Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,085
|
Post by Eastwood on Sept 7, 2017 16:57:45 GMT
If you're including bridged islands I'd like protected status for Portsea Island as well please, and Walney, Skye, Sheppey etc... How about causewayed islands? Barry Island? Lindisfarne? The Islands (Scotland) Bill under debate at Holyrood just now explicitly includes both bridged and tidal islands in its definition of islands. However I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that there is a big difference between Shetland and Ynys Mon. If anything there is an argument to treat Orkney and Shetland separately at Westminster as they are at Holyrood.
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Sept 7, 2017 17:50:47 GMT
This is silly, the point about Ynys Mon is that its electorate is big enough to justify its own seat even if somewhat "undersized". And it has been its own constituency for just how long now? There has been an Anglesey / Ynys Môn constituency since 1535 . The history of other islands are: Isle of WightOrkney and ShetlandThe Western Isles / Na h-Eileanan an IarInteresting, then, that Ynys Môn is actually the only island which has never contained a constituency partly on the mainland. Obviously doesn't mean that can't change, though.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,085
|
Post by Eastwood on Sept 7, 2017 18:19:16 GMT
The Islands (Scotland) Bill under debate at Holyrood just now explicitly includes both bridged and tidal islands in its definition of islands. However I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that there is a big difference between Shetland and Ynys Mon. If anything there is an argument to treat Orkney and Shetland separately at Westminster as they are at Holyrood. They do have the internet and telephones in those Caledonian archipelagos these days, you know. I'd quite like to see it more-or-less equalized within non-ghastly boundaries: Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland; Ross, Cromarty, and the Western Isles. Personally I'd rather have more MPs who understand and represent their local areas. Dispersed and remote communities justify extra representation.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 7, 2017 18:32:15 GMT
They do have the internet and telephones in those Caledonian archipelagos these days, you know. I'd quite like to see it more-or-less equalized within non-ghastly boundaries: Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland; Ross, Cromarty, and the Western Isles. Personally I'd rather have more MPs who understand and represent their local areas. Dispersed and remote communities justify extra representation. Not in my book they don't. In this day and age with communication options, there is simply no justification for it. Because they choose to live in a remote area, why should their votes carry more weight? "Choose" because either they chose to move there or chose to remain.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,085
|
Post by Eastwood on Sept 7, 2017 20:03:33 GMT
Personally I'd rather have more MPs who understand and represent their local areas. Dispersed and remote communities justify extra representation. So long as that means Rutland and Radnorshire as well as islands, that's a nice gerrymander by me. As soon as Rutland and Radnorshire have a 12 hour ferry journey to get there then they'll deserve the special treatment. Shetland, Orkney and Na h-eileanan an iar are just very different to anywhere else in the scale of their remoteness.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,809
|
Post by jamie on Sept 7, 2017 20:07:35 GMT
Scotland is going to be left in an absolute state after this. Say hello to Skye, Lochaber & North Perthshire and Dundee Central & St Andrews... Tay Bridge?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 7, 2017 20:16:13 GMT
As have I, many times there and back. I've also taken the ferry both ways between Cowes and Southampton. I don't see what that has to do with the respective status of each island at boundary reviews, though. Either Wight and Anglesey are both protected, or neither should be. If you're including bridged islands I'd like protected status for Portsea Island as well please, and Walney, Skye, Sheppey etc... I'd accept a Walney and Suor constituency. Sod Portsea, though. How about causewayed islands? Barry Island? Lindisfarne? Why stop there? Peninsulars too! Wirral, Holderness and many, many more... Peninsular whats? Or do you mean peninsulae? The Wirral already has 5 seats at the moment anyway. Personally I'd rather have more MPs who understand and represent their local areas. Dispersed and remote communities justify extra representation. So long as that means Rutland and Radnorshire as well as islands, that's a nice gerrymander by me. I accept your gerrymander. Each traditional county should be guaranteed a minimum of one seat all to itself.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 7, 2017 21:18:58 GMT
