Boundaries Archive

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The changes to the rules for redistribution of seats for the present review add more restrictions to the Commissions and make it much less likely for the recommendations to change. Previously the Commission could happily accept representations from the public which made two neighbouring constituencies significantly over- and under-sized.

An example from the Third Periodical Review: initial recommendations for Lambeth were Norwood 68,758 electors, Streatham 66,840, Vauxhall 67,202. The quota was 67,617.

After a local inquiry, the Commission decided that Vassall ward should remain in Vauxhall and not move to Norwood. As a result the final recommendation was Norwood 60,923, Streatham 66,840 and Vauxhall 75,037.

[erlend]

I would agree to some extent although the particular example may be one of the most likely as it seems that Cumbria works for everyone as a self contained group. Also I suspect some places simple ward swaps may happen. But we will see.

In the autumn?

[stepney]

May 9, 2012 22:53:15 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Worth quoting the conclusion of chapter 7 of "The Boundary Commissions: Redrawing the UK's map of Parliamentary constituencies" by Rossiter, Johnston and Pattie:

"It is clear .. that the Commissions set the agenda. Not only do the majority of their initial recommendations become final, but the way in which they are promulgated and the parameters within which they are set exert a powerful influence over those seeking to change them." (p. 325)

Open question (apropos of this and the rest of the discussion from the early hours of this morning): to what extent does the completely revised structure of public hearings make this less likely? Previously everyone may have argued each other to a standstill and the Assistant Commissioner simply gone with the Commission. This time round there's no cross-examination, etc.

To take an example, London (where you can't simply propose a bit of a minor re-jig, because of all the knock-ons): what's to stop the Assistant Commissioner adopting the Labour plan, except of course for the fact it's a naked gerrymander, if it gets enough support?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

May 10, 2012 9:26:57 GMT stepney said:

Open question (apropos of this and the rest of the discussion from the early hours of this morning): to what extent does the completely revised structure of public hearings make this less likely? Previously everyone may have argued each other to a standstill and the Assistant Commissioner simply gone with the Commission. This time round there's no cross-examination, etc.

To take an example, London (where you can't simply propose a bit of a minor re-jig, because of all the knock-ons): what's to stop the Assistant Commissioner adopting the Labour plan, except of course for the fact it's a naked gerrymander, if it gets enough support?

The only answer can be that we don't know yet. We don't know the extent to which the Commission will take into account representations, and whether they will give weight based on whether the arguments are good or whether there are large numbers of objections or both or neither. We don't know what they will do even if every single response has disagreed with their initial proposal (eg City of London in with Islington instead of Westminster).

The process from now on is basically the same as before. Assistant Commissioners make recommendations based on the comments received; the Boundary Commission may decide to accept or reject them. If they do revise proposals, there is an eight week opportunity for written representations only to be made about them before the Commission decides on their final recommendations.

[Pete Whitehead]

You can though propose a minor re-jig, or a series of minor rejigs as this is precisely what my submission involved - I propposed changes to 16 seats with the other 52 completely unaffected. As long as your proposal actually deals with the knock on affects. The problem with many is that they would just deal with one seat and say 'I don't think such and such ward should be in this constituency - you should put this other ward in instead', which may work fine on its own but doesn't deal with the neighbouring seats affected by this ward swapping. My proposals, and i'm sure any by people from this site, would not overlook such important detail. One of my proposals fdor example involved changing around a total of three wards between the proposed Clapham common, Brixton and Battersea and Vauxhall seats. I could in fact have left it at that and therefore left 65 seats in London unchanged. I think this proposal is similar to one made by Keith Hill. Its entirely self-contained

[stepney]

May 10, 2012 9:41:23 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

May 10, 2012 9:26:57 GMT stepney said:

Open question (apropos of this and the rest of the discussion from the early hours of this morning): to what extent does the completely revised structure of public hearings make this less likely? Previously everyone may have argued each other to a standstill and the Assistant Commissioner simply gone with the Commission. This time round there's no cross-examination, etc.

To take an example, London (where you can't simply propose a bit of a minor re-jig, because of all the knock-ons): what's to stop the Assistant Commissioner adopting the Labour plan, except of course for the fact it's a naked gerrymander, if it gets enough support?

The only answer can be that we don't know yet. We don't know the extent to which the Commission will take into account representations, and whether they will give weight based on whether the arguments are good or whether there are large numbers of objections or both or neither. We don't know what they will do even if every single response has disagreed with their initial proposal (eg City of London in with Islington instead of Westminster).

The process from now on is basically the same as before. Assistant Commissioners make recommendations based on the comments received; the Boundary Commission may decide to accept or reject them. If they do revise proposals, there is an eight week opportunity for written representations only to be made about them before the Commission decides on their final recommendations.

Well, this was essentially my point. There is a slim chance that a Pete Whitehead- or Andrew Teale-esque submission that has been put in in writing, not been presented by its author at a hearing, and had no-one writing in in support at the second stage (because it was hidden in the midst of the Commission's utterly useless search function) could become the revised recommendations if it clearly accords better with Rule 5 than the alternatives. Last time round there would have been no chance, largely on the spurious grounds that its author didn't defend it at the public inquiry.

It only remains to be seen whether "following the rules" has more importance in the Assistant Commissioners' minds than "following what was popular at the public hearings".

