Obviously as we don't know the exact shape of the changes yet these are rough estimates, assuming that the new electorate will closely reflect the 16+ population. The comparison is based on the distribution you'd expect given electors reported in 2024.
Top beneficiaries (biggest % change in number of seats):
C'bridge (+23%)
Lincoln (+22%)
N'castle (+20%)
W'minster (+20%)
Oxford (+19%)
Top losers (biggest % change in number of seats):
Staffs Moorlands (-10%)
Melton (-10%)
High Peak (-10%)
Derbs Dales (-9%)
New Forest (-9%)
Top beneficiaries (outright number of seats):
B'ham (+0.55)
N'castle (+0.51)
L'pool (+0.42)
N'ham (+0.42)
Tower Hams (+0.40)
Top losers (outright number of seats):
N Yorks (-0.33)
Somerset (-0.32)
Bucks (-0.23)
Cheshire E. (-0.19)
Cornwall (-0.18)
A map of English local authorities showing which of them would stand to gain or lose more MPs with the introduction of votes at 16 and automatic voter registration, compared with a boundary review under the current rules.
Thinking about the parts of the country which may be impacted by the introduction of automatic voter registration, compared with the current electoral rules remaining the same.
Blue are LAs which would be entitled to more MPs using 16+ and AVR, red those who would lose.
I think this has been mostly missed, any 16-17 year olds being included in opinion polls now would have been old enough to vote in 2029 anyway.
Their disproportionate presence online, especially their use of social media as a political forum, could mean that SSs combine the more progressive sensibilities of a younger audience, with the fact that they have (for most of their lives) had an almost unrestricted right to broadcast their speech.
They are the second most likely to post about politics online, and are the most likely segment to post at least most days on TikTok, Youtube, Instagram, Reddit, and Bluesky.
They are also the most likely to use TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and Bluesky.
Sceptical Scrollers are closest to the avg. Briton on these issues, being slightly more absolutist and more PC. These views could be the product of the fact that SSs are younger, and so their views are increasingly the product of their experiences online.
A quote from Leslie, a Rooted Patriot from Norfolk, who says “My husband, he did 30 years in the Air Force, so of course he's got that banter and he's on groups and stuff and they're always doing the banter and I mean he got banned for just saying something really, really minimal. So he’s got a three week ban or something and you think, how do we change our attitude like that as well, because my daughter's terrible, she pulls me up all the time, but ‘oh you can't say that’, And I'm thinking, crikey, they've got to respect our views as well.”
Rooted Patriots share some attitudes of TCs. Patronised by changing standards of speech but also disliking language they perceive to be rude or disrespectful, including offensive speech, RPs have a high level of threat perception, and see hate speech as a danger to be protected from.
It strikes me that any groups wanting to "win the argument" on freedom of speech may be particularly interested in these groups. This appears to be where the most nuance lies, and the larger centre-ground of free speech issues.
Two groups defy the stereotypical combination of views on freedom of speech and political correctness outlined above. Sceptical Scrollers (compared to the avg. Briton more absolutist and more politically correct), and Rooted Patriots (who are the MOST restrictionist group, and less PC than avg.).
Sharing similar but more moderate views are Traditional Conservatives. TCs often feel that restrictions on free speech and changes in "acceptable" language are patronising and unnecessary. They feel that PC is restricting their ability to raise concerns about things like immigration and integration.
A quote from Johnny, a Dissenting Disruptor from Wigan who says “Someone mentioned it earlier about our comedy. You can't really be our tongue in cheek sarcastic funny anymore because you have this culture of ‘oh, you'll just get cancelled’... you think about Fawlty Towers, which is the culture that I kind of grew up on, that was hilarious, you talked about that and we just had tongue in cheek”
At the far opposite end of the spectrum you have the Dissenting Disruptors, who are free speech absolutists and are strongly opposed to political correctness. DDs feel that traditional British culture is under attack, and they see this in the regulation of speech as well...
