Despite the Liberal Democrats saying they intend to vote against its implementation the boundary commissions are still legally obliged to continue with the boundary review process and tonight the English boundary commission release their revised proposals. Given the unlikelihood of them coming to pass they may end up being more of academic interest than anything else, but they are available for perusal on the BCE’s website here.

Unlike the Scottish Commission, whose revised proposals had mostly very minor changes, the English Commission have made some substantial changes from their original proposals. Some of the oddities in the provisional recommendations have been altered. For example, Sutton Coldfield is now in a single seat, Leigh now remains in Leigh, Salford and Eccles has been resurrected, the ludicrous Mersey Banks seat is confined to just one of the banks of the Mersey, Henley no longer has the inaccessible Radley ward added onto it (actually, it does!), the proposed Gloucester seat does now include Gloucester City centre.

The English Boundary Commission has accepted the use of split wards… but only in Gloucester (in order to get around the problem of Gloucester City centre). Most observers had expected the most likely split wards to be in Cheshire, where the cumbersome ward boundaries the Commission was sticking to have actually already been abolished. In the event the Commission stuck with them.

Looking at some other interesting changes, the strange pairing of Edmonton & Chingford in North-East London has been abandoned, although Iain Duncan Smith’s seat still gets carved up, and the new Chingford would still be a marginal. Instead of crossing the Lea Valley the new proposals join Bethnal Green with Shoreditch and Tottenham Hale with Edmonton.

In the South East Eastleigh returns, as does a Romsey seat. Brighton Pavilion is back, but is notionally Labour on the new boundaries, and Lewes is resurrected as Lewes and Uckfield, although the new seat would be notionally Conservative.

North Yorkshire, where all the existing seats are within quota and could have been left alone, is now left alone. David Davis’s seat is still abolished, being divided between Goole and Hull West. Grimsby is now split between two seats – Grimsby North and Barton and Grimsby South and Cleethorpes. Both would be notionally Conservative.

The name of Nadine Dorries’s Mid-Bedfordshire seat returns, but the seat doesn’t really – the proposed Mid-Bedfordshire and Harpenden seat is mostly made up of the old Hitchen and Harpenden. George Osborne’s Tatton hadn’t really gone anywhere either, but is once again called Tatton. Malcolm Rifkind’s Kensington seat is back. The new Hampton seat is actually mostly made up of Vince Cable’s Twickenham seat, and will have a solid notional Lib Dem majority, so he would have somewhere to go too. There are plenty of other substantial changes across the country.

The overall partisan effect of the revisions is to make the proposed boundaries slightly better for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives than those originally proposed. The Liberal Democrats would have notionally won 4 more seats in 2010 than on the original proposals, the Conservatives 3 more seats, Labour 7 fewer. I will put up full notional figures in the next couple of days once I’ve been through and checked them all. Essentially though, depending on what the Welsh commission produce next week it looks likely that these boundaries would have delivered a Conservative majority at the 2010 election.

The boundaries now go out for another round of public consultation, after which the boundary commissions will make further changes or confirm them as their final recommendations. They are due to report by October 2013 at the latest, though given their progress so far they may well be done sooner. After that they submit their reports to the Secretary of the State (ironically enough, Nick Clegg in this instance) who must lay them before the House of Commons and then put a draft Order in Council before the House to implement them… at which point it looks likely that the Commons will vote them down, and the next election will be fought on the old boundaries.

The Liberal Democrats are adamant that they will vote against the boundaries. The Conservatives continue to say they believe that some sort of deal may be possible. We shall see. What we do know is that unless primary legislation is passed to prevent it, the Parliamentary vote on the boundaries is unavoidable.

UPDATE: I have put the notional figures online as a Google spreadsheet here. This is a first draft, so I can’t vouch for it being perfect yet – let me know if there is anything that looks downright wrong!

UPDATE2: Made a few corrections to the notionals for Basingstoke, North West Hampshire and Ludlow and Leominster. These are still draft figures, so if anyone else spots anything odd please let me know.


