|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 17:10:16 GMT
Summary of the 68 unchanged seats in England:
SE: Basingstoke, Beaconsfield, Bracknell, Eastbourne, Eastleigh, East Surrey, East Worthing & Shoreham, Epsom & Ewell, Gosport, Guildford, Hastings & Rye, Maidenhead, Reigate, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, South West Surrey, Witney.
EM: Bassetlaw, Gainsborough, High Peak, Leicester East, Leicester South, Mansfield, South Holland & The Deepings.
NE: North Tyneside, Sunderland Central, Tynemouth.
YH: Beverley & Holderness, East Yorkshire, Elmet and Rothwell.
SW: Bristol North West, Bristol South, Exeter, North Devon, North Somerset, Taunton Deane, Torbay, Weston-super-Mare.
E: Chelmsford, Epping Forest, Hitchin & Harpenden, Thurrock, Waveney, West Suffolk.
WM: Birmingham Hodge Hill, Burton, Cannock Chase, Coventry North East, North Shropshire, South Staffordshire, Sutton Coldfield.
NW: Blackley & Broughton, Chorley, Garston & Halewood, Knowsley, Leigh, Makerfield, Manchester Gorton, Manchester Withington, Salford & Eccles, St Helens North, St Helens South & Whiston, Wigan, Worsley & Eccles South, Wythenshawe & Sale East.
GL: Hornchurch & Upminster, Kingston & Surbiton, Richmond Park, Twickenham.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2016 17:26:50 GMT
Tristram Hunt calls the review "grotesque gerrymandering" asking "what next, abolishing Labour seats?" Well his Labour seat has certainly been abolished lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 17:36:18 GMT
Tristram Hunt calls the review "grotesque gerrymandering" asking "what next, abolishing Labour seats?" Well his Labour seat has certainly been abolished lol Labours behaviour on this matter is a disgrace. The Liberals - even worse. Reform to improve fairness of elections only applies if it helps them apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 13, 2016 17:50:27 GMT
Changed my vote to terrible this evening having seen more detail and especially the West Midlands I was gutted when i found out I was going to be away when they released these. This morning I was torn between whether to spend the day on the beach or in an internet cafe. The beach won narrowly Tonight, the bar wins easily
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 17:54:16 GMT
Changed my vote to terrible this evening having seen more detail and especially the West Midlands I was gutted when i found out I was going to be away when they released these. This morning I was torn between whether to spend the day on the beach or in an internet cafe. The beach won narrowly Tonight, the bar wins easily I was wondering where you were last night.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Sept 13, 2016 17:54:53 GMT
Summary of the 68 unchanged seats in England: I think that's actually more unchanged constituencies than in 1983 (63 IIRC?)
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2016 18:17:19 GMT
Well his Labour seat has certainly been abolished lol Labours behaviour on this matter is a disgrace. The Liberals - even worse. Reform to improve fairness of elections only applies if it helps them apparently. Except that the notionals strongly suggest that if these boundaries had been in place last year, then the result would have been even less fair than it was in reality.
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Sept 13, 2016 18:19:40 GMT
The no ward splitting rule is daft. Though the rules may prevent them from doing that unless they have accurate polling district data (to ensure quota) But once again the inflexibility of the legislation leads to awful boundaries. The MP's moan but they've been warned. Twice. and in Newcastle as well as elsewhere we have new wards anyway in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 13, 2016 18:28:34 GMT
One seat that many people would have liked to see changed — Hitchin & Harpenden — has ironically been left without any changes at all.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 13, 2016 19:39:12 GMT
One seat that many people would have liked to see changed — Hitchin & Harpenden — has ironically been left without any changes at all. Proof that the boundary comission actively hates us.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2016 20:19:33 GMT
Since most of us seem to think that a significant chunk of the initial proposals are somewhere between poor and an abomination, I'm going to suggest that we use the various regional/national threads to compile a list of reasons why the bad parts of the initial proposals are a very poor fit for the legal criteria, to help those of us who are going to submit alternative proposals, or feed into our respective political party submissions, to make a stronger case for changing the worst recommendations. Just because something is obviously a bad call doesn't mean that we can build a solid enough case to persuade them to change it to something more reasonable, so the better we can articulate our cases for change the more chance we have of getting sensible boundaries out of this review. Just as a reminder, I'll list the legal criteria here, along with a couple of notes on the English commission's official and apparent interpretation in brackets (remember that the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish commissions may interpret things differently - I'd advise checking whatever guidance they've published). The size limits obviously don't need outlining. - Special geographic considerations - size/shape accessibility (interpreted to mean physical geography such as mountains and rivers)
- Local government boundaries (English commission seem to be routinely ignoring LA boundaries but rigidly sticking to ward boundaries. Ward splits said to be only considered with considerable supporting evidence, will follow polling district boundaries, and if possible follow any new ward boundaries finalised after the start of the review)
- Boundaries of existing constituencies (officially no comment on choosing between preserving a few intact and preserving a group with minimal changes to the whole, proposals definitely favour the former over the latter)
- Local ties that would be broken by changes. Note that local ties between areas currently in different constituencies are not mentioned.
