Suggestions for the new boundaries

[Harry Hayfield]

I realise this could be seen as jumping the gun slightly (but with the Conservatives having a 15% lead based on my seven day moving average of the REMAIN / LEAVE voting split, I cannot see any chance of Labour gaining ground) I would like to propose that we see what we can do to make a Parliament that fits into the Conservative Party's plans for equal constituencies. (NB All figures are based on 2017 election)

The United Kingdom has 650 MP's, each one of which is elected to a constituency. This number under the Conservatives plan is to remain unchanged. At the last election the electorate of the UK was 46,808,407 which divided by 650 gives you an average electorate of 72,013 electors. In the last boundary review that figure was stuck to everything with a nail gun and led to major discussions. I believe that the electorate figure should reflect the constitution of the United Kingdom and that therefore the number of seats in each part of the UK should be proportional to the population there. In 2017, the UK's population of 66.04 million was made up as follows:

Northern Ireland: 1,871,000
Wales: 3,125,000
Scotland: 5,425,000
England: 55,619,000

This means that Northern Ireland had 2.8% of the population, Wales 4.7%, Scotland 8.2% and England had 84.3%, therefore Northern Ireland should have 2.8% of the seats (18), Wales 4.7% (31), Scotland 8.2% (53) and England 84.3% (548). Taking the electorates for the nations and applying the rule as last time about the range, this means that the electoral quota and range for each nation is as follows:

Northern Ireland: 69,039 (as small as 65,589 to as large as 72,491)
Wales: 74,134 (as small as 70,427 to as large as 77,841)
Scotland: 75,254 (as small as 71,491 to as large as 79,017)
England: 71,710 (as small as 68,125 to as large as 75,296)

[courtenay]

What Conservative plan is this? Surely the Conservative plan involves 600 seats not 650; using electorate to allocate seats not population; and one national quota not four separate ones for each nation?

[Harry Hayfield]

Nov 27, 2019 13:42:41 GMT courtenay said:

What Conservative plan is this? Surely the Conservative plan involves 600 seats not 650; using electorate to allocate seats not population; and one national quota not four separate ones for each nation?

The Conservative manifesto states "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries,  making sure that every vote counts the  same – a cornerstone of democracy" and as they are also calling for the Repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011) they are calling for 650 constituencies not 600. The population numbers are used ONLY to assess what proportion of seats the UK's nations have and have no bearing on the electoral quota. This is my suggestion as to how to make a Parliament that fits into the Conservative Party's plans

[greenchristian]

Nov 27, 2019 20:16:03 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Nov 27, 2019 13:42:41 GMT courtenay said:

What Conservative plan is this? Surely the Conservative plan involves 600 seats not 650; using electorate to allocate seats not population; and one national quota not four separate ones for each nation?

The Conservative manifesto states "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries,  making sure that every vote counts the  same – a cornerstone of democracy" and as they are also calling for the Repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011) they are calling for 650 constituencies not 600. The population numbers are used ONLY to assess what proportion of seats the UK's nations have and have no bearing on the electoral quota. This is my suggestion as to how to make a Parliament that fits into the Conservative Party's plans

The change to 600 seats was an entirely different piece of legislation.

[therealriga]

Nov 27, 2019 20:16:03 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

Nov 27, 2019 13:42:41 GMT courtenay said:

What Conservative plan is this? Surely the Conservative plan involves 600 seats not 650; using electorate to allocate seats not population; and one national quota not four separate ones for each nation?

The Conservative manifesto states "We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries,  making sure that every vote counts the  same – a cornerstone of democracy" and as they are also calling for the Repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act (2011) they are calling for 650 constituencies not 600. The population numbers are used ONLY to assess what proportion of seats the UK's nations have and have no bearing on the electoral quota. This is my suggestion as to how to make a Parliament that fits into the Conservative Party's plans

Ummm, why would you use 2017 population figures when the actual electorate figures from 1 December 2018 are freely available on the ONS site?

