|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 28, 2019 15:08:35 GMT
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): I agree with ditching the Euro regions, being unable to combine Grimsby/Cleethorpes with the northern part of the post-1973 Lincolnshire county always struck me as particularly weird. I think you could just work on a county basis to start with. That would require a first stage of deciding which ones need to be combined. I prefer 650 seats and 10% deviation. I'd also prefer reviews every 10 years, but with a provision allowing for interim reviews if a constituency deviates by more than a fixed amount (15%?) from the average. Keep 4 protected island constituencies and then have a UK quota for the other 646. The commissions should also be allowed to consider population projections. In the early 1980s review Milton Keynes ended up way too large and Glasgow seats too small because they had to exclude such considerations. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 28, 2019 15:16:14 GMT
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 And you wouldn’t implement the 2018 report because it will be superseded.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. Or simply for fear that it will be less favorable than this one, in which case you can then refuse to implement the 2023 review on the basis that the GE is far too near (which is arguably not even wrong; I just remembered that under the Fixed Terms Act the next election is due in may 2024 not december), candidates have been selected on the basis of these new constituencies which are now supposed to be ditched without having ever been used, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 28, 2019 16:24:16 GMT
Or perhaps something should be put in place for boundary reviews to be implemented automatically rather than having to run a political gauntlet and create all this confusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 29, 2019 9:03:17 GMT
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 Is anyone surprised that the Tory plans from 10 years ago to reduce the number of MPs to first 585 and then 600 looks like it isn't going to happen? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Nov 29, 2019 11:03:46 GMT
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): I agree with ditching the Euro regions, being unable to combine Grimsby/Cleethorpes with the northern part of the post-1973 Lincolnshire county always struck me as particularly weird. I think you could just work on a county basis to start with. That would require a first stage of deciding which ones need to be combined. I prefer 650 seats and 10% deviation. I'd also prefer reviews every 10 years, but with a provision allowing for interim reviews if a constituency deviates by more than a fixed amount (15%?) from the average. Keep 4 protected island constituencies and then have a UK quota for the other 646. The commissions should also be allowed to consider population projections. In the early 1980s review Milton Keynes ended up way too large and Glasgow seats too small because they had to exclude such considerations. I wouldn't like to go down the road of population projections, given the problematic nature of these on a local government level. The quota should be for the area being subdivided rather than for the whole UK, or one could find that the tolerances are so small that one gets some constituency that is an arbitrary collection of wards just to fit between the regional average and the upper or lower quota (the current system somewhat anticipates this happening in Northern Ireland). There really need to be at least a few statutory combinations to avoid sensible rules producing silly results and to enable seat allocation to each "region" by the Webster Method. In general, the ceremonial counties work well in England (with the major proviso that the Wirral obviously needs to be considered with Cheshire and not Merseyside). I'd gone for a minimum population of 1 million to avoid too much divergence in the quotas, but maybe that overvalues equality of representation. Let's walk through the smallest local authorities, to try to spot where the line should be: - City of London (6,603 LG electors) – clearly needs combining with Greater London, which itself needs splitting to constrain the silly possibilities of crossing the Thames estuary, crossing the Lea valley, and crossing between Inner and Outer London
- Rutland (29,421 LG electors) – clearly needs combining with either Lincolnshire or Leicestershire; I'd argue for the former, as otherwise Stamford looks very silly
- Isle of Wight (108,125 Parliamentary electors) – the geographical considerations argument seems to have won here; probably not worth arguing about two grossly undersized constituencies, although the links between Portsmouth and Ryde are good...