On Anglesey, the island constituencies, I think it's worthwhile trying to get constituencies as even as possible to ensure all citizen receive the same effective representation per capita, and massive discrepancies in constituency size really don't really sit well with me (hence my previously expressed distaste at the Scottish island constituencies being allowed to stay as they are despite their relatively miniscule electorates). My concerns with what could happen to Anglesey, however, lie more in that it doesn't seem to really pair well with anywhere else on the Welsh mainland, even with Bangor (whom it will likely get bundled with should it be decreed that it doesn't get protected status, primarily on account of that's where the bridges are located). I don't think there's an easy answer to this one, it's important to insure as even representation as possible, yet we shouldn't get caught up in trying to play a pure numbers game and actually attempt to draw reasonable boundaries, but I don't think that Anglesey can be bundle with mainland areas and not create a constituency that isn't some form of "pitchfork bait" (as we say on these forums)- I think that when you cross those bridges between Bangor and island, you're stepping into two different worlds (with the prevalance of Welsh speaking representing the end of their similiarities). On one hand I'm a little bit irritated that the unforgivably undersized Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland constituencies will be allowed to stand, yet the still undersized but not as unreasonably so constituency of Ynys Mon gets binned in favour of some cross-strait monstrosity (I can't see any such seat being anything but, I'm afraid). On the other hand, I acknowledge the need to have parliamentary constituencies that are (roughly) equal in the size of their electorates. Perhaps as a compromise, each of the constituent nations/regions could be apportioned their share of the seats, to ensure that each region has a similar ratio of electors per MP, but any undersized seat counts as taking up one of that region's alloted slots? To clarify what I mean with an example: if Wales receives, say, 32 seats, an unmodified Ynys Mon would count as one of the 32, thus leaving 31 seats to be drawn up on the Welsh mainland; similarly with Scotland, if the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland are permitted to remain as is, if Scotland is allowed, say, 55 seats, allowing the island constituencies to remain as is would leave 53 seats that can be drawn up on mainland Scotland (52, should it ever be decided that Orkney and Shetland are to receive their own individual seats). "Lord Twaddleford, that's a terrible idea!", I hear you say? Just a thought. As for the Isle of Wight, it seems to have the opposite problem, but I don't want to go there just right now. So long as that means Rutland and Radnorshire as well as islands, that's a nice gerrymander by me. I accept your gerrymander. Each traditional county should be guaranteed a minimum of one seat all to itself. I think Radnorshire is too far gone to be considered its own county anymore*. * And even when it was, it's been sitting quite nicely with Breconshire for the best part of a century now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 21:32:11 GMT
How about causewayed islands? Barry Island? Lindisfarne? The Islands (Scotland) Bill under debate at Holyrood just now explicitly includes both bridged and tidal islands in its definition of islands. However I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that there is a big difference between Shetland and Ynys Mon. If anything there is an argument to treat Orkney and Shetland separately at Westminster as they are at Holyrood. Fine. 1 non voting Mp each or 1 voting with them together with the mainland. Their choice.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 7, 2017 21:56:48 GMT
Looking more closely at Cambridgeshire, because it's home and because it's quite simple, 8 seats draw themselves fairly straightforwardly on current electorate figures (which is not to say that'll still be true when the new review actually happens.) Starting with the borough seats, Peterborough can remain unchanged (well, one tiny parish moves due to ward boundary changes) whilst Cambridge needs to lose a ward. For now, that'd be Trumpington, returning it to the pre-2010 boundaries. NE Cambs needs to lose around 10,000 electors, which is best accomplished by taking out the four East Cambs wards and making it co-extensive with Fenland. East Cambs then needs to lose around 30,000 South Cambs electors, leaving it with no more than a handful of South Cambs wards. Absorbing that and Trumpington drags South Cambs eastwards, meaning that it no longer has room for the parts north and north-west of Cambridge. There's probably too much of that for it to be paired with St Neots, so instead it has to go with St Ives in some kind of Mid Cambridgeshire seat. Huntingdon then gets back up to size by grabbing enough of NW Cambs to put both back into the acceptable range. Urgh. Mid Cambridgeshire. Don't the numbers work for splitting the old Cambridgeshire into East, "South" (i.e. West), and Cambridge, then putting bits of Peterborough back into Huntingdonshire for North and South Huntingdonshire constituencies, then having Isle of Ely South, Isle of Ely North and a Good Chunk of the Soke, then leaving the rump Peterborough borough constituency in whatever shape that leaves it? Easily. And I posted on this above. Cambridge and Peterborough see no or minimal change. Huntingdon gets split. The northern 45% forms Huntingdon & St Ives with the excess bits of NW and NE Cambs. The southern 55% forms St Neots constituency, which makes up its numbers from South Cambs. The latter gains wards from SE Cambs. No need for any Mid Cambs.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 7, 2017 22:57:08 GMT