On the key issue of ward-splitting, the BCE's thinking is the following: Proposals to split wards are more likely to be accepted if they can undermine the argument in the first paragraph, and demonstrate the kind of circumstances mentioned in the second. So explanations of where/how/why the current proposals cut across local ties or force domino effects would be particularly useful when explaining reasons why certain proposals have problems.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 13, 2016 20:21:44 GMT
I think we've established that the Boundary Commissions don't read this website.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 13, 2016 20:26:32 GMT
I think we've established that the Boundary Commissions don't read this website. They may be under instruction not to, lest they are swayed by partisan arguments...
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,819
|
Post by iain on Sept 13, 2016 20:29:17 GMT
Well his Labour seat has certainly been abolished lol Labours behaviour on this matter is a disgrace. The Liberals - even worse. Reform to improve fairness of elections only applies if it helps them apparently. Why should constituencies be similar sizes? FPTP isn't proportional anyway, so the constituencies may as well reflect community boundaries, even with largely differing sizes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:31:56 GMT
Labours behaviour on this matter is a disgrace. The Liberals - even worse. Reform to improve fairness of elections only applies if it helps them apparently. Except that the notionals strongly suggest that if these boundaries had been in place last year, then the result would have been even less fair than it was in reality. Thats really very twisted logic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:32:57 GMT
Labours behaviour on this matter is a disgrace. The Liberals - even worse. Reform to improve fairness of elections only applies if it helps them apparently. Why should constituencies be similar sizes? FPTP isn't proportional anyway, so the constituencies may as well reflect community boundaries, even with largely differing sizes. There is such a thing as a middle ground. You cant be on both sides of said middle ground. Called having your cake and eating it.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,819
|
Post by iain on Sept 13, 2016 20:38:13 GMT
Why should constituencies be similar sizes? FPTP isn't proportional anyway, so the constituencies may as well reflect community boundaries, even with largely differing sizes. There is such a thing as a middle ground. You cant be on both sides of said middle ground. Called having your cake and eating it. If all constituencies were fairly proportioned then one party would win them all. Under FPTP there is no point in trying to have super-equal constituencies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 20:39:14 GMT
There is such a thing as a middle ground. You cant be on both sides of said middle ground. Called having your cake and eating it. If all constituencies were fairly proportioned then one party would win them all. Under FPTP there is no point in trying to have super-equal constituencies. Equal sized not equally partisan!
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,819
|
Post by iain on Sept 13, 2016 20:40:52 GMT
If all constituencies were fairly proportioned then one party would win them all. Under FPTP there is no point in trying to have super-equal constituencies. Equal sized not equally partisan! But why should they be equal sized?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2016 20:44:07 GMT
I think we've established that the Boundary Commissions don't read this website. If that's a comment on my post, then my idea is that we collate the flaws (according to the legal criteria) in their proposals, so that our own submissions can cite those flaws more easily, coherently, and cogently. I'm not expecting them to read them here, I'm expecting us to help each other to include in our submissions reasons why the badly flawed parts of their proposals are badly flawed.
|
|