If you use those then it's 
England 546
Scotland 56
Wales 31
NI 17

But I suspect the Conservatives will keep the idea of having 4 protected island constituencies so if you calculate it based on that you have
England 543+2 
Scotland 55+2 
Wales 31

NI 17

[greenhert]

It would be useful if a 10% deviation from the average was allowed; 5% is too tight.

[cibwr]

Which would keep Cornwall's boundaries and not have a devonwall seat I suspect.

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Nov 27, 2019 23:17:29 GMT greenhert said:

It would be useful if a 10% deviation from the average was allowed; 5% is too tight.

I'd rather keep the 5%, but work out the quotas on a regional basis, replacing the massive Euro-regions with smaller ones in England (population 1m-3.5m, generally formed of 1-3 ceremonial counties):

• Berkshire and Oxfordshire
• Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Bedfordshire
• Cheshire and Wirral
• Derbyshire
• Devon and Cornwall
• Durham and Sunderland
• Essex
• Gloucestershire and Bristol
• Greater Manchester
• Hampshire, Dorset, and Isle of Wight
• Hertfordshire
• Inner London (Lambeth, Wandsworth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden, Westminster, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and City of London)
• Kent
• Lancashire and Cumbria
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire and Rutland
• Merseyside less Wirral
• Middlesex (Barnet, Ealing, Enfield, Brent, Hillingdon, Haringey, Hounslow, and Harrow)
• Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and Suffolk
• North Surrey (Croydon, Merton, Sutton, Richmond upon Thames, and Kingston upon Thames)
• North West Kent (Bromley, Lewisham, Greenwich, and Bexley)
• North Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire
• Nottinghamshire
• Somerset and Wiltshire
• South West Essex (Newham, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Havering, and Barking and Dagenham)
• South Yorkshire
• Staffordshire
• Surrey
• Tyne and Wear less Sunderland, and Northumberland
• West Midlands and Warwickshire
• West Sussex and East Sussex
• West Yorkshire
• Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Herefordshire

[bjornhattan]

Nov 28, 2019 9:51:45 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Nov 27, 2019 23:17:29 GMT greenhert said:

It would be useful if a 10% deviation from the average was allowed; 5% is too tight.

I'd rather keep the 5%, but work out the quotas on a regional basis, replacing the massive Euro-regions with smaller ones in England (population 1m-3.5m, generally formed of 1-3 ceremonial counties):

• Berkshire and Oxfordshire
• Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Bedfordshire
• Cheshire and Wirral
• Derbyshire
• Devon and Cornwall
• Durham and Sunderland
• Essex
• Gloucestershire and Bristol
• Greater Manchester
• Hampshire, Dorset, and Isle of Wight
• Hertfordshire
• Inner London (Lambeth, Wandsworth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden, Westminster, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and City of London)
• Kent
• Lancashire and Cumbria
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire and Rutland
• Merseyside less Wirral
• Middlesex (Barnet, Ealing, Enfield, Brent, Hillingdon, Haringey, Hounslow, and Harrow)
• Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and Suffolk
• North Surrey (Croydon, Merton, Sutton, Richmond upon Thames, and Kingston upon Thames)
• North West Kent (Bromley, Lewisham, Greenwich, and Bexley)
• North Yorkshire and East Riding of Yorkshire
• Nottinghamshire
• Somerset and Wiltshire
• South West Essex (Newham, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Havering, and Barking and Dagenham)
• South Yorkshire
• Staffordshire
• Surrey
• Tyne and Wear less Sunderland, and Northumberland
• West Midlands and Warwickshire
• West Sussex and East Sussex
• West Yorkshire
• Worcestershire, Shropshire, and Herefordshire

I could agree with this, but with the Isle of Wight treated as a "sui generis" region, a cross-Solent seat would be infeasible.

[The Bishop]

Unlike in 2017, there is no mention of reducing MPs to 600 in the current Tory manifesto.