239 Responses to “Revised boundary recommendations for England”

1 2 3 5
  1. Why does this thread not have the St George’s Cross in the banner? :-)

  2. Essentially though, depending on what the Welsh commission produce next week it looks likely that these boundaries would have delivered a Conservative majority at the 2010 election.
    ——————–
    … Assuming everybody had voted the same way, despite most of the seats & some of the MPs being different.
    8-)

  3. “The Liberal Democrats are adamant that they will vote against the boundaries. The Conservatives continue to say they believe that some sort of deal may be possible”
    _____

    They got the post of Deputy PM and that obscure AV thing, what more do they want? A trip to the seaside?

  4. I can see the libs giving in on this. They have not stood up for anything else so far. No doubt some notional “its better for us” and their followers will lap it up.

  5. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “they believe that some sort of deal may be possible”

    Your cynicism as to this must be deeply deprecated. After all Cameron has demonstrated today his ability to achieve some sort of deal by conceding every important aspect.

    For shame, sir!

  6. Again I am wondering who is going to support the Conservatives on this. There don’t seem many obvious interested candidates to help push this through, with enough seats to help significantly. Which shows (again) why 306 wasn’t enough for a minority government, and the LD’s were the only choice for a workable coalition.

  7. OLDNAT

    I can’t help taking a pop at the Libs. I do like them though!! :)

  8. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    “I can’t help taking a pop at the Libs. I do like them though!! ”

    I like both of them too.

  9. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Both the Lib Dems seem to have some kind of plan. Pity that they won’t have any MPs who actually believe in it – whether its the remaining couple of LD MPs from Scotland, or the majority of the Federal Party who are wholly disinterested in it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19957358#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  10. “The overall partisan effect of the revisions is to make the proposed boundaries slightly better for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives than those originally proposed.” What a surprise!

    Latest YouGov / The Sun results 15th Oct – CON 34%, LAB 43%, LD 9%, UKIP 7%; APP -33

  11. YouGov –
    Con 34, Lab 43, Lib 9, UKIP 7

    Deficit reduction questions –
    Good or bad for the economy?
    Good – 32
    Bad – 51

    Fairly or unfairly?
    Fairly – 26 (+3)
    Unfairly – 60 (-3)

    Necessary or not?
    Necessary – 55 (+1)
    Unnecessary – 32 (+1)

    Too deep/shallow/just right?
    Too deep – 45 (+2)
    Too shallow – 13 (-1)
    About right – 25 (+2)

    Too quickly/slowly/right pace?
    Too quickly – 47 (nc)
    Too slowly – 13 (-1)
    Right pace – 25 (+2)

    Having an impact on your life?
    Impact – 63 (-2)
    No impact – 29 (+4)

    Who is most to blame?
    Coalition – 28 (+1)
    Labour – 36 (nc)
    Both – 26 (-1)
    Neither – 5 (+2)

    Labour are winning the arguments over painful/unfair/too fast/etc but people still view the deficit reduction as necessary and still largely blame Labour for it.

  12. Well the boundary commission are to be commended on their decision to publish results in a way that is designed to hide the detail from non politicos. Not know the name of your new constituency? Then tough. Postcode search anyone?

  13. 36% blame Lab and 28% blame Coalition…but 26% blame both.

    The question is, those who blame both 28% or neither 5%…who will they vote for?

    And will blaming Lab more than Con or LD (which seems logical to me) actually mean they won’t vote Lab?

  14. Eventually had to look it up in a non alphabeticised spreadsheet by searching for the district council name. It was in the basement in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused toilet, with as sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.

    Surely some of the budget that they’re wasting could have been spent on actually making public access a priority.

  15. I think if I were answering the polls questions I would blame Labour for the deficit on the grounds that it was their watch, I would also agree that deficit reduction was necessary.

    But I will be voting Labour.

  16. The Northern Ireland ones are also out today. The main change, as I predicted on the East Antrim constituency thread, is that in the mid and south Antrim areas, instead of having north/south seats, they’re planning to have east/west seats. That makes far more sense.

    In Northern Ireland, if they’re not going to use the new boundaries for Westminster, they should at least make use of them for the local assembly. There is a widespread feeling that with 108 members, the NI assembly has too many members. Having 80 members, 5 elected from each of the 16 constituencies proposed under this review, would probably work. There’s no reason at all why they have to have the same boundaries for Westminster and the Assembly. They don’t in Scotland.

