The North Westerly

The Electoral Commission is to publish initial findings on the 13th September for its review of boundaries.  There will then be a 12 week public consultation period and two other public reviews before the September 2018 presentation to Parliament.  

The Commission has an objective to maintain equality in the numbers of registered voters in each constituency while respecting local affinities.

For the 2018 review Parliament has directed that the number of constituencies is reduced to 600 from 650.   This is objected to by the opposition, Labour, as their seats tend to be in smaller constituencies although they maintain that there is a higher number of unregistered people in those areas.  While the Conservatives claim that Labour has a built in majority by having too many seats.

The North West has an electorate of 5,074,302 and 75 seats.  It is expected this will be reduced to 68 seats.  The North West will have the biggest reduction in seats of any area.

Scotland and Wales have the smallest electoral numbers in constituencies, with one in Scotland being only 21,000.   The Isle of Wight is the largest being 108,000 and several in the South East are very big.  Preston is in the smaller ones with 59,000.  The average needs to be around 75,000 and all the others, except 4, are to be within plus or minus 5% or between about 71,000 to 79,000.

The proposal is to be made to the Secretary of State by September 2018 and to be used in the General Election of 2020.

It seems reasonable to have seats with similar numbers of voters.  It isn’t fair to voters if a few people can vote in an MP in one place and it takes thousands more in another.  We don’t allow for registered voters who don’t vote in elections and similarly we shouldn’t allow for unregistered voters.  It also seems sensible to reduce the number of MPs. It isn’t obvious that an extra few thousand voters will add an intolerable burdon to an MPs workload if some already cover nearly 100,000.

Another difficulty with the change is that a number of MPs are going to lose their seat altogether and that can make things harder for party leaders.

Overall this seems a good thing and look to a similar exercise in the House of Lords.

Keep up to date on the Electoral Commission website:

http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

The previous Chancellor, George Osborne, put forward a number of plans for more devolution and had a vision of creating a northern hub mainly based on Manchester and Leeds.  Since the referendum the new administration seems to be backtracking from the focus on the north and easing on the stick being used to get Mayors elected in exchange for more devolution and control over local budgets.

Whether it was that George Osborne is MP for Tatton near Manchester but that city seemed to be getting the lion’s share of attention,    Theresa May is saying we want a powerhouse in every region, the Midlands, South West being two.  It is probably true that the South East and Scotland already get a bigger share of investment.

HS2 and HS3 rail upgrades are still on the table.  Manchester will have control over a bigger budget including health and a mayoral election is going ahead with Andy Burnham looking for the role.  Other centres are struggling to get agreement with Lancashire having one borough council not wanting to be run by a combined authority and Yorkshire having similar problems.

The term ‘Northern  Powerhouse’ is quite snappy but, like most things, sceptics liked to mock.  It seems that it will continue in some form but the name and some of the features such as the mayors will probably slip away.

June 23rd was the day the UK voted to leave the EU by 52%/48%.   In England the country and towns voted to leave while the big cities voted to remain.  Wales voted out.  Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar voted to remain.

The north west followed English trends with only Manchester, Liverpool and LibDem South Lakeland voting to remain.  What is it about the towns and countryside that made them vote out?

Boris Johnson who was probably the main cheer leader for Leave says it was sovereignty, the right to vote for their representatives.   Although most commentators say immigration was the biggest factor and if the EU had been more flexible in allowing the UK to restrict immigration it would have made a difference.

Both sides accuse the other of lying.  Although Boris Johnson being photographed next to a poster saying the £355million a day will be given to the NHS seems the most memorable example.  A second example could be the emergency budget threats George Osborne made.

The Labour Party MPs landed themselves in a civil war by accusing their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, of being ineffectual.  It did seem that his heart wasn’t in the Remain case.

Basically 72% turned out and of that 52% voted to Leave so just over a third of the population voted out.  Of those a good majority where in the older category.  From anecdotal experience immigration, in so far as it clogs up schools, housing, hospitals and jobs plus sovereignty are the big issues in that group regardless of them being Labour or Conservative voters.  It is a  feature of a referendum that extremists of the left and right are likely to vote for the same side.  So it begins to make the outcome less certain in an election on this kind of subject.

That young people tend not to turn out is also a factor, although who is to say that the non-voters would vote to plan.

Overall the people have spoken.  As a very strong Remain voter it is still our expectation that the so called Project Fear is more like a 10-15 year project. The worsening of the economy will happen slowly after a bumpy year or two.

Seems like everyone I speak to or read on Facebook wants out of the EU.  On this basis the result will be 90/10 for leaving.

Yet the pundits say it’s a very close thing and Remain is likely to win.  There is up to 40 years of pain for some people and they’re letting us know, that’s the only explanation I can find.

There are a lot of bogus numbers about. Like the £355m a week we are said to pay the EU, in reality it’s nearer £130m as we don’t pay or get most of it back.  Still a lot.  There’s the claim each family will be £4,300 worse off if we leave, I’ve no idea where that comes from, probably possible loss of business.

