@Dandelion, I don't see how we can determine the number of people eligible to vote other than by the register of electors.
Do you not? traditionally I understand the boundary commission used to use the census, but has ben forbidden to do so. Apart from this, the credit rating agencies seem to have a much better idea of who lives where and details about their lives than does the government. I understand it is they who pointed out some 7 million people are missing from the register.
However is there any reason to think that there are big variations in constituencies drawn up on the basis of people on the electoral register than on the basis of who should be on the register?
I'd say the most likely people to be left off are those of no fixed abode, no social standing, those not wanting to pay council tax or complicate eligibility for other benefits. A number of those reasons might suggest the government ought to make it its business to find out exactly who lives where and what their status is. I would suggest that people of traditionally lower class are the most likely not to be registered. Labour voters rather than conservative, so yes, I would expect the erroneous current proposals to heavily favour the conservatives. Which is presumably why they do not want to change them.
Even if the missing voters exactly mirror the registered voters, obviously this affects the number of MPs which should be allocated to a particular area. So ignoring these people would bias against labour.
I would add that ministers professed themselves surprised when evidence was presented to them of the very large errors in the voting lists. This suggests they would not have adopted the current arrangements had they realised the extent of the problem. Allocation according to register was accepted by parliament on the assumption the register is in fact correct.
The constituencies we have at present are gerrymandered in favour of Labour and LibDem. The Boundary Commission provided the solution, and this should have been ratified by MPs of all parties.
That is not true. They prepared constituencies on the basis they were ordered to do so, leaving out all these people. I seem to recall that they in fact protested about this problem but were ignored.
The Boundary Commission's proposed constituencies would have been a big improvement on what we have.
Show me a map of existing constituencies listing in each how many people are missing and we shall see...
we really are in a shocking position where (whatever the outcome of the next election) Conservatives are going to be 20-25 seats less than they should be if our democracy had proper constituencies.
The evidence suggests to me that this is false, and in fact the changes would unfairly bias against labour. I was quite shocked when I first heard about this problem, that government, the current government, wanted to redraw boundaries deliberately leaving out so many people.
The nightmare remains that we end up on 8th May with a stale-mate.
On the contrary, I rather look forward to a balanced parliament where MPs are forced to discuss each issue on its merits and reach a decision.
Similarly Con+LibDem is not too problematic; neither is Con+DUP or Con+LibDem+DUP.
You seem to be forgetting that the Irish are practically in revolt against austerity. I thought conservatives have said it is utterly unacceptable to form a coalition with a left inclined party, such as any of the Irish, or indeed the liberals.