  17. If the Tories had not got greedy and gone for the 50 seat reduction (I know AW hates the Gerry Mandarin accusation, so I won’t make it) I’m sure they could have got the seats equalised with no problem.

    But of course if they weren’t getting rid of a load of seats, it couldn’t affect one party far worse than the other, could it?

    I still think two things could still happen (probably a circa 40% probability for both)…the changes could get voted through and the Scots could vote for independence.

    It would be just the Tories luck to still lose as their vote shrinks more and more!

  18. Nickp

    If the Tories hadn’t been pig headed and killed lords reform and been so nasty about AV these new boundary would be voted through. They really do have a something for nothing culture!!

  19. @nickp

    Yes, ive got a feeling hat the libdems will cave in on this
    Could you remind me what it was that they wanted in return, that they did not get ? Ive forgotten.

  20. @NickP

    “The question is, those who blame both 28% or neither 5%…who will they vote for? ”

    UKIP / Green / SNP / PC perhaps?

  21. ‘They got the post of Deputy PM and that obscure AV thing, what more do they want? A trip to the seaside?’

    Aw, that would be sweet. They could make a directly elected Senate out of sand.

  22. @RiN
    yes, of course — Lord’s reform.
    thanks.
    :-)

  23. Re deficit/debt/the economy – this article is interesting – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9610568/Paul-Krugman-attacks-mad-austerity-policies-in-Britain.html

    Obviously many will not support what Krugman is saying, but I was struck by his means of communicating his message – and feel that this is an effective communication line for Labour to adopt.

    The attack on Labour (‘borrow, borrow, borrow’) is simple and effective, and this is why Labour is struggling to win the narrow economic argument, despite deep discontent with the Tory strategy.

    Krugman’s approach is equally simple and attempts to counter the apparently intuitive notion that reducing deficits now is unfettered ‘good thing’ by claiming that this will damage us over the next decade and a half.

    If Labour can get this message distilled into one or two easy sentences, that can be added to the powerful ‘too far and too fast’ line, then they may have a chance to counter the much more simple government line.

    The public now lag behind the economists on the interpretation of where the economy is now, but converting an apparently counter intuitive economic strategy into a simple political soundbite is Labour’s key communications challenge.

  24. I think I saw some Tory Hack on the DP base His argument for boundary change on the number of voters it took to elect a Conservative MP being more than Labour .Of course while this is true it begs the question why it takes 5 times as many voters to elect a LD or 20 times to elect a green.

    Can I now expect the Tories defence of the proposed get us elected boundary changes will be that it is simply a precursor to PR!

  25. Steve – it is what Anthony said to paraphrase – supporters of FPTP argue that the system justifiably favours the more popular parties in order to make majority hence stable Governments more likely.
    Once one justifies FPTP on this basis it should not favour one party with OM potential over another.

    You and I may not agree with this but it does have some intellectual veracity.

  26. Alex

    Krugman is a pretty useless economist, he didn’t see the crisis coming and believes that a bit of spending is enough to get things going. By this point it should be obvious to any thinking person that what’s needed is a comprehensive overhaul of the entire system. Stimulus packages are just a temporary fix which solve nothing, to really move forward we need to elimate the burden of private debt and break the banks control over money supply. Private debt can never be paid down to a more normal level because its just too large(there are also monetary problems) the only way is massive defaults and bankruptcies followed by govts spending new debt free money into the economy.

  27. RiN

    A property price crash would achieve a lot of what you want. All it needs are banks that won’t lend (check), fear about jobs (check), unemployment going up (check), inflation going up (check) and interest rates rising (watch this space).

    Debt write off and repossessions and no way to recoup losses galore! We’ll all be dancing in the streets.

  28. Any legs in the report in the independent of Mr Cameron with holding e-mails from Leveson…

    Is it going to reflect on “no inappropriate contact” will it make any difference to Mr Cameron and polling, will it change anything or are the lines already drawn?

  29. It would not surprise me if the Lib Dems negotiated a deal with the Tories on boundary changes. Not sure what they would want in return. I don’t think state funding of parties will be part of it. But a HOL reform compromise, votes for 16 years old, plus some other Lib Dem manifesto issues not in the coaltion agreement to be introduced, may be part of a package. Trouble is, can they trust Tory backbenchers to go along with any deal.