The Leaving case revolves around: The right to self govern, controls over immigration, reduction in red tape, making our own trade deals, keeping the payments to the EU to spend on what we want.

The Remain case revolves around: we’re already doing relatively well, being a full member of the big EU market and having a say in what it does, the benefits of inward investment by being part of the market.  Having our voice made louder by being part of the biggest trading area in the world.  Not leaping into the unknown.

There is a lot more depth to those points and there is a counter to every one.

In conclusion I’ve heard nothing that makes me believe we will be better outside or that we won’t have to do deals that negate the reasons for leaving.  At the moment voting Remain seems logical.  The EU has a lot of problems but so does everyone.

Easter has been early this year and schools have taken different holiday dates because some say the term was too short.  If you look after children and work it’s unfortunate that one child might be holiday for 2 weeks over Easter and the other child is holiday 2 weeks later.  What do you do, take 4 weeks off work and what if you want to go away.  At least one family has been fined because she took her children on holiday and one of them was at a school which wasn’t holiday.

Many people may not be over concerned about Academies taking over from local authorities but this has shown a disadvantage to parents as it’s mainly academies that have taken later holidays.  It is possible that it’s been detrimental to the national economy as no doubt some people have been unable to take holidays away or have had to take longer off work due to split holidays.  Surely schools in an area should all have the same holiday dates.

The EU referendum is an important milestone.  Here are a few points from both sides, each one has counter points it seems.

In:

No questions asked about being an unrestricted part of the biggest market in the World.

UK a place to invest for access to the biggest market.

Able to use the weight of the EU in international trade agreements with other big world powers.

Able to participate in setting standards for trading, business and regulation in the EU.

The EU is our biggest market for trade and will get bigger as it recovers.

The UK plays a big part in the EU and leaving it will make western Europe weaker against other parts of Europe, and all Europe weaker in the world.

UK able to veto EU measures and influence them towards our requirements.

Out:

More self governed, within international laws.

Will be able to trade with non-EU countries subject to new agreements or using World Trade Agreements.

Will be able to import food from cheaper countries.

Will be able to have own Human Rights Laws, maybe.

Will not have to pay to the EU £18bn a year of which we get £10bn back making £8bn.  Although we’ll need to pay for a free trade agreement with the EU and other unknowns.

Will be able to control our own borders, although the EU often insists on access as part of a trade agreement and being outside won’t change non-EU immigration.  There are millions of Britons in the EU and their future will be less certain.

According to Out campaigners the EU will be desperate to trade with us.  Although if 50% of your income came from one place against 10% for another do you not think the 50% would be the biggest pressure.

Will need to accept EU rules without having a say for most of our trade.

Potential risks to our Services industries an area that tends to be outside both the US and EU trade agreements.  Also the EU could take a stronger line on trading in the Euro by a country outside the EU.

Likely to create a hostile atmosphere make dealing with the EU more difficult, especially as the EU needs 27 countries to agree.

Leaving will create difficulties in the UK in that Scotland could agitate for another referendum, although how successful that will be isn’t known with the dependence on oil coming to the fore with the low price.

As yet the Out case appears a big risk and to create the so called Project Fear is a true reflection of the risks of leaving.

English Votes for English Laws seems a logical position but is strongly disputed by some.

There are those who say it creates 2 tiers of MP and that Westminster MPs are elected to a UK institution not an English one.  Yet in theory an MP represents a constituency not a party.  If legislation in Aberdeen is covered by the Scottish Parliament why does the MP for Aberdeen want to vote on the subject when it only applies to another country.

It is understandable that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be against it as many of their MPs are, or were, in Scotland and Wales and so it decreases their power in England.

Another area of possible contention is that the speaker is to decide what is English only. England being by far the biggest country at what point is it said that only England is affected, is it 100% or 98% or less and can we trust the decision will be correct.

Like it or not though, it seems logical that if Scotland and Wales have full control over what happens on some subjects then there should not be the opportunity for them to have power in another country on the same subject, unless it obviously effects them.  Listening to the points raised against EVEL is listening to politics at its worst.

Labour are offering a cut in tuition fees to £6000 if they win the election.  Certainly this is to be supported.  £6000 was the original level the Coalition proposed and £9000 was to be only for the top universities.  However the Universities trumped the Chancellor and all said they wanted the higher fees to improve their facilities.

Now some say only those earning higher salaries are effected by the higher fees anyway so Labour’s policy actually helps the wealthy more than the poor.  Most people don’t get that, the shadow of a large debt is something no-one wants to have even if they don’t have to pay it off.

The universities are very wary too. Some think the Labour plan to tax pensioners might not yield as much as thought and that universities will need to cut back on their plans and some say they will need to take in more foreign students to make up funds.

The tuition fees policy has never satisfied all questioners.  Surely if many students don’t earn enough to pay it back the government will have to make up the difference.  Also the debt might encourage you to emigrate.  The whole thing is trying to make the best of a bad job.