Looking more closely at Cambridgeshire, because it's home and because it's quite simple, 8 seats draw themselves fairly straightforwardly on current electorate figures (which is not to say that'll still be true when the new review actually happens.) 8 based on the boundary assistant site were fairly straightforward. Peterborough and Cambridge were unchanged, Huntingdon was split. The northern 45% around St Ives and Huntingdon formed a seat of that name, taking in excess bits of NW and NE Cambs. The 55% left over became St Neots, which also took in parts of South Cambs, the latter moving slightly east. Changes since then would require a ward or two moved but would generally follow that structure Except that using the figures from Boundary Assistant is a case of garbage in, garbage out. Cambridge as of today has an electorate 10,000 higher than at the freeze date and there have been significant changes in the electorates of all the other seats bar Peterborough. Looking more closely at Cambridgeshire, because it's home and because it's quite simple, 8 seats draw themselves fairly straightforwardly on current electorate figures (which is not to say that'll still be true when the new review actually happens.) Starting with the borough seats, Peterborough can remain unchanged (well, one tiny parish moves due to ward boundary changes) whilst Cambridge needs to lose a ward. For now, that'd be Trumpington, returning it to the pre-2010 boundaries. NE Cambs needs to lose around 10,000 electors, which is best accomplished by taking out the four East Cambs wards and making it co-extensive with Fenland. East Cambs then needs to lose around 30,000 South Cambs electors, leaving it with no more than a handful of South Cambs wards. Absorbing that and Trumpington drags South Cambs eastwards, meaning that it no longer has room for the parts north and north-west of Cambridge. There's probably too much of that for it to be paired with St Neots, so instead it has to go with St Ives in some kind of Mid Cambridgeshire seat. Huntingdon then gets back up to size by grabbing enough of NW Cambs to put both back into the acceptable range. Urgh. Mid Cambridgeshire. Don't the numbers work for splitting the old Cambridgeshire into East, "South" (i.e. West), and Cambridge, then putting bits of Peterborough back into Huntingdonshire for North and South Huntingdonshire constituencies, then having Isle of Ely South, Isle of Ely North and a Good Chunk of the Soke, then leaving the rump Peterborough borough constituency in whatever shape that leaves it? In a word, no. Peterborough and the two Huntingdonshire seats have a combined electorate only just short of a quarter of a million, and there aren't enough rural bits of the soke to avoid having to move St Ives. And there are more than a quarter of a million electors in East Cambs, South Cambs and Cambridge, so you have to have a seat combining the west of South Cambridgeshire district with parts of Huntingdonshire. Though you could probably get away with calling it SW Cambs if that sort of thing floats your boat. Anyway, nobody local cares about separating historic Cambridgeshire from Huntingdonshire. At a local level, the villages east of St Neots wanted to be in a county division with areas in South Cambridgeshire at the last county review, because where the county lines used to be 40 years ago is just not that salient an issue, especially when they don't conform to any obvious dividing line on a map.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 7, 2017 23:12:36 GMT
I don't think there's an easy answer to this one, it's important to insure as even representation as possible, yet we shouldn't get caught up in trying to play a pure numbers game and actually attempt to draw reasonable boundaries, but I don't think that Anglesey can be bundle with mainland areas and not create a constituency that isn't some form of "pitchfork bait" (as we say on these forums)- I think that when you cross those bridges between Bangor and island, you're stepping into two different worlds (with the prevalance of Welsh speaking representing the end of their similiarities). Anglesey has a higher proportion of Welsh speakers than Bangor thanks to the vastly greater presence of 'outsider' students in the latter. Anyway, nobody local cares about separating historic Cambridgeshire from Huntingdonshire. At a local level, the villages east of St Neots wanted to be in a county division with areas in South Cambridgeshire at the last county review, because where the county lines used to be 40 years ago is just not that salient an issue, especially when they don't conform to any obvious dividing line on a map. As ever, I bow to superior local knowledge, but that is very sad to hear.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 7, 2017 23:16:49 GMT
I don't think there's an easy answer to this one, it's important to insure as even representation as possible, yet we shouldn't get caught up in trying to play a pure numbers game and actually attempt to draw reasonable boundaries, but I don't think that Anglesey can be bundle with mainland areas and not create a constituency that isn't some form of "pitchfork bait" (as we say on these forums)- I think that when you cross those bridges between Bangor and island, you're stepping into two different worlds (with the prevalance of Welsh speaking representing the end of their similiarities). Anglesey has a higher proportion of Welsh speakers than Bangor thanks to the vastly greater presence of 'outsider' students in the latter. Last time I checked, though significantly Anglicised (especially when compared to the rest of Gwynedd), Bangor is still majority Welsh speaking. In fact, it must be worth noting that Anglesey itself has been seeing an influx of English speakers in recent years, though once again it's still majority Welsh speaking, and I think it has the greatest proportion of Welsh speakers in its population, or at least it did have.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 7, 2017 23:19:57 GMT
