|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 8, 2013 18:08:25 GMT
I thought I'd put Hullenedge's excellent post and a response in a thread away from the 2013 review. While in 1974 the authors of that article have a good point, they mildly overlook that the Second Periodic Review started in 1965 when, for example, CB Liverpool had an entitlement to 7.81 seats and received 8. The main two problems of the enormous scale of slum clearance and Labour and Jim Callaghan's political hucksterism waiting for Redcliffe-Maud to be implemented led to the malapportionment by the time of the first election (Feb 1974) to be fought on these boundaries. So, for example, Liverpool was down to an entitlement of 7.28 by 1968, 6.41 by the Feb 1974 election and 5.97 by the 1979 election yet had nine seats at the 1970 election and eight seats in the other three 1970s elections. While the Commission exercised a great deal of latitude in allocating seats when they reviewed the electorate changes between 1965 and 1968 (a greater deal than their successors would have allowed at the Fifth Review) without further data it's difficult to build a case for systematic urban over-representation except insofar as using 1965 entitlements for seats not fought until 1974 would quite predictably have done that by not taking into account the massive population movement in those nine years. I might take a further look into this and get some pretty maps out of it. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,542
|
Post by john07 on Feb 8, 2013 20:33:56 GMT
The only reason for malapportionment was that the passage of time coupled with a period of dramatic decline the electorate in Inner-City constituencies and a rapid increase in suburban population.
Those trends are a thing of the past and many City centres are experiencing dramatic re-population.
You can bang about malapportionment all you like but it is not going to do anything to solve the electoral imbalance between the parties under FPTP. That is all to do with concentration of the Labour vote in key marginals and the Conservatives piling up huge majorities in the South East.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 8, 2013 20:51:18 GMT
The only reason for malapportionment was that the passage of time coupled with a period of dramatic decline the electorate in Inner-City constituencies and a rapid increase in suburban population. You know, that might be exactly what I said in my post above if you'd read it. You can bang about malapportionment all you like but it is not going to do anything to solve the electoral imbalance between the parties under FPTP. That is all to do with concentration of the Labour vote in key marginals and the Conservatives piling up huge majorities in the South East. Partly, perhaps even mostly, but not "all" of the imbalance. Unequal seat sizes exacerbated by time (or, "malapportionment") is a separate factor which also contributes. But this is a discussion on the 2013 review and this thread is about the 1969 review. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 8, 2013 21:03:27 GMT
For what reason are ward but not constituency boundaries drawn to take into account expected changes in population over the next decade?
As this is supposed to be about the 1969 review, I'll add a temporal element to that question: have ward boundaries always been drawn in light of expected changes, or where constituency boundaries ever also drawn in this way?
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,542
|
Post by john07 on Feb 9, 2013 0:20:23 GMT
The point is that you will never get a close approximation to voting strength in the actual results. The fact that Labour currently are beneficiaries does not mean that it is all down to malapportionment or gerrymandering. It is just the nature of things with FPTP.
Labour were stiffed in 1951, the Conservatives suffered in February 1974. There was a monor correspondance with malapportionment in both cases bt it was not the main issue. There was some element of rural weighting in the 1951 boundaries. There was effectively urban weighting in 1974 due to depopulation of the Cities.
Neither was down to gerrymandering, unlike the 2012 US Congressional elections where the Republicans gained a clear majority in the House despite fewer votes. But even this does not provide the answer as the Democrat vote is rather too concentrated to take the House with the edge in votes.