    I think negotiations on this are ongoing and I would not take any position stated by the parties as being fixed.

  30. Alec

    The public now lag behind the economists on the interpretation of where the economy is now, but converting an apparently counter intuitive economic strategy into a simple political soundbite is Labour’s key communications challenge.

    I think the real problem isn’t the public lagging behind, but the politicians (including Labour) and their fellow inhabitants of the Westminster Bubble. Most of what has happened over the last few years has been completely predictable. But the market-worshippers simply have no idea how to cope except to call for more human sacrifices (though not from their own ranks) to appease their god.

    Labour could use a simple way to attack this – “It’s hurting, but it isn’t working” – and a simple policy – more taxes for the better off – with accompanying rhetoric about everyone having to make sacrifices. But they are too scared of upsetting the vested interests and perhaps too personally satisfied with the current situation.

  31. Incidentally the “Westminster Bubble” does not refer to “Central and Westminster” which was one of the erstwhile Cheshire wards that made up the notorious Mersey Banks proposed constituency. Despite the posh name, it was basically Ellesmere Port – but then if the Wirral is about anything it’s about pretending to be posher than you are.

    I presume the BCE was tied into having to use what Anthony rightly calls the cumbersome old boundaries because of having treat everything as if it was frozen at December 2010, before the new smaller wards came into effect. And they have now ruined my joke about Mersey Banks being Lily Savage’s stripper name by adding “and Weaver” to it. Actually adding “and” something to names seems to be one of the main ways Boundary Commissions always placate their critics – I suspect they leave them off deliberately in the first place.

  32. Talk about moving the goal post to score a goal.all done to do labour out of a win

  33. NickP – I suspect it would have been easier to get through without the 50 seat reduction, yes. However, it would still have had a similar effect, and would still have hurt Labour far more than any other party (it may have had marginally less effect because there would have been greater inertia in the system, but it would be unlikely to make that much difference).

    THe simple fact is that, on average, the electorate in Tory areas grows faster than in Labour areas, meaning that adjusting boundaries to make seats more equal has always favoured the Tories.

    Look, for example, at the three previous reviews, when there was not a reduction in the number of MPs:

    The 5th review, which came into effect in 2010, increased the number of Conservative seats by 16 and reduced the number of Labour seats by 12, for a net Tory gain over Labour of 28.

    The 4th review, which came into effect in 1997, increased the number of Conservative seats by 7 and increased the number of Labour seats by 2, for a net Tory gain over Labour of 5 (regarded as a huge success for Labour, who comprehensively outperformed the Conservatives at the inquiry stage)

    The 3rd review, which came into effect in 1983, increased the number of Conservative seats by 20 and reduced the number of Labour seats by 8, for a net Tory gain over Labour of 28.

    The net effect of the boundaries as they currently stand is to give the Tories a net gain over Labour of 31 (Tories lose 4, Labour lose 35) though the provisional recommendations were rather good for the Conservatives in Wales, so unless they are very lucky with the revised ones I would expect the revised Welsh boundaries to be better for Labour – and for the Tories to end up with a net gain very similar to that from the 3rd and 5th reviews.

    Steve/Jim Jam – what Steve points out does pull apart the “number of votes to elect an MP” argument though. Votes per seat is not a good way to illustrate whether FPTP is working in a way that is fair to both the largest parties, because not even its supporters would claim it is supposed to be proportional – it favours bigger parties and punishes smaller ones (as you say, FPTP is never fair to smaller parties, but that’s a feature not a bug – it is part of its attraction to its supporters and one of its failings to its detractors).

    The party that comes top does better under FPTP, its how it works. It see if it is treating both main parties fairly you need to look at whether they would win the same amount of seats *if they got the same number of votes*.

  34. @RiN – “Krugman is a pretty useless economist…”

    With all due respect, this kind of comment from an anonymous online poster regarding a Nobel Prize winning economist is a bit weak. Probably best to add something like ‘in my estimation…’?

    I also think there needs to be some respect given to Krugman for predicting in the aftermath of the crash that coordinated austerity was going to end in tears, when it was very much against the mainstream view. Krugman also has many views on banking and to characterize his views as merely calling for a bit of stimulus is also unfair, in my view.