[John Chanin]

Nov 28, 2019 13:50:30 GMT The Bishop said:

Unlike in 2017, there is no mention of reducing MPs to 600 in the current Tory manifesto.

There doesn’t have to be.  It’s the law already.  I’d be amazed if the Conservatives win a majority, that they don’t simply let the law run its course.  

[pl]

Nov 28, 2019 13:59:41 GMT John Chanin said:

Nov 28, 2019 13:50:30 GMT The Bishop said:

Unlike in 2017, there is no mention of reducing MPs to 600 in the current Tory manifesto.

There doesn’t have to be.  It’s the law already.  I’d be amazed if the Conservatives win a majority, that they don’t simply let the law run its course.  

But with an outright majority it does mean more seatless Conservatives.

[minionofmidas]

Nov 28, 2019 13:59:41 GMT John Chanin said:

Nov 28, 2019 13:50:30 GMT The Bishop said:

Unlike in 2017, there is no mention of reducing MPs to 600 in the current Tory manifesto.

There doesn’t have to be.  It’s the law already.  I’d be amazed if the Conservatives win a majority, that they don’t simply let the law run its course.  

But will they vote to accept the 2018 commission report? Doubt it. (If the next parliament runs its course, they won't even need to; the next commission's report will be ready.)

One thing to look at, given the predicted Brexit realignment, is whether the Tories are even going to benefit from a new map, except the obvious Wales issue. Those Black Country marginals are generally shrinking and undersized from the start.

[John Chanin]

The 2018 report falls with the General Election. The law requires the Commission to draw up new proposals after each election.

[courtenay]

Nov 28, 2019 14:12:20 GMT John Chanin said:

The 2018 report falls with the General Election. The law requires the Commission to draw up new proposals after each election.

I don't think that's true.

EDIT: to clarify, I believe the law requires the Commission to draw up new proposals every five years. Now, it used to be elections were every five years too, but now of course they're every two years.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The Boundary Commissions have to produce a new report before 1 October 2018, 2023, 2028, 2033, 2038 etc.

[John Chanin]

The law was written within the context of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. So you are both technically correct. But that still means a new report has to be produced before the next election, if the Conservatives win a majority, and as expected see out their term. And you wouldn’t implement the 2018 report because it will be superseded. And my basic point that they do not need to do anything to change the law stands.

[minionofmidas]

Nov 28, 2019 14:45:58 GMT John Chanin said:

The law was written within the context of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. So you are both technically correct. But that still means a new report has to be produced before the next election, if the Conservatives win a majority, and as expected see out their term. And you wouldn’t implement the 2018 report because it will be superseded. And my basic point that they do not need to do anything to change the law stands.

They do need to vote to implement the 2023 report, though.

[courtenay]

Nov 28, 2019 14:45:58 GMT John Chanin said:

The law was written within the context of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. So you are both technically correct. But that still means a new report has to be produced before the next election, if the Conservatives win a majority, and as expected see out their term. And you wouldn’t implement the 2018 report because it will be superseded. And my basic point that they do not need to do anything to change the law stands.

Or you could implement this one now, for fear that by the time the next report came in 2023, any number of MPs might have defected by then or might vote down the report as the Lib Dems did. The Heath Government implemented the pending report in 1971 despite going on to alter all the counties in 1972.

[warofdreams]

Nov 28, 2019 14:55:27 GMT minionofmidas said:

Nov 28, 2019 14:45:58 GMT John Chanin said:

The law was written within the context of the Fixed Term Parliament Act. So you are both technically correct. But that still means a new report has to be produced before the next election, if the Conservatives win a majority, and as expected see out their term. And you wouldn’t implement the 2018 report because it will be superseded. And my basic point that they do not need to do anything to change the law stands.

They do need to vote to implement the 2023 report, though.

Waiting for the 2023 report could backfire if they've not got a majority, or only a very slim one, at that point.