City's constituencies set to change in voting overhaul
THE political map of Nottingham faces a drastic overhaul which could see areas outside the city lumped in with urban parliamentary seats.
Last night the House of Commons gave a green light to plans which will see constituencies across the UK "equalised" – so there are at least 71,000 registered voters in each.
-
Big changes: Nottingham East MP Chris Leslie could see biggest changes under the plans as his seat is 14,000 below the required level.
All of Nottingham's parliamentary constituencies currently have well below that number of registered voters, according to figures from the Boundary Commission for England.
New boundaries will not be confirmed until a review has been completed.
But it is likely Nottingham's constituencies will have to expand to include registered voters currently living in Broxtowe, Sherwood, Gedling and Rushcliffe.
Prime Minister David Cameron and his Liberal Democrat deputy Nick Clegg claim the changes are needed so every MP represents around the same number of registered voters in the House of Commons.
But Labour MPs, including those in Nottingham, claim the Government's redrawing exercise will not account for some three million people not currently registered to vote.
They argue the Government should first be encouraging those people to enter their names on the electoral roll before any boundaries are redrawn.
Nottingham East MP Chris Leslie, said: "We need to be looking first at things like automatic registration techniques – so that if you are a council taxpayer, for example, then you automatically go on the electoral register.
"Until the registration problem is addressed it is potentially unfair to redraw the boundaries in a way that does not account for such a large number of people who are not registered to vote, who are not having their voice heard."
It is the Nottingham East seat of Mr Leslie, with 57,000 registered voters – 14,000 below the required level now set out by the Government – that could see the biggest changes under the plans.
Nottingham South has 66,000 registered voters, some 5,400 below the benchmark, and Nottingham North has 63,000 registered voters, around 8,300 short.
Newark, Broxtowe, Sherwood, Gedling and Rushcliffe all have above or around the required number of registered voters – meaning they may lose some to the city constituencies.
Meanwhile Ashfield, Mansfield and Bassetlaw all have between 6,000 and 8,000 more registered voters than the required level and so are likely to become smaller.
Gedling MP Vernon Coaker – who may lose some voters from his constituency to neighbouring Nottingham East – agreed that the Government should not redraw boundaries until voter registration has increased.
He said: "When we question ministers over this their response is always to say that Labour did nothing to increase voter registration over the last 13 years.
"That's really not fair. We did a lot, introducing all sorts of measures to try and increase registration. We didn't have the impact we'd hoped for, but that doesn't stop the issue from being a problem that needs dealing with first."
Mr Coaker also warned the Government's plans to redraw boundaries would not take account of historical ties, leaving some communities split between seats in order to achieve parity in registered voters. Furthermore, he raised fears that boundary changes might be "forced through" without local consultation.
But speaking in the House of Commons, last night, Nick Clegg claimed the changes would make the voting system fairer.
"Our priority must be to ensure that a person's vote is of equal worth wherever they live in the United Kingdom," he said.
24 Comments
View all
by FW, Nottingham
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 9:39PM
“If you want a good compromise, I quite like the German system in which you vote for both constituency MPs, and a broader list of non-constituency MPs who fill up the remaining seats so that the ultimate makeup of parliament reflects the proportions of all votes cast.”
by Ted, Notts
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 8:15PM
“Sensible,
Having several MPs to represent a region means that, if one MP does not pull his/her weight with surgery work the other MPs can put pressure on him/her as their workload will increase as a consequence. A bit of competition within an enlarged constituency could sharpen things up. There is no more loss of ¿localism¿ as you call it than there is for say a state senator in the USA.”
by Ali, Tollerton
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 7:50PM
“Albert,
Oh, I agree 100% about Cameron and most of the Tory garbage that infests the Houses of Parliament, but the NEP were interviewing the equally useless Chris Leslie, which is why I was focusing on him.
My point was that Labour used to be for the working class by the working class. The nearest leadership candidate Labour have to that is Burnham but his cv is also full of non-jobs - just that he seems to be a good bloke. Did you see the leadership debate on Sky News? Virtually all the audience were upper-middle class rich kids. My heart sank. They can't possibly know how it is to struggle on minimum wage.