- Herefordshire (137,707 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 1.96 quotas; so combining it with Shropshire (7) doesn't actually do anything at present, but this is a bit of a fluke, and we should be prepared for the numbers to drift out
- Northumberland (239,893 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 3.41 quotas and clearly needs combining with (at least part of) Tyne and Wear to form acceptable constituencies – part of me thinks that crossing the Tyne is something that should be excluded as an option; the most effective way of achieving this would be to abolish Tyne and Wear as a parliamentary county and have both Northumberland and Durham go right up to the Tyne
- Bristol (305,184 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 4.33 quotas and even with a 10% tolerance would be difficult not to combine with Gloucestershire; given what neighbouring parts of Gloucestershire are like on the ground, I would have no hesitation in having this as an automatic combination
- Shropshire (361,061 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 5.13 quotas; so combining it with Herefordshire (4) doesn't actually do anything at present, but this is a bit of a fluke, and we should be prepared for the numbers to drift out
- Cumbria (385,426 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 5.47 quotas; similar issue as Bristol, and combining it with Lancashire should be automatic
- Warwickshire (416,110 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 5.91 quotas; so combining it with the West Midlands doesn't actually do anything at present, but doesn't feel wrong either
- Cornwall (419,121 Parliamentary electors) – on 650 seats, this is at 5.95 quotas; so combining it with Devon doesn't actually do anything at present, and would also be very pitchforky – perhaps this is our line?
If we want to say that an area entitled to 6 constituencies is a suitable region for subdivision, then we need to permit variation mathematically by at least 7.7%, or practically by 10%. So I think I'll concede that you're right on that one, just to avoid Devonwall. I also agree with you on triggering interim reviews at 15% deviation (although I'd make that 15% from the county average). I'd also want interim reviews triggered to ensure that where ward boundaries were realigned, constituency boundaries would be realigned after a timely fashion. In fact, only having interim reviews for individual counties/groups of counties would mean that there was no need for having massive general reviews, or at least restricting those to where the Webster Method changes the number of constituencies in a county/group of counties. The county question is more difficult in other parts of the United Kingdom. In England, there are a small number of undersized counties. Looking at lieutenancy areas in the other nations, the picture is that undersized counties are the norm: - In Northern Ireland, the six counties and two former county boroughs are all undersized. Treating Northern Ireland as a single region seems like the least pitchforky thing to do – it's only 18 constituencies; realistically it could only be split into two areas anyway, as an equal 6/6/6 is very unlikely.
- In Scotland, the lieutenancy areas are the pre-1975 counties with the only difference being the creation of the Western Isles. It would be more sensible to start from the six sheriffdoms, with some realignment so as not to split the local government East Dunbartonshire, South Lanarkshire, and East Ayrshire and so as not to have North Strathclyde crossing the Clyde estuary. Again, we can probably live with the grossly undersized island constituencies.
- In Wales, all of the preserved counties apart from Gwent are undersized. Glamorgan reunification seems sensible, but then Dyfed+Powys is still undersized. So the combinations Gwynedd+Clwyd, West Glam+Dyfed+Powys, and Mid+South Glam seem inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 29, 2019 12:26:42 GMT
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.These alterations had been recommended years beforehand in some form or another (especially regarding the metropolitan counties) in Local Government Commissions of 1947 and 1958, and had been hinted at in the Redcliffe-Maud report, but resistance from local government and many localist MPs prevented such reforms from being implemented until 1972. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 13, 2019 11:22:14 GMT
Right then, let's get started.
"We will ensure we have updated and equal Parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same – a cornerstone of democracy"
Therefore, with thanks to the BBC, the UK's electorate at this election was 47,587,254 which when divided by 650 constituencies equals 73,211.16 electors per constituency, so let's get suggesting.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 13, 2019 11:30:35 GMT
Ceredigion's electorate is 56,250 which is 24% too small and therefore will have to merge with somewhere. Carmarthen East (57,407) is also too small (22%), Carmarthen West (58,629) is also too small (20%), Llanelli (60,513) is also too small (17%) and Preseli, Pembrokeshire (59,586) is again too small (19%). Dyfed (292,385) would only be entitled to 4 seats (3.99) so therefore they would all have to merge and then split four ways.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 15, 2019 16:25:37 GMT
Initial suggestions (until Boundary Assistant relaunches):
Ceredigion and the Preselis: All of Ceredigion and 28% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire (Con / Plaid battleground)
