the recent referendum just flicked the collectve V's at that suggestion?

I'm not sure why you would argue against (if that's what the smileys meant?) a more equal representation of the population in Parliament? Seems a bit counter-intuitive really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, the boundary changes make sense. No reason that some constituencies should be bigger than others. Not sure why anyone would disagree with that?

Make sense for who thats the question...! Couple of questions:-

Who would bennifit and who would not?

How would it be fair when

10 million people voted Torie and they had 306 seats

7 million people voted Lib Dem and got 57 seats.

We need a voting system that is proportionality fairer.

The Tories know the only way they can win an election to to draw up new boundaries that benefit them. Its nothing to do with it being fair, better ect ect.

Yes a more proportional representation is a whole different discussion. I think it is the only system that makes real democratic sense but that is just my opinion.

In that post I was talking about the boundary changes under the current system. They are being corrected so each MP has roughly the same number of people under them.

That seems profoundly logical to me and I can't really understand why people would object to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that post I was talking about the boundary changes under the current system. They are being corrected so each MP has roughly the same number of people under them.

That seems profoundly logical to me and I can't really understand why people would object to that.

Hasn't it been done in a rather arbitrary manner, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, there is the argument that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

Stupid in who's estimation?

that's a fair question , it's not like we should make people sit an IQ test before they go to vote .. though I do understand what Risso is getting at with his post ....

However my guess is if stupid people weren't allowed to vote, there would be no Labour party :winkold:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't the overwhelming majority of voters at the recent referendum just flicked the collectve V's at that suggestion?

No - only the ignorant would make that assumption linking the AV Plus vote with that of an endorsement or rejection or PR.

However my guess is if stupid people weren't allowed to vote, there would be no Labour party Wink

Considering the in-breeding that goes on in the Upper Classes and their typical support for the Con's, I think you may have the wrong party for that

Interesting how they are scrambling for any crumbs now. While the news is great re Jaguar today, the reality is that it creates 700 jobs in a few years, a mere drop in the ocean of the tens / hundreds of thousands who are being laid off.

I see also the repercussions are starting to happen re the Financial sector screwing things again with the whole Rogue Trading thing. Despite what some were screaming on here it seems that actions like these will affect the man in the street. But of course we can only condemn the Public Sector as for some it's only them that have caused the issues .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â