Your point about Cameron and Osborne and how the Tories used to have a career in industry before being an MP is a good one, but as you say even that is not really the case anymore.
Someone mentioned Anna Soubry but at least she has had a career (two in fact). Same as Nick Palmer, but he seems to have lost his way - spent too long in Westminster.
Being an MP is just a get rich quick scheme nowadays like an X Factor or Big Brother contestant. All about money and fame and a Twitter account.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 7:36PM
“Stanley, 1 MP should be allocated to 1 group of people. That would not be the case with multiple MPs for an area.
Under the current system, 1 MP is accountable to their constituents, and if their constituents don't like what they're doing they can get rid next time.”
by Stanley, London
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 6:56PM
“PR, specifically STV, does not mean you have to lose the link between MP and geographic areas. You just have bigger areas with multiple MPs. Then you might have 2 Labour MPs, 1 Tory and 1 LibDem, and so you could approach the MP you most wanted to. The current system means that an MP might be elected with 30% of the vote, with 70% alienated. Of course it might be most of the "alienated" 70% are actually reasonably happy (their 2nd choice got in), but we can't tell with the current 1 vote system.
To those that say the small party has loads of power consider the existing situation. The LibDems are the junior partner in this coalition. Who thinks that the majority of current government policy reflects LibDem policy? Government policy will end up largely reflecting the components of any coalition, and therefore most reflecting the will of the voters. The existing FTP system condemns the majority to being losers, and a select few to being complete winners, all held to ransom by a very very small number of swing voters in marginal constituencies.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 6:14PM
“Sorry to get in to the technical detail, but 1 of the things which has been overlooked so far on this thread is that, as I understand it, local public inquiries are to be abolished. This is a slap in the face for localism.
Also notice how I think 1 or 2 Lib Dem seats are being left out of the review.
I think constituencies should be of similar sizes, yes. But I am not in favour of the way in which this is being done.
For a start, as many have touched on on here, it will be based on the electoral register, and for all his rhetoric Clegg hasn't said what he's going to do about that.
On the question of electoral systems, I certainly do not support PR; STV will remove the link between mP and constituency.
And if we change the voting system, we could end up with more Hung Parliaments, and more situations like we had in May, which I believe are undemocratic; you vote for a party, but then if that party forms an agreement with another you don't know how much of that manifesto is going to survive.
So I will be voting against changing the voting system.”
by Simon Ellis, Nottingham
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 5:41PM
“The obvious qustion is why did New Labour fail to sort out the problem of unregistered voters during the 13 years that they were in power. The existing system should be reformed to ensure that constituencies are of an equal size and the excuse about unregistered voters is utter nonsense. Who knows how those people wil vote - if they can't be bothered to complete a very simple form they deserve to lose the right to vote.”
by Andyman, Derbys
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 5:25PM
“I think FW has hit the nail cleanly on the head in his statement of "there's no right answer" and again it is what would be the best compromise in this situation.
Some MP's have high workloads to high numbers of constituents, others have low workloads due to lower numbers of constituents, at least this would level this out as they all earn the same salary.”
by Friar Tuck, Notts
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 5:21PM
“Refreshing to see a high proportion of thoughtful comments on an Evening Post story!
The boundary changes can be looked at in a fairly dispassionate, non-partisan way. Do you think it's fairer that each MP represents roughly the same number of people (current system) or roughly the same number of registered voters (proposed system)? You could argue the latter, on the grounds that only people who can be bothered to register should get to be represented.
It just so happens that the former benefits Labour, and the latter would benefit the Conservatives. And since the Conservatives are the government of the day, it will inevitably happen and they will give themselves a huge boost before the next election. If they manage to defeat AV as well, that will be a huge triumph for them - better than winning another election.
That's only one reason to vote for AV (that without it the deck will be badly stacked to the right). The more important reason is that it is a fundamentally better and fairer system than FPTP. It's not proportional representation, no, but we mustn't let the best be the enemy of the good.”
by Fred, Notts
Tuesday, September 07 2010, 5:11PM
“This is a long overdue reform. The current imbalance between rural and urban votes is profoundly undemocratic. Labour's raising the automatric registration isssue is just a red herring.”