  35. Nickp

    You might have noticed that the BoE and the govt are desperate to avoid a houseprice crash. The worry is that it will happen in the next parliament and lead to a super radical right-wing govt in 2020. Once it happens the succeeding govt will be able to push through any policy it wants because folk will be desperate. I really hope that labour don’t win in 2015

  36. Alex

    Krugman hasn’t won the Nobel prize for economics, that’s not possible because such a prize does not exist. I presume you are talking about the ” Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” which was first awarded in 1969 and has always been awarded to idiots especially those that believe in unfettered free markets. The fact that he won this prize is the major evidence that he is not a serious economist

  37. @Tojim – I don’t know if these reports will cause any ripples in Downing Street. On the face of it, it looks odd to withhold such contacts, but No 10 advisers are stating that Cameron took personal legal advice which was that as the contents of the withheld emails was not relevant to the inquiries terms of reference, they did not have any obligation to release them.

    I’ve reprinted the Leveson ToR below;

    “Terms of Reference

    Terms of reference for Judge-led Inquiry

    Part 1

    1. To inquire into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, including:
    a. contacts and the relationships between national newspapers and politicians, and the conduct of each;
    b. contacts and the relationship between the press and the police, and the conduct of each;
    c. the extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed including in relation to data protection; and
    d. the extent to which there was a failure to act on previous warnings about media misconduct.

    2. To make recommendations:
    a. for a new more effective policy and regulatory regime which supports the integrity and freedom of the press, the plurality of the media, and its independence, including from Government, while encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards;
    b. for how future concerns about press behaviour, media policy, regulation and cross-media ownership should be dealt with by all the relevant authorities, including Parliament, Government, the prosecuting authorities and the police;
    c. the future conduct of relations between politicians and the press; and
    d. the future conduct of relations between the police and the press.

    Part 2

    3. To inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other newspaper organisations and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data.
    4. To inquire into the way in which any relevant police force investigated allegations or evidence of unlawful conduct by persons within or connected with News International, the review by the Metropolitan Police of their initial investigation, and the conduct of the prosecuting authorities.
    5. To inquire into the extent to which the police received corrupt payments or other inducements, or were otherwise complicit in such misconduct or in suppressing its proper investigation, and how this was allowed to happen.
    6. To inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at News International and other newspaper organisations, and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to any failure to investigate wrongdoing at News International
    7. In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies – and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken.”

    I’m no lawyer, but to me, point 1a would certainly appear to require full disclosure, as any emails between a leading politician and senior media executives would normally be regarded as part of the ‘practice and culture’ of contacts between national newspapers and politicians.

    As these emails were presumably quite embarrassing – otherwise they would have simply been released I would assume – I guess the question of damage will come down to whether they are eventually exposed. Even relatively minor embarrassments take on a larger than life appearance if the protagonists are seen to be attempting to suppress evidence, so this could yet be highly damaging.

    Not as damaging as dead badgers, however. Conservatives – beware the badger parade.

  38. I like Krugman cos he says what I want to hear.

    As for FPTP and AW’s “if it is treating both main parties fairly you need to look at whether they would win the same amount of seats”, er….who says so?

    Surely we want to be governed by a party that commands support and wins seats all over the UK? If FPTP is “designed” to give us strong Government, then surely the constituency system is “designed” to give all parts of the UK a say?

    “Fixing” the boundaries because they favour Labour ignores the fact that it favours Labour because all the Con voters like to huddle together having country suppers in the South. Nobody ever “agreed” that FPTP was designed to give us strong government, in fact I thought MPs were supposed to represent their constituents first not their parties. If something needs “fixing” it is probably that.

  39. @Rin – from Wiki – “The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, but officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics, generally regarded as one of the most prestigious awards for that field.”

    It’s run by the same Swedish Royal Academy of Science who run the original Nobel prizes and is awarded “in accordance with the rules governing the award of the Nobel Prizes instituted through his [Alfred Nobel’s] will”.

    It is, by common acclaim, a Nobel Prize.

    I just think that sometimes we can all get a bit carried away by our own self importance. Calling anyone an ‘idiot’ on UKPR is unpleasant – you would probably be moderated if you referred to another poster like that – but to apply it to a highly respected economist, especially when we have no record of your own achievements, positions and publications in economics, is to be honest, a little embarrassing.

