jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,848
|
Post by jamie on Sept 11, 2017 22:23:29 GMT
Regarding pre-sixth boundary reviews, why was there such large differences in electorates between constituencies in different regions and even within them? Who decided this to be so?
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 11, 2017 22:34:20 GMT
Regarding pre-sixth boundary reviews, why was there such large differences in electorates between constituencies in different regions and even within them? Who decided this to be so? Because, prior to 2011, the electorate was just one of many factors (other factors included local ties and local authority boundaries) that the Boundary Commissions could take into account when producing reports on the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. Technically it was (and still is) Her Majesty in Council who decides the boundaries of Parliamentary Constituencies, but AFAIK, Her Majesty has always merely implemented the recommendations of the Boundary Commission*. *Though before 1944 and the establishment of the Boundary Commissions, the boundaries of Parliamentary Constituencies were laid down in Acts of Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 12, 2017 9:26:30 GMT
Keep in mind that a fairer boundary review would allow a variance of ~10%, not 5%. 5% is much too tight especially in inner-city areas where the wards are much larger. This also ensures that no cross-county seats are created, as seats should be allocated by county/metropolitan area as they always have been.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Sept 12, 2017 12:10:06 GMT
That means that the final seat (a heavily redrawn NE Herts, or Bishops Stortford & Royston or whatever) is well short of voters. Now you could add Stotfold to that seat but it really doesn't fit well there. A better solution presents itself by crossing into Essex. While I'm instinctively against unnecessary cross county seats, it seems that adding a half dozen wards in and around Stansted would work quite well here. It would have the added benefit of bringing the average seat size for the 18 Essex seats nearer to the quota which should make the job there easier. The only way round this (which I think would work on the numbers but involves a great deal of disruption - though avoids splitting towns) would be as follows: NE Herts (includes Bishops Stortford, Royston & Sawbridgworth) Hertford & Hoddesdon (includes Ware) Hatfield & Cheshunt Welwyn & Harpenden Dunstable & Berkhamsted (includes Tring) Then also need to re-draw the Beds seats: N Beds (includes Ampthill) Biggleswade Leighton Buzzard (includes Houghton Regis and Flitwick)
[seats in SW Herts plus Stevenage and Hitchin & Letchworth as you suggested.]
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Sept 12, 2017 13:58:15 GMT
I think you can also do Oxford with Oxford East losing a little (probably just Carfax) to OxWAb, which could then lose it's Cherwell wards. That'd probably be attractive to the commission - keeps existing seats, but taking the tri-district seat down to two. The tricky part is working out what to put with Bicester and Kidlington to make up the numbers if you don't take any of Oxford itself.
I think the least-worst option, if the numbers work, would put Thame and Chinnor into Bicester, but leave Wheatley in Henley - means you need to transfer Didcot into Henley (bet that'll go down well) and Cumnor into Wantage. I think you then need to move two if not three Oxford wards from E to W, potentially moving the boundary back to the Cherwell. The numbers look pretty tight but avoids any three-authority seats.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 12, 2017 15:03:00 GMT
That means that the final seat (a heavily redrawn NE Herts, or Bishops Stortford & Royston or whatever) is well short of voters. Now you could add Stotfold to that seat but it really doesn't fit well there. A better solution presents itself by crossing into Essex. While I'm instinctively against unnecessary cross county seats, it seems that adding a half dozen wards in and around Stansted would work quite well here. It would have the added benefit of bringing the average seat size for the 18 Essex seats nearer to the quota which should make the job there easier. The only way round this (which I think would work on the numbers but involves a great deal of disruption - though avoids splitting towns) would be as follows: NE Herts (includes Bishops Stortford, Royston & Sawbridgworth) Hertford & Hoddesdon (includes Ware) Hatfield & Cheshunt Welwyn & Harpenden Dunstable & Berkhamsted (includes Tring) Then also need to re-draw the Beds seats: N Beds (includes Ampthill) Biggleswade Leighton Buzzard (includes Houghton Regis and Flitwick)
[seats in SW Herts plus Stevenage and Hitchin & Letchworth as you suggested.]
