Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,507
|
Post by Khunanup on May 31, 2015 12:16:39 GMT
Oops! I've just foreseen a bit of a problem using Boundary Assistant! I just started with the South West region. They should now receive 57 seats per JG's calculations, however BA only permits 53 seats as it stands. Does anyone know if there is a way to "add" extra seats in the coloured column of numbered seats on the left? Failing that..any suggestions??! You'll have to save it in bits, ie, do Devon and Cornwall, save it and then do the rest of the region. I'm currently working through the South East.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 13:05:04 GMT
Bugger. Yeah I guess it'll have to be like so. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2015 13:33:29 GMT
I am intending on working on a set of 600 seats using new weighted figures as described in this thread.... but not until I get back from my holidays in about 12 days time! Well I was planning on doing this but as it now seems that 600 seats is unlikely, does anyone have a definitive breakdown of how many seats each region would get if we stick with 650 seats? Also what the Average Quota would be for the mean seat? I can then get cracking on this this weekend Why does it seems unlikely? There was nothing about changes to boundaries legislation in the Queen's speech and time is ticking.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 15:03:17 GMT
..but while time is ticking the status quo remains (i.e. 650). It would be simpler/quicker for the BC to rejiggy some seats but still end up with 650. If they have to rejig seats AND reduce the numbers by 50, you are virtually starting with a blank canvas, and I imagine that would require more time.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2015 15:13:44 GMT
..but while time is ticking the status quo remains (i.e. 650). It would be simpler/quicker for the BC to rejiggy some seats but still end up with 650. If they have to rejig seats AND reduce the numbers by 50, you are virtually starting with a blank canvas, and I imagine that would require more time. But the time is ticking to change the legislative status quo which says "600 seats". The BC can't chose to do something different to what the law instructs them to do.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2015 15:13:56 GMT
.. but while time is ticking the status quo remains (i.e. 650). It would be simpler/quicker for the BC to rejiggy some seats but still end up with 650. If they have to rejig seats AND reduce the numbers by 50, you are virtually starting with a blank canvas, and I imagine that would require more time. No, you're wrong on that one. The relevant legislation remains the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which sets the size of the Commons at 600 and requires the Boundary Commissions to complete reviews by 1 October 2013 and in every fifth year subsequent. On the same timetable as last time, that means the process starts in March next year. In any case, where the Sixth Review proposals were vaguely sane, they can more or less re-use them. And even where they aren't, it doesn't take that long to come up with new proposals.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on May 31, 2015 15:14:43 GMT
No, the legislation in place already stipulates a reduction to 600.
I think it is still far from certain to actually happen, though - the fact there has been no "official" statement confirming it may not be insignificant.
Maybe the government are waiting until they have tested opinion amongst their backbenchers first? It shouldn't be that hard to pass an amendment specifying 650 seats......
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 15:16:52 GMT
I'm confused...so you mean if nothing happens legislation-wise, the BC will just go ahead with a 600 seat review??
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on May 31, 2015 15:18:14 GMT
I'm confused...so you mean if nothing happens legislation-wise, the BC will just go ahead with a 600 seat review?? That is correct. The specific boundary *proposals* were voted down two years ago, but not the wider legislation behind them.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 31, 2015 16:29:40 GMT
Actually the specific proposals weren't voted down; the review wasn't complete when Parliament amended the 2011 Act to set the deadline for the first review as 2018 instead of 2013.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 16:57:03 GMT
So is it 600 or 650?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 31, 2015 17:05:20 GMT
It is 600 until Parliament says something different.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2015 17:06:06 GMT
So is it 600 or 650? The legislation that is in force right now states 600.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 17:15:54 GMT
Bugger! I've already started on the basis of 650!
