Andrew steps up with a pro-Cornwall amendment
The minute I pressed the button on my keyboard I thought..."better check" - and hey presto, there's an which would have the effect of protecting Cornwall's political boundary with Devon for as long as Cornwall wants to keep it. Andrew seems on some sort of kamikaze mission, as his amendment would also reduce the number of MPs not by the proposed 50, but by 150. That would probably cost Cornwall two MPs. Next question, obviously, is will Cornwall's five other MPs support this amendment?
Comment number 1.
At 17th Sep 2010, Compadre wrote:Do you remember how before Cornwall Council everyone was focussed on the logo, and afterwards we discovered that our Children's Services had been failing and we hadn't noticed? I wonder if Dornwall is just like that. Can it really be the most important issue facing the people of Cornwall? Adult Services looks like being decimated, funding for key services under threat, dead communities where all the houses are 2nd homes, churches facing wholescale collapse, rising inequalities of health, an nhs acute trust near to implosion, and the thing we want our elected representatives to be worrying about is pretending that we aren't near Devon.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Sep 2010, Graham Smith wrote:A good point, well made - although there are sound reasons for associating the loss of Cornwall's political border with consequential losses in funding. I am trying to find out what's going on at this week's County Hall Star Chamber dramas, but so far Cabinet members have been reluctant to break ranks. If you have any idea, please do tell.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th Sep 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:Least we now know the outcome of the meeting with clegg
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 17th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:It appears you've been taking your cod liver oil and experienced a massive brain cell doubling effect, Mr Smith.
For the less aquatically inclined among us could you please explain your 50-150 transition by way of step by step explanation with detailed reference to the applicability of Mr George's amendment as you proceed?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 17th Sep 2010, Graham Smith wrote:Andrew's amendment also seeks to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 500, rather than the 600 currently proposed in the Bill.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 17th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Isn't his amendment targeted at the situation in Cornwall & Scilly, Mr Smith? How do you manage to extrapolate Mr George's amendment to apply across the board in the UK? Please explain your analysis and figures and how you make them arise from Mr George's proposed amendment in greater detail.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 17th Sep 2010, Graham Smith wrote:It's the other way round, AC - his amendment seeks to reduce the total number of all MPs across the UK. On the present proposal, the loss of 50 UK MPs is generally accepted as costing Cornwall one MP and reducing the number of constituencies back to five. The loss of three times that number of UK MPs seems to me likely to see Cornwall with only four constituencies. What's your guess?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 17th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Well, Mr Smith, my guess is there's too much guessing going on.
Have you found out the number of individuals in Cornwall & Scilly, and by logical extrapolation across the UK, would be counted more than once if the quite mad, unethical, and indecent rush to redraw constituency boundaries were to proceed on the back of current unsoundly and undemocratically founded electoral rolls and registers?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 17th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:(Above post re-worked for greater precision and in response to your new found fish oil induced sparkiness)
Well, Mr Smith, my guess is there's too much guessing going on.
Have you found out the number of multiple property owning and associated individuals across the UK who would be counted more than once if the quite mad, unethical, and indecent rush to redraw constituency boundaries were to proceed on the back of current unsoundly and undemocratically founded electoral rolls and registers? (You could start with all those Westminster MPs registered in constituencies they represent but where they don't live and where they buy up houses for the sake of appearances thereby obtaining multiple constituency multiple electoral roll registrations on the back of multiple property ownership.)
Excluding non-resident multiple house owners entered on electoral rolls in Cornwall & Scilly due to current inequitable and anti-democratic Electoral Law, what is the full time resident voting age population of Cornwall & Scilly and what is the full time resident electoral roll registered population of Cornwall & Scilly?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18th Sep 2010, Graham Smith wrote:Not entirely guesswork, AC - the total UK electorate is about 44 million. Under Andrew's proposals, there would be 500 MPs in equally-sized constituencies - so about 88,000 potential voters for each MP. The electorate of Cornwall is just over 400,000 which would give us 4.5 MPs. I don't know what the electorate would be if you took away second home owners (including students? armed forces?) but I am still trying to find out. I wonder why Andrew's amendment didn't also address the issue of second home voters?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 18th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:It's all guesswork still, Graham.
Nobody - not even the Electoral Commission - has a firm and clear understanding of the numbers of the multiply registered and until that is done and each person of voting age is counted only once any attempt to reconfigure constituencies will have no credibility nor foundation in truthful and honest data.