8 based on the boundary assistant site were fairly straightforward. Peterborough and Cambridge were unchanged, Huntingdon was split. The northern 45% around St Ives and Huntingdon formed a seat of that name, taking in excess bits of NW and NE Cambs. The 55% left over became St Neots, which also took in parts of South Cambs, the latter moving slightly east. Changes since then would require a ward or two moved but would generally follow that structure Except that using the figures from Boundary Assistant is a case of garbage in, garbage out. Cambridge as of today has an electorate 10,000 higher than at the freeze date and there have been significant changes in the electorates of all the other seats bar Peterborough. Well, you've been teasing us for a while saying you'll post latest local authority figures but haven't. Without those we are stuck with Boundary assistant and December 2016 ONS electorate figures and unfortunately that means we won't be able to produce anything more timely.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 7, 2017 23:22:31 GMT
Anglesey has a higher proportion of Welsh speakers than Bangor thanks to the vastly greater presence of 'outsider' students in the latter. Last time I checked, though significantly Anglicised (especially when compared to the rest of Gwynedd), Bangor is still majority Welsh speaking. In fact, it must be worth noting that Anglesey itself has been seeing an influx of English speakers in recent years, though once again it's still majority Welsh speaking, and I think it has the greatest proportion of Welsh speakers in its population, or at least it did have. That's certainly true of the ethos of the city, but at any given election there will be a significant proportion of registered voters who aren't properly integrated into the wider community and are instead fleeting visitors stuck in an academic bubble. Although having said that, I know that some students whose first language is not Welsh do live in Llanfair PG, Menai Bridge or Beaumaris and commute to the university. Beyond there, this isn't much evidence of this problem on Anglesey. Recent English migration to the island might actually be more of an entrenched threat to the language than fleeting visitors to Bangor, though.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 7, 2017 23:59:41 GMT
How on Earth do you get that "therefore"? According to the same logic, England is about 85% of the UK population, therefore the quota for England should be 85% less than th UK as a whole, i.e. about 10,000. Or did you mean something completely different from what you wrote? There should be a reflection that a region's population should be put into the context of the national population and it's electoral quota adjusted to reflect that difference What does that mean? And what did you mean in the first place? It would help if you wrote your thoughts in proper English instead of some weird cryptic encoded meta-gobbedygook.
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 8, 2017 6:56:22 GMT
There should be a reflection that a region's population should be put into the context of the national population and it's electoral quota adjusted to reflect that difference What does that mean? And what did you mean in the first place? It would help if you wrote your thoughts in proper English instead of some weird cryptic encoded meta-gobbedygook. Can I reccomend Google translate.....
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 8, 2017 7:28:25 GMT
And base it on population and not registered voters! Yes, base it on a count that is up to ten years out of date instead of a count that is up to eleven months out of date. It depends on whether you think that the review should happen at the end of a census period or at the beginning, and if you think that MPs should represent only voters or the population of an area. I'd say have a parliamentary boundary review following the publication of a census and have a review every ten years. With a 10% variance.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 8, 2017 7:37:40 GMT
There has rightly been much discussion since the general election about the problems of individuals (largely but not only students) being registered in two places simultaneously, something that is only a problem in practice if those individuals actually vote in two places simultaneously. There doesn't seem to be equal concern about the effects of this on apportionment which is hugely relevant in a system where seats are drawn to meet a tight electorate quota and where every double-registered individual skews the figures simply by being double-registered
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,557
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 8, 2017 7:40:11 GMT
I would like to see a statutory limit on the maximum electorate of a ward. Or just go to single-member wards in England and Wales. I don't see the value of multi-member wards under FPTP. Well the UK government is not in charge of local government arrangements in Wales, indeed we may well be moving to stv in Wales for local government, so any suggestion of uniform single member wards is a tad premature.
|
|