Anyone have a regional breakdown for a 600 seat HoC?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2015 17:23:32 GMT
Bugger! I've already started on the basis of 650! Anyone have a regional breakdown for a 600 seat HoC? The one already posted that I did my 650-seat calculations from: East Midlands 43 47 Eastern 56 61 London 70 76 N Ireland 16 17 North East 25 27 North West 68 74 Scotland 53 57 South East 83 90 South West 53 57 Wales 29 31 West Midlands 54 59 Yorks & Humb 50 54 600 650 Column 3 = INT((Column 2/600*650)+0.5) UK-wide 650-seat electoral quota of 46,432,000/650 = 71,430 +/-5% = 67,860-75,000. UK-wide 600-seat electoral quota of 46,432,000/600 = 77,380 +/-5% = 73,520-81,250.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2015 17:52:58 GMT
England | 501 | East | 56 | East Midlands | 43 | London | 70 | North East | 25 | North West | 68 | South East | 83 | South West | 53 | West Midlands | 53 | Yorkshire & Humber | 50 | Scotland | 54 | Wales | 29 | Northern Ireland | 16 |
The four guaranteed seats are included within those figures. I've started having a look at where the seats will be distributed within regions, based upon electorates at the general election and have so far done the Eastern region and Wales. In the east, Suffolk is entirely to almost exactly 7 seats in a 600-seat commons, so can stand alone. Cambridgeshire has 7.51 quotas and Norfolk 8.50 quotas, so they form a natural pair. I imagine that would all like fairly similar to the Sixth Review's final recommendations. The problem arises in the south of the region, where all three counties could stand alone but doing so would give 57 seats rather than 56. Bedfordshire is most marginal, so it'd probably be paired with Hertfordshire, but I wouldn't rule out all three being considered together. Wales gets 29 seats, so one fewer than the 6th Review allowed. Welsh Boundary Commissions tend to play by their own rules, but if they were being sensible then you could assign 5 seats to the preserved county of Clwyd and 3 to Gwynedd and Powys together. It may of course be questioned whether a seat stretching from the outskirts of Caernarfon to the outskirts of Welshpool and Newtown would be sensible, but mid-Wales will be mess whatever they do. Gwent can then be de-linked from Mid Glamorgan and instead combined with South Glamorgan for 9 seats. I don't think that will mean the direct return of Cardiff North & South West Gwent, but whatever you get will probably be similarly unlovely. Mid Glamorgan could theoretically stand alone for five seats, but that makes it difficult in West Wales so for numerical reasons you'd probably want to assign 12 seats to Mid Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Dyfed.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 31, 2015 17:57:52 GMT
Thanks chaps. I will start with a blank canvas using those figures (Using 600 seats also avoids the Boundary Assistant regional seat-limits issue)
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2015 18:54:17 GMT
On current numbers the North East would get 25 seats, so one fewer than under the 6th Review. The first change is that Northumberland can stand alone, with three seats. I don't think a single rural seat is possible, so effectively that means Wansbeck is carved up. At a guess I'd say Ashington goes to Berwick, Bedlington to Blyth Valley and Morpeth to Hexham.
Both the current seats in North Tyneside pass muster, so I guess they'd stay unchanged. My working assumption is that you'd then add Newcastle to the existing pairing of Gateshead and South Tyneside, resulting in the recreation of Tyne Bridge and hence the abolition of Newcastle Central and Gateshead.
Sunderland, County Durham and Cleveland then get 14 seats. I presume you put Seaham into a Sunderland seat and I suspect you'd need major modifications to Redcar to keep it from crossing into Middlesbrough, but other than that there are too many variables to say much with confidence.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2015 19:29:51 GMT
And in Yorkshire & Humberside: North Yorkshire And York is close enough to 8.0 seats, as now, so can be dealt with as a unit. North & South Humberside is close enough to 9.0 seats (down from 10), so can be dealt with as a unit. West Yorkshire is 20.5 seats (down from 22), South Yorkshire is 12.5 seats (down from 14), so can together be dealt with as a unit with a single cross-border seat. Within those: Leeds is close enough to 7.0 seats. Sheffield is close enough to 5.0 seats. It would be peverse to not treat those as single units. Kirkless is close to 4.0 seats and could be treated as a single unit, but it isolates 6.1 seats in a corner. Bradford+Calderdale+Kirkless is 10.0 seats, Wakefield+Barnsley+Rotherham+Doncaster is 11.0 seats. I would do Y&H in those six units.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 31, 2015 19:33:43 GMT
6.1 seats seems like a perfectly reasonable group to me.
|
|