That is horrible. I will wait for the new rules and the new electorates before speculating.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 12, 2017 15:35:57 GMT
I'd always envisaged as the 12th Herts seat which would include Berkhamsted and Tring together with the northen rural wards of Dacorum together with Harpenden, Redbourn and Wheathampstead (Sandridge would probably need to be added to St Albans to compensate for the loss of B&PH). Hemel would lose all three of its current outlying wards but gain Bovingdon, Flaunden & Chipperfield - the numbers look quite tight for that (only 66,811 on 2016 figures) so I really hope that works. Watford is going to need one other ward and Leavesden is the obvious choice which leaves the whole of the rest of Three Rivers to be joined by Kings Langley - the numbers are even lower there so that may not work. If not you're going to have to include Leavesden and cast around elsewhere for another ward for Watford. Hertsmere's electorate has grown well so it looks like it could just about afford to lose Bushey North - if the new ward boundaries are used then this would work quite well Agree with all that - and the Bushey N option for Watford presumably means those two seats co-terminous with the two authorities; which in turn means I think Three Rivers can stand alone with one seat? Then Kings Langley can stay in Hemel which makes the numbers much less tight. If you mean coterminous with the exception of Bushey North yes that would be the case. This is however a fall back position because as things stand Hertsmere doesn't need to be touched so it's only going to happen if a) there aren't enough voters for two whole seats in Watford + Three Rivers + Kings Langley and b) Hertsmere can take the loss without bringing it below quota. Both of these are unknowns because with the ward figures we only have the 2016 electorates to go on and as EAL so eloquently put it - 'crap in, crap out' but we can make certain guesses. So My Hemel seat includes the 12 wards of Hemel plus Nash Mills and B,F&C - that has a 2016 electorate of 66,811 which is below the lower limit of c. 68,600 but the electorate of the current Hemel seat grew by 6% so that should easily take it over 70k Watford grew by 5% which is unlikely to be enough to give the borough alone enough voters for a whole seat so I propose retaining Leavesden alone of the Three Rivers wards. So that leaves Three Rivers less Leavesden plus Kings Langley with a 2016 electorate of 64,980 which is on the low side and there's a good chance that would still be below quota in which case Leavesden has to come on board as well as KL and that's when the Bushey North option comes into play. The problem there is that Bushey North has around 5k voters * so that could bring Hertsmere below quota so this whole plan could fall down and you have to start bringing Berkhamsted back into the SW Herts equation. It's going to be close, down to a couple of hundred voters in any of these scenarios which is what makes the 5% threshold so frustrating even in areas which are not afflicted with massive wards *Worth noting here that the published figures for 2016 here are wrong as clearly they have mixed them up with the figures for Bushey Park
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 12, 2017 15:40:19 GMT
I think in the South East its going to make sense to treat the Thames Valley area as a single review area with 23 seats as both Berks and Oxon look tight for a whole new seat each - county boundaries are fluid here anyway so it makes perfect sense to put a bit of Langley in with Beaconsfield. I'm reckoning you can keep five Oxfordshire seats entirely North of the Thames (but for the annoying Wittenhams situation) - also a unified Oxford seat but with large chunks hived off from the East into a new Bicester & Headington (not sure how well this would work now though with the higher overall electorate for the city) I can't get seven Oxfordshire seats on there own, so I followed your example and crossed modern boundaries (although trying to respect the historic Berks-Oxon Thames boundary). Banbury - loses Bicester and surrounding wards; gains Kingham, Chipping Norton, Bartons and Stonesfield from Witney Witney - loses above seats to Banbury; gains none Bicester and Headington - consists of Kidlington, Bicester, and Oxford wards (Barton, Quarry, Headington, Churchill, and Headington Hill) - Forest Hill the southern border Oxford - all Oxford wards apart from the above ones in Bicester and Headington Abingdon and Didcot - loses all Oxford wards, Kidlington, and Yarnton; gains Marcham, Drayton, Sutton Courtney, Didcot wards from Wantage, and Sandford and the Wittenhams from Henley Wantage/Berkshire Downs - loses wards above to Abingdon and Didcot; gains Lambourn, Downlands, Compton, and Basildon from Newbury Henley - loses wards to Bicester, and Abingdon and Didcot; gains Mappledurham from Reading East Yes this is broadly what I had in mind with some differences (principle one being the northern tier of wards from Wantage going to Abingdon rather than Didcot). I will show a map when I have got round to setting up an account with an image hosting site which doesn't want to fleece me
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 12, 2017 23:44:04 GMT
Keep in mind that a fairer boundary review would allow a variance of ~10%, not 5%. 5% is much too tight especially in inner-city areas where the wards are much larger. This also ensures that no cross-county seats are created It'd take a much higher tolerance than that to prevent a cross-county seat in the Rutland area!