[andrewteale]

I live in hope. Tricky did put in a good word for me in his second stage submission, and I assume the Assistant Commissioner would read that given that it's coming from Tricky.

[tricky]

My second stage submission was not the monster that my first one was but it did indeed contain praise for, if I remember my phrasing correctly "the respected psephological cartographer Andrew Teale".

One of the issues in this review is that different regions will have different outcomes. For example there is not much disagreement in the SW but widespread revulsion at the initial proposals in the NW and WM.

I was struck by how many responses I read included the words "halfwitted", "lunacy" and "criminally stupid".

[Deleted]

and I have to get back on my hobby horse and say split wards (not many) would have solved so much

[YL]

May 11, 2012 21:51:24 GMT @ianrobo said:

and I have to get back on my hobby horse and say split wards (not many) would have solved so much

I think you're largely preaching to the converted on that. Both Tricky/doktorb and Andrew included split wards in their NW proposals.

[tricky]

May 12, 2012 17:01:43 GMT YL said:

May 11, 2012 21:51:24 GMT @ianrobo said:

and I have to get back on my hobby horse and say split wards (not many) would have solved so much

I think you're largely preaching to the converted on that. Both Tricky/doktorb and Andrew included split wards in their NW proposals.

One of the split wards was identical. None of us had much respect for the territorial integrity of the Stepping Hill ward in Stockport.

[Deleted]

I've received a letter from the Welsh Commission, the second stage will start next month...

[Richard Allen]

May 11, 2012 20:42:02 GMT tricky said:

One of the issues in this review is that different regions will have different outcomes. For example there is not much disagreement in the SW but widespread revulsion at the initial proposals in the NW and WM.

I would frankly be amazed if there are not some very serious modifications in both of these regions and if there aren't I could certainly imagine quite a few MPs voting against the proposals.

I think we all recognise that the commission has a difficult job under the new system but remain astonished at some of the proposals they produced. Even if they refuse to split wards there were so many better options open to them.

[tricky]

May 16, 2012 11:09:33 GMT Richard Allen said:

May 11, 2012 20:42:02 GMT tricky said:

One of the issues in this review is that different regions will have different outcomes. For example there is not much disagreement in the SW but widespread revulsion at the initial proposals in the NW and WM.

I would frankly be amazed if there are not some very serious modifications in both of these regions and if there aren't I could certainly imagine quite a few MPs voting against the proposals.

I think we all recognise that the commission has a difficult job under the new system but remain astonished at some of the proposals they produced. Even if they refuse to split wards there were so many better options open to them.

I largely agree with you but you can't do Cheshire without splitting a ward and make it sensible unless you move the Welsh border.

[kevinlarkin]

Responses to initial proposals for Wales now available: English
/ Cymraeg

[YL]

Any comments on Labour's "Aberconwy and North Powys"?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

It's a classic case of get all the ones round the edge right, and then you're left with a 'bits left over can all go into one' type seat. The Boundary Commissions themselves have produced enough of them over the years.

[tricky]

Jun 13, 2012 20:30:10 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

It's a classic case of get all the ones round the edge right, and then you're left with a 'bits left over can all go into one' type seat. The Boundary Commissions themselves have produced enough of them over the years.

Yes, that moment at the end where you hope the leftovers are something coherent. If it only has two name parts then they probably didn't do too badly.

[ian48]

I think you are being far too kind to Labour in terms of motive here, it is completely obvious what they have done.

The Labour MPs in North Wales have all tried to get a viable seat created for them as currently one of them will be out of a job at the next election if the Commission's proposals go through.

So, Albert Owen in Ynys Mon has a nice seat in prospect, but wants it to be less Plaid and more Labour, so they have got rid of Penisarwaun and put in the two Labour towns of Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr.

It is at the other end where the real problems are for Labour as 4 Labour MPs will become 3. To minimise losses they have tried to sort something for Chris Ruane in the Vale of Clwyd and David Hanson in Delyn. They need to keep Delyn in a similar fashion as it is now but plus Prestatyn to boost numbers, but this leaves Rhyl alone too small to be a constituency. By joining Rhyl to Colwyn Bay they would create a viable Labour seat, similar to the old Clwyd North West. Chris Ruane might win this, but it would still be close against David Jones I think.

Finally, you are left with Llandudno and North Powys. This would be a massively Conservative seat, but would be so weird and dysfunctional as to be beyond the realms of possibility. I honestly don't know how Labour could have submitted it with a straight face. It would be the biggest gerrymander in recent electoral history. Stuffing Conservative votes into one weirdly shaped seat to ensure that they only win one seat instead of two. It's a clear case of boundaries chosen to satisfy scared existing MPs rather than being a considered and viable contribution to the debate.

North Wales Coast and Glyndwr North Powys would both be fairly secure Tory seats (the former especially so), and I don't think the prospect of a homogenous seat like North Wales Coast (which would have been created 50 years ago had the boundary commission not had to respect the boundary between Caernarvonshire and Denbighshire and Gwynedd and Clwyd), should be sacrificed on the altar of Chris Ruane's career.

[stepney]

Labour Party in rather weak gerrymander shock. Their proposals in much of England aren't much cop either. I'm not saying either of the other two parties haven't tried to save some of their own seats with, eh, "interesting" solutions either, but Labour seem to have gone about it rather more blatantly.

I can't help but hope they've dropped a bollock by casting aside the statutory rules too much in order to get the result they want.