Multiple house owners (why do you persist in using that misleading term 'second home' when, in many cases, more than two apply and a house where you don't live is hardly a 'home'?)are a clear category where the impact on democracy in Cornwall & Scilly through gross proliferation in recent years may be very severe indeed. That needs to both be known and the law changed to require people to register on the electoral roll ONLY where they live and pay 100% Council Tax. Don't you agree?
Student and armed forces registrations also need to come within more democratic, transparent, accountable and enforceable rules.
Is it correct that all armed forces personnel are actually not visible on electoral rolls? Does that also apply to spouses? Surely that doesn't preclude transparent counting and the requirement to be counted as an electoral roll entry in only one constituency?
Would you not also agree that the whole subject of student constituency voting choice needs revisiting now that student numbers and their potential to skew local council and parish council election results is now far and beyond what applied when student choice of which constituency to vote in was introduced.
To illustrate the point let's take an example within The Duchy. As you know there is huge pressure on housing in Falmouth and Penryn due to the Exeter University annexe at Penryn and University College Falmouth offering courses and recruiting students beyond the capacity of housing resources and thereby denying Cornish full time residents what should be a natural and organic entitlement to have first call on residential housing in the area. Whole streets have been commandeered and turned into HMO ghettos populated largely by students. As things now stand a large and concentrated student population suitably motivated can not only marginalise the full time residential community in terms of access to housing but could also be organised to exert undue influence in parish, council and even, possibly,UK General Elections to the further marginalistion, disenfranchisement and disempowerment of the full time residential population.
Clegg & Co should have put a root and branch review and correction of Electoral Law before any attempts to tamper with constituencies and voting systems in order to ensure that every person of voting age is only entitled to register to vote in one constituency, that being the consituency of their primary residence, whether 100% Council Tax liable, Council Tax exempt, Council Tax discounted or by way of ‘declaration of local connection' .
There's a lot of groundwork to be done before we actually have 'One Person - One Vote' democracy right here in the UK. Don't you agree?
A long overdue National Electoral Roll would enable the avoidance of multiple registration and de-duplication that has arisen, whether by accident, ignorance or attempted fraudulent election gerrymandering and whether individual or collectively orchestrated.
As you no doubt are aware electoral rolls are currently only constructed and 'held at your local electoral registration office'. As you know from your dealings with Cornwall Council Chief Executive and Election Returning Officer Kevin Lavery, it is a challenge indeed - and claimed uneconomic - for any Election Returning Officer to properly scrutinise multiple electoral rolls in order to detect and disqualify multiple voting. AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO SIGN OFF ANY ELECTION AS VERIFIABLY 'FREE AND FAIR'. A totally unacceptable situation don't you agree?
Helpful resources for your readers:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 18th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Do you have a definitive and comprehensively accurate answer to this suggested public interest enquiry above yet, Mr Smith?:
'How many Westminster MPs are registered in constituencies they represent but where they don't live and where they buy up houses for the sake of appearances thereby obtaining multiple constituency multiple electoral roll registrations on the back of multiple property ownership?'
Cameron Confirmatory:
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 18th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:In post 11 above this:
'A long overdue National Electoral Roll would enable the avoidance of multiple registration and de-duplication that has arisen, whether by accident, ignorance or attempted fraudulent election gerrymandering and whether individual or collectively orchestrated.'
Should have read:
'A long overdue single UK Electoral Roll would enable the avoidance of multiple voter registrations and the de-duplication of multiple electoral roll entries wherever they arise whether by accident, ignorance or attempted fraudulent election gerrymandering by individuals or collective orchestration by particular interest groups.'
PS Pity you don't have a post post edit facility to enable amendment/correction without clutter!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 20th Sep 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:Whatever happened to succinct meaningful observations?
Too much free time me feels the boy needs a hobby
500 MP's still seems too many
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 20th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 20th Sep 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 20th Sep 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:I hear we are having a referendum on Christmas and the turkeys might vote against it. The system looks after the system so long as the liberals are seen to try and make changes that is all that matters
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 20th Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 20th Sep 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 20th Sep 2010, Tynegod wrote:Cornwall Council in empty homes strategy
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 21st Sep 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 22nd Sep 2010, Andrew Jacks wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 23rd Sep 2010, Peter Tregantle wrote:- I wonder why Andrew's amendment didn't also address the issue of second home voters? -
I suspect because the vast majority of MPs are second home owners
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 23rd Sep 2010, AccurateChronometer wrote:Well spotted, Peter!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 25th Sep 2010, Saltashgaz wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)