    Disagree with people by all means, but providing reasoned debate on the issues is a better way to swing arguments than simple name calling.

  40. You know what I think about Cameron and Phone Hacking. If he is withholding emails I want them released.

    But as AW would say…it’s not what I think it’s the polls.

    I would say this though…the cover-up is always worse than the crime. What I imagine those emails say is probably far worse than any more “country supper” gushing would be.

  41. Alex

    Maybe I did overstep the mark, but it could be argued that we wouldn’t be in the situation we are now if that prize had not been invented. It has given legitimacy to the ideas which have led to our current situation. The more I read the ideas of former winners the more I’m appalled by their apparent insanity. Of course I could be persuaded to reconsider my views on the “Nobel” economics prize if it were to be awarded to Steve Keen.

  42. I don’t doubt that Cameron will try to do a deal with the Lib Dems to get the boundary change through….but I think it will be very difficult. I mean, he’d surely have to offer something pretty enticing to get the Libs Dems to vote through something that will punish them further at the next GE? What could he really offer them that would result in an agreement? I can’t really think of anything that would compensate the Libs adequately for any losses.

  43. Anthony

    Has any work been done to assess the effect of double registration upon boundaries? Students in particular will tend to be almost certainly on the register at their parental home, even though their main residence (where they live for most of the year) is where they study and where they will also possibly be registered.

    As most students are middle-class this will tend to inflate the electoral rolls in suburban areas – perhaps by a few thousand in each such constituency as there may be up to a million students living away from home (census figures don’t seem to be out yet). So it could be that allowing this double registration increases Conservative representation.

  44. Roger Mexico – “Labour could use a simple way to attack this – “It’s hurting, but it isn’t working” – and a simple policy – more taxes for the better off “.

    Like in France you mean?

    The following from today’s Times online :-

    “President Hollande was accused of driving France’s greatest talents abroad yesterday after a spate of industrialists, artists and actors said that they were moving to countries such as Britain.
    With the Socialist head of state seeking to curb the French deficit through tax hikes for the rich, critics warned of a “massive exodus”.
    Laurence Parisot, the head of the French Employers’ Federation, said: “Our country is, alas, becoming less and less attractive with every passing month whilst our neighbours are trying to become more and more attractive.”

    How long before he U turns and/or the French socialist experiment turns into a disaster & rubs off on Balls & Milliband?

  45. @RiN – I appreciate your last post.

    Had you said ‘all economists are idiots’ I might have applauded, but to pick on just one was a little unfair…….

  46. roger mexico

    I think basing constituemcy sizes on the electoral roll is fundamentally flawed. Should be based upon population size.

  47. I’ve just seen Chris Bryant on BBC demanding to see the Cameron-Brooks emails and I’ve gotta say he doesn’t seem to be very clear about what he wants and why. He came across as a fool wanting the public to see “salacious” emails so that they could make a judgement about Cameron as PM, even if they weren’t relevant to Leveson.

    He should have just stuck to the line that Leveson should decide if the emails were relevant and establishing the closeness of the relationship could be pertinent to the bSkyb bid.

    Open goal missed and in fact handed the initiative back to the Government who can quite rightly say that Labour are just muck-raking.

    Fools.

  48. Roger – I don’t recall seeing much on the effect of double registration. Studies comparing the electoral register with population tend to put far more effect into looking at under-registration and inaccurate registers.

    The Electoral Commission are doing a big study comparing the 2011 Census with the electoral register that should come out in due course and will hopefully be far and away the best data on these sort of questions.

  49. OLDNAT

    It’s always the same with the Lib/Dems…too little too late!! Why was this elaborate idea not out in with Calman etc?

    I can’t see what influence they will have with 5 MSP’s and a Ginger rodent!! ;)
    ……
    “, with a federal government retaining powers over foreign affairs, defence, currency, welfare and pensions”

    What’s the point of their proposal if this lot is to be retained by the UK Gov? LOL who moved the rock!!

  50. Alex

    I have to confess that krugman had a big bust-up with Steve keen on the issue of the banks power to create money. I become a little unbalanced when economists argue against keen, although I must admit he’s not always right but in this instance he was, imho

1 2 3 5