Hence with FPTP, this sort of thing will happen and there is nothing that can be done about it. Unless of course some sort of 'corrective gerrmandering' is advocated?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 9, 2013 0:29:11 GMT
The point is that you will never get a close approximation to voting strength in the actual results. The fact that Labour currently are beneficiaries does not mean that it is all down to malapportionment or gerrymandering. It is just the nature of things with FPTP. Labour were stiffed in 1951, the Conservatives suffered in February 1974. There was a monor correspondance with malapportionment in both cases bt it was not the main issue. There was some element of rural weighting in the 1951 boundaries. There was effectively urban weighting in 1974 due to depopulation of the Cities. Neither was down to gerrymandering, unlike the 2012 US Congressional elections where the Republicans gained a clear majority in the House despite fewer votes. But even this does not provide the answer as the Democrat vote is rather too concentrated to take the House with the edge in votes. Hence with FPTP, this sort of thing will happen and there is nothing that can be done about it. Unless of course some sort of 'corrective gerrmandering' is advocated? One course of action would be to take into account average turnout in recent elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 9, 2013 0:42:11 GMT
One course of action would be to take into account average turnout in recent elections. Absolutely not. You can't fine people part of their representation for failing to vote. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,752
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 9, 2013 2:00:21 GMT
One course of action would be to take into account average turnout in recent elections. Absolutely not. You can't fine people part of their representation for failing to vote. Of course you could. It would be perfectly manageable for the process of equalising constituencies to include criteria such as turnout, expected turnout, future population changes, or whatever. That doesn't mean it should do so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 10:45:33 GMT
One course of action would be to take into account average turnout in recent elections. Absolutely not. You can't fine people part of their representation for failing to vote. he did say corrective gerrymandering. My view is that an MP represents people whether they are registered to vote or not. therefore I would fully support a plan to equal seats based on 2011 census figures and some recognition that split wards may be needed or seats outside of the limits to maintain rational seats. For example in Birmingham all seats should be fully self contained within the existing council boundaries. I think that plan would find common ground across all parties on all the points they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Feb 9, 2013 17:11:57 GMT
By the time the first election has taken place after a review has been concluded the electorate snap shot that it was based on has often been many years out of date.
The third review used the 1976 electorate with the first election in 1983, the fourth used the 1991 electorate with the first election in 1997 and the fifth used the 2000 figures and the first election was 2010. Had the sixth one proceeded the 2015 election would've used 2010 electorate figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 9, 2013 22:40:57 GMT
Para 33 to 37 from the 1969 Report:- i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u413/Hullenedge/69reportpara33-37001_zps36f54d82.jpgThe Commission acknowledged the 'gap' in county and borough electorates but 'no obvious case' for change. (A seat was taken from Bradford and Greater London at the final stage because of falling electorates whereas Cumberland & Cornwall retained their current entitlement for 'geographical purposes'.) It would be possible to define a criteria for 'county constituencies' and a different quotient to correct any county/borough bias...it could go horrendously wrong if population trends reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 10, 2013 22:28:31 GMT
As I indicated above, I want to do a little research into the Second Periodic Review which, in terms of providing an equitable redistribution that maintained equity throughout the period it was in force, was perhaps the worst of the post-war distributions. As indeed the Parliamentary Affairs article linked to at the top of the page indicates. I have done some pretty maps and I want to take a further delve into the numbers. I think what I can say by it so far is that the enormous population movement in the late 60s and 70s, the failure to implement the review until 1974, and the fact that the main building blocks the BCE had to work with (ie county districts usually of about 20,000 electors in size) were the principal causes. There doesn't seem to have been any conscious over-representation of urban areas on the 1965 figures - but things slipped even before the review was complete. The worst that can be levelled against the BCE for differing seat sizes is a failure to take into account the changes which they could have taken into account (ie. between 1965 and 1968) and a rather too rigid sticking to the leeway given by section 2(2) of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1958, which let them leave seats alone even though their sizes varied enormously (Parts of Lindsey and Newcastle-upon-Tyne perhaps the best examples of this). Anyway (and probably this should be in Pretty Maps), here are the maps of over- and under-representation in England during the life of the seats from the Second Review. By whole county 1965 electoratesFeb 1974 electorates1982 electorates(the +/- numbers indicate the number of seats which the county should gain/lose for a “fair” distribution at the relevant date) Then by county borough* and “rest of county” 1965 electorates1968 electoratesFeb 1974 electorates1979 electorates1982 electorates* Adjustments have been made for county boroughs which contained parts of seats. Further research may follow. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 10, 2013 23:01:57 GMT
Thanks Stepney. These are a work of art!
