Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 11:33:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 30, 2015 20:56:29 GMT
I think regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with the FPTP system the boundaries in Scotland definitely need to be changed. They are strongly biased against the Tories, the electorate sizes for many constituencies are unequal and as such unfair and the constituencies do not consider the recent rise in the SNP. Boundaries aren't drawn up in order to have particular partisan effects. It's hard to make a case that the Conservatives in Scotland are obviously cheated out of a single winnable constituency by the arrangement of the current boundaries. The areas where the Conservatives get the largest share of the vote are not many and not contiguous, so to draw new Conservative-inclined seats isn't easy. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 11, 2016 10:02:34 GMT
Government response to the Select Committee report to be published today. Judging from the written statement it will take the form of "Thank you, now sod off". |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 11, 2016 10:41:07 GMT
Government response to the Select Committee report to be published today. Judging from the written statement it will take the form of "Thank you, now sod off". So when we get that electorate data dump later this month, we have to do the following: 1) Keep Orkney and Shetland (Lib Dem) and the Western Isles (SNP) 2) Create a new Isle of Wight East / North and a new Isle of Wight West / South 3) Make sure that any constituency greater in size than 13,000 square kilometres is unchanged 4) Divide the remainder of the UK electorate by 596 and ensure that only using whole electoral wards create new constituencies that have an electorate in the range of 95% - 105% of that average. Simple, now dump that data Electoral Commission and let's get on with it! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 11, 2016 11:34:40 GMT
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 11, 2016 12:22:09 GMT
This is interesting " We recommend that the next Government consider how the rules for the distribution of parliamentary constituencies could be amended so as to limit the disruption of future boundary reviews to the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland" and could kybosh plans for an 80 member Assembly in Wales
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 11, 2016 13:53:24 GMT
As you say "thank you and sod off"
The issue now has to be to persuade the Boundary Commission to split wards in order to generate more acceptable constituencies. And also to recognise obvious pitfalls in advance, like the Wirral in the 2000s review, and Forest of Dean last time.
I can understand the Boundary Commission's historic aversion to splitting wards, as it opens a can of worms, and has been opposed by the political parties. However the rules have changed, and any look at the nonsense generated in Birmingham last time should persuade them to reconsider. They could for example say that they will only consider splitting wards where the average size is twice the tolerance (that's just Leeds & Birmingham), or 150% of tolerance (still only a handful of Mets).
The other related issue is to take into account changes in boundaries after the operative date (December 2015) but before the review is completed. Again this will be of high relevance for Birmingham. These two issues do not require legislation, but are at the discretion of the Commission, unlike varying the tolerance, or the basis and date of the figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 11, 2016 14:40:15 GMT
The issue now has to be to persuade the Boundary Commission to split wards in order to generate more acceptable constituencies. And also to recognise obvious pitfalls in advance, like the Wirral in the 2000s review, and Forest of Dean last time.
I can understand the Boundary Commission's historic aversion to splitting wards, as it opens a can of worms, and has been opposed by the political parties. However the rules have changed, and any look at the nonsense generated in Birmingham last time should persuade them to reconsider. They could for example say that they will only consider splitting wards where the average size is twice the tolerance (that's just Leeds & Birmingham), or 150% of tolerance (still only a handful of Mets). What we really need in future is to put a duty on the Local Government commissions to define sub-wards whenever they create a ward that is over the tolerance. Then we would have pre-defined splits that could be held to against those cans of worms. I don't think it is nececssary to pre-split every ward on the off chance it may be needed someday. We already have polling districts that can be used as a convenient boundary to split a ward on. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 11, 2016 15:02:20 GMT
What we really need in future is to put a duty on the Local Government commissions to define sub-wards whenever they create a ward that is over the tolerance. Then we would have pre-defined splits that could be held to against those cans of worms. It isn't the LGBCE that defines polling districts, it's the principal local authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 11, 2016 16:02:49 GMT
Not sure why you want to create a general rule because of problems which are specific to a small number of very large metropolitan districts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 16:08:58 GMT
The problem is that polling districts aren't created with the specific intention of being units of community, either individually or collectively. It often just so happens that they are, but their actual purpose is to maximise the convenience of voters in attending the polling station. So any formal agglomeration for redistricting purposes risks confusing the purpose of PD boundaries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 18:10:57 GMT
That re
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2016 18:11:51 GMT
That response is a glorious impression of an ostrich.
|
|