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 13, 2017 0:41:04 GMT
Keep in mind that a fairer boundary review would allow a variance of ~10%, not 5%. 5% is much too tight especially in inner-city areas where the wards are much larger. This also ensures that no cross-county seats are created It'd take a much higher tolerance than that to prevent a cross-county seat in the Rutland area! Rutland hasn't had its own seperate MP since 1918, so somehow I don't think it's going to kill anyone to have the place grouped with parts of another county in terms of parliamentary representation, for a little while longer. Hmm, the re-creation of "Rutland & Stamford", anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2017 8:45:22 GMT
It'd take a much higher tolerance than that to prevent a cross-county seat in the Rutland area! Rutland hasn't had its own seperate MP since 1918, so somehow I don't think it's going to kill anyone to have the place grouped with parts of another county in terms of parliamentary representation, for a little while longer. Hmm, the re-creation of "Rutland & Stamford", anyone? Yes that actually looks like a very likely option given the numbers in Leices and Lincs
|
|
swix
Non-Aligned
Posts: 148
|
Post by swix on Sept 13, 2017 10:13:57 GMT
In West London, the figures would strongly suggest that Hammersmith will remain unchanged and Chelsea & Fulham be extended to include Earl's Court and Courtfield. Kensington would then be topped up with the western wards of Westminster North. It would make that seat (Kensington & Regent's Park maybe?) safely Labour but strengthen the Tories in City of Westminster, a seat that is currently looking very marginal.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 13, 2017 18:40:15 GMT
Can I ask what may be deemed a silly question? On September 6th, the boundary review was scrapped www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-boundary-review-commission-scrap-plans-reduce-mps-650-600-brexit-rebellion-a7931631.html and yet according to Hansard the last time the boundary reviews were mentioned in Parliament was on June 26th this year when Lord Kennedy asked "whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews" to which Lord Young replied "My Lords, following laws already passed by Parliament, the independent Boundary Commissions are consulting on their proposals to deliver boundary changes. They will submit their final proposals to Parliament in autumn 2018, ensuring fair and equal representation for the voting public across the UK. We have no plans to change this process" therefore posing my silly question of "Has the review be scrapped or not?"
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2017 18:41:52 GMT
No government minister has announced any proposal to intervene with the current Boundary review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 19:09:37 GMT
My favourite pub in the land is in Aldworth, Berkshire. Would this be in Wantage/Berkshire Downs under these ideas/proposals? Lion Inn Blakey Ridge N Yorkshire
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2017 19:24:43 GMT
Can I ask what may be deemed a silly question? You've never shown any reticence before now
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,636
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 13, 2017 23:01:26 GMT
My favourite pub in the land is in Aldworth, Berkshire. Would this be in Wantage/Berkshire Downs under these ideas/proposals? Lion Inn Blakey Ridge N Yorkshire I pass that loads of times, but in a car, so can't have a drink. And the bus only goes once a week.
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 14, 2017 13:39:10 GMT
I've just been reading the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and I've come across Subsection 7 of Section 4 of the Act which reads as follows: " The validity of any Order in Council purporting to be made under this Act and reciting that a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament shall not be called in question in any legal proceedings whatsoever." This is, of course, a reference to the Orders in Council made by Her Majesty to implement the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions. This seems to mean (unless I've missed something) that the boundary changes can be made even if they are rejected by the House of Commons, if Her Majesty decides to make Orders in Council implementing them. I don't know if there has been any case law on the interpretation of this provision and I know that Her Majesty's Courts are usually reticent to accept that Parliament intended to oust their jurisdiction [see Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission] but this is a provision of an Act of Parliament passed by the Queen-in-Parliament that explicitly prevents Her Majesty's judges from inquiring into the validity of Orders in Council made under the Act. Obviously it would be extremely controversial if Her Majesty were to make an Order in Council implementing the Reports of the Boundary Commissions even if they had been rejected by the House of Commons, so in political terms this question is unlikely to ever arise. But I wonder if Davıd Boothroyd or anyone else has any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 14, 2017 14:04:25 GMT
It's really about the timing - see explanation in R.M. Blackburn's book. I think it may have been a consequence of the Labour Party judicial review of 1983 - if the new boundaries orders had been approved but the JR then succeeded, it would have been a difficult legal situation.
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 14, 2017 14:17:26 GMT
It's really about the timing - see explanation in R.M. Blackburn's book. I think it may have been a consequence of the Labour Party judicial review of 1983 - if the new boundaries orders had been approved but the JR then succeeded, it would have been a difficult legal situation. So would it be legally possible under that provision for the Orders in Council to be made even if they had been rejected by the House of Commons? I haven't been able to find any provision which expressly requires Parliamentary approval before Her Majesty may make an Order in Council. There are subsections 3 and 4 of Section 4 of the Act which require the Secretary of State to submit a draft Order in Council to Her Majesty if both Houses of Parliament approve them, but that's not the same thing as expressly requiring the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Either there is a provision that I have missed or there would be an implied prohibition (stemming from subsections 3 and 4 of Section 4) on the making of an Order in Council that has been rejected by both Houses.
|
|