I have another paper by Ferdinand Hermens (1976)that argues for an 'honest gerrymander' to counter the in-built Labour bias in the system during this period. If that was not acceptable the Tories should have been awarded 12 compensation seats in Feb 1974 for out polling Labour (reverse in 1951) or if a 'cube law' formula used...figures given Con 325, Lab 302, Lib 42 & others (inc. Speaker) 24.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Feb 10, 2013 23:10:07 GMT
Thanks Stepney. These are a work of art! Thanks. If I have the time/inclination I may follow it up with a look at the 3rd & 4th reviews after that, although a lot of it is ironed out after 1976 because the building blocks (ie. the wards of the post-1972 districts, rather than county districts of c.20,000) mean it's easier It would be interesting also to go backwards to look at the Initial and First Periodic Reviews on the same lines but I don't sadly have copies of those. I have another paper by Ferdinand Hermens (1976)that argues for an 'honest gerrymander' to counter the in-built Labour bias in the system during this period. If that was not acceptable the Tories should have been awarded 12 compensation seats in Feb 1974 for out polling Labour (reverse in 1951) or if a 'cube law' formula used...figures given Con 325, Lab 302, Lib 42 & others (inc. Speaker) 24. This is the sort of 'corrective gerrymandering' that was talked above further up in the thread. Much as I'm annoyed malapportionment disfavours my party (and skews the cube law), I'm not in favour of corrective measures like this which smack of working a bias into the system of redistribution to favour one's own party to counter other biases which work against it which have nothing to do with the redistribution process - in a word, a gerrymander. The whole thing would iron itself out if there were a much shorter gap between the enumeration date and the first election fought on the new seats, and stricter rules around equal sized seats.... hmm.... the sort of stuff that was in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, in fact.  Your addition of research papers onto here, hullenedge, as ever are fantastic. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 10, 2013 23:24:28 GMT
I'll try to hunt out some figures for you...love to see more maps.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 8, 2013 9:18:55 GMT
I sort of abandoned this, but I thought I would put up the pretty maps detailing the same thing in the First and Third Periodic Reviews. So here are the maps of over- and under-representation in England during the life of the seats from those reviews. First Periodic ReviewBy whole county 19531970 electionBy county and county borough* 19531970 election* Adjustments have been made for county boroughs which contained parts of seats. For the whole county maps, a positive number is the number of additional seats the county should have for a fair distribution, negative numbers the number of seats it should lose. The rural weighting in 1953 can be plainly seen from the third of the maps above, (yellow representing under-representation and red over-representation) but at the same time there are only five rural counties which were given a seat above their deserts, implying almost coincidence behind the rural weighting. Due to population shifts that rural weighting was reduced to nil by about 1960 and after that borough constituencies had on average smaller electorates than county constituencies. Third Periodic ReviewBy whole county 19761994By county, metropolitan borough, and by borough constituencies comprising part of the former county boroughs 19761994The thing that emerges from these maps of the first three reviews is that the redistributions are fair at the enumeration date, but quickly the numbers fall out of kilter (less so at the Third Review – because population movement was less in the 80s and 90s than the 50s, 60s and 70s). Really, there should have been more frequent reviews throughout this period – but it was the Commons itself that pushed back the period between reviews in 1958. Further pretty maps (and maybe some research) may follow. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 12, 2013 20:51:52 GMT
Fourth Periodic ReviewBy whole county 19912006By county, metropolitan borough, and by borough constituencies comprising part of the former county boroughs 19912006(edited this one inadvertently)
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 15, 2013 21:26:02 GMT
Fifth Periodic ReviewBy whole county 20002013By county, metropolitan borough, and by borough constituencies comprising part of the former county boroughs 20002013The time frame between enumeration date and the latest available figures is only 12 1/2 years (compared to 15 at the Fourth Review, 18 at the Third, 17 at the Second, and 17 at the First), which partly explains why the change between 2000 and 2013 is less than in my previous series of maps, but the annual rate of change is much less than in previous decades. Greater London is less over-represented now than at the enumeration date – first time since the war. But the flight from the provincial cities is still noticeable, as is the growth of that “sun-belt” from the Wash to the West Country.
|
|