Progressive Activists are roughly as likely to support restrictions freedom of speech as Established Liberals and the Incrementalist Left. Though ELs and ILs are less supportive of political correctness than PAs, they have more positive views of political correctness than the public as a whole.
A quote from Ebenezer, a Progressive Activist from East Dulwich, who says "“There should be free speech. You should be allowed to say whatever you want, whenever you want. However, a big caveat is that when they say these things, they should also know that there's consequences to the things they say. Essentially, I think free speech isn't just going around being able to throw slurs at anyone. I think free speech is being able to say you disagree with people in a respectful way. I think that's possible for nearly every single topic. People should have the right to use any language, but then also any consequence of using that language, they shouldn't be able to throw their hands up and say, ‘well that's anti-free speech’. You have the right to say it, however, if the consequence is that you lose your job or someone assaults you, or I dunno, maybe you get kicked out of your family … those are consequences that you have to deal with.”
They believe they support freedom of speech, but oppose offensive speech. In this way they see what others might call "cancel culture" as a feature, not a bug, of a well functioning culture of free speech, and believe that individuals should be accountable for how they choose to use this freedom.
Progressive Activists are (unsurprisingly) among the groups most likely to support restricting freedom of speech than the public as a whole, and the most supportive of political correctness.
Within More in Common's 7 segments (see here www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/res...), three segments hold more restrictionist, politically correct views than the public as a whole, two hold more absolutist, anti-political correctness views, with the other two a combination of each.
3 in 5 Britons hold restrictionist views on freedom of speech; 59% believe that protecting people from dangerous and hateful speech is more important than protecting the freedom to express controversial or offensive views.
Despite this, almost 2 in 3 believe that political correctness is a problem.
The lazy stereotypes of the "gammon" absolutist and the "snowflake" restrictionist have been really harmful for the debate around freedom of speech, leaving people feeling patronised, and even scared of addressing issues which are real problems in their community.
🧵This report demonstrates the real diversity of opinion on freedom of speech and political correctness.
Compared to the public, at least one segment occupies each combination of restrictionist/absolutist views on freedom of speech and political correctness. public.flourish.studio/visualisatio...
In 2020 @moreincommonuk.bsky.social launched the British 7 Segments. After a pandemic, major global conflicts, political upheaval, cost of living crisis, changes in work/social/information habits it’s time to update them for 2025. Here’s an intro to our new tribes of Britain (Quiz link next)
Tl:dr, RUK have no peers in the HoL, interesting to see if Labour drop this from legislative agenda, could breathe some life into Tories in the event of a coalition, could push HoL reform up the public agenda.
But there is the possibility that the strength of every party but RUK in the Lords leads this to conveniently fall off of Labour's to-do list (especially as they appear to be thinking strategically about electoral reform). It could also hasten a hypothetical PM Farage into radical changes early on.
A process which would likely take years, or even parliaments, without rapid and radical changes to the Lords. Obviously Lords reform was in both Labour and Reform's manifestoes and the King's Speech, and you cannot rule out wildcards from either party ...
In case of a Reform majority it makes for a lively but probably symbolic opposition given the Parliament Act, but in the event of a Con-Ref or Ref-Con coalition, it really puts a lot of influence behind the Tories as coalition partners until Reform can appoint enough of its own peers ...
Consider this - no peer of the House of Lords currently sits as a Reform UK peer. Not an issue while they sit in opposition with a handful of MPs, but (assuming no changes to the House of Lords) a very real complication for politics in the event that Reform enter government after the next election.
An obvious dilemma arises about whether the government can fairly introduce votes at sixteen whilst keeping student registration rules in place as they currently are!
At the moment this has a minor effect in the redrawing of constituency boundaries, but if automatic registration applies to ALL students it could have an enormous impact on constituency boundaries in these areas.
It is not a coincidence that the areas identified as "missing" electors by the ERS often have high student populations. electoral-reform.org.uk/ers-reveals-...
Also considering the implications automatic registration may have on student registration - they can currently register at both their home and uni address. With automatic registration for all people living in an area, this will balloon the effect that student registration rules have on boundaries.