Carmarthenshire West and Pembrokeshire: Remainder of Preseli, Pembrokeshire and 52% of Carmarthen West (Con safe)
Carmarthenshire East: Reminder of Carmarthen West and 78% of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Con / Plaid battleground)
Llanelli: All of Llanelli and remainder of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Lab safe)
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 11, 2020 14:34:58 GMT
Initial suggestions (until Boundary Assistant relaunches): Ceredigion and the Preselis: All of Ceredigion and 28% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire (Con / Plaid battleground) Carmarthenshire West and Pembrokeshire: Remainder of Preseli, Pembrokeshire and 52% of Carmarthen West (Con safe) Carmarthenshire East: Reminder of Carmarthen West and 78% of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Con / Plaid battleground) Llanelli: All of Llanelli and remainder of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Lab safe) I really would not see Carmarthenshire West & Pembrokeshire as a safe seat in an even year. Both Pembrokeshire seats were Labour held 1997 - 2005 when Preseli narrowly fell to the Tories. Moreover, Labour came very close to regaining that seat in 2017.Carmarthenshire West & Pembrokeshire remained Labour until 2010. In a good year , Labour could still win both seats. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 11, 2020 15:12:13 GMT
Initial suggestions (until Boundary Assistant relaunches): Ceredigion and the Preselis: All of Ceredigion and 28% of Preseli, Pembrokeshire (Con / Plaid battleground) Carmarthenshire West and Pembrokeshire: Remainder of Preseli, Pembrokeshire and 52% of Carmarthen West (Con safe) Carmarthenshire East: Reminder of Carmarthen West and 78% of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Con / Plaid battleground) Llanelli: All of Llanelli and remainder of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Lab safe) I really would not see Carmarthenshire West & Pembrokeshire as a safe seat in an even year. Both Pembrokeshire seats were Labour held 1997 - 2005 when Preseli narrowly fell to the Tories. Moreover, Labour came very close to regaining that seat in 2017.Carmarthenshire West & Pembrokeshire West remained Labour until 2010. In a good year , Labour could still win both seats. Labour certainly should still be able to win both if they're going to form a government. The Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire seat proposed by Harry Hayfield is quite different to the current seat, more akin to the former Pembrokeshire seat (and could use the same name, probably not including any of Carmarthenshire) - maybe the thought was that would be safer than the existing seat. It's difficult to guess local voting patterns in West Wales, but I'm not sure that would actually be the case, maybe even the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 11, 2020 16:28:10 GMT
The town of Carmarthen is not that big at all-the two halves can be reunited without any problems in the next boundary review (meaning Carmarthen East & Dinfewr simply becomes Caerfyrddin).
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 11, 2020 17:03:40 GMT
The town of Carmarthen is not that big at all-the two halves can be reunited without any problems in the next boundary review (meaning Carmarthen East & Dinfewr simply becomes Caerfyrddin). The community of Carmarthen is already entirely in one seat - Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. The descriptions of the constituencies as Carmarthen East and West I assume is a reference to the long gone district council. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 11, 2020 17:15:36 GMT
The town of Carmarthen is not that big at all-the two halves can be reunited without any problems in the next boundary review (meaning Carmarthen East & Dinfewr simply becomes Caerfyrddin). The community of Carmarthen is already entirely in one seat - Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. The descriptions of the constituencies as Carmarthen East and West I assume is a reference to the long gone district council. As are South Pembrokeshire and the ever strange Preseli Pembrokeshire (and Llanelli and Ceredigion as well, though these names remain of course entirely appropriate - all the districts of Dyfed are petrified in constituency names!) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 11, 2020 17:51:07 GMT
The town of Carmarthen is not that big at all-the two halves can be reunited without any problems in the next boundary review (meaning Carmarthen East & Dinfewr simply becomes Caerfyrddin). The community of Carmarthen is already entirely in one seat - Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. The descriptions of the constituencies as Carmarthen East and West I assume is a reference to the long gone district council. And, indeed, the historic county of Carmarthenshire. People from Sir Gaer have a strong sense of identity. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2020 19:56:46 GMT
The town of Carmarthen is not that big at all-the two halves can be reunited without any problems in the next boundary review (meaning Carmarthen East & Dinfewr simply becomes Caerfyrddin). The community of Carmarthen is already entirely in one seat - Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. The descriptions of the constituencies as Carmarthen East and West I assume is a reference to the long gone district council. You're technically right, but it feels a bit odd to say that Pen-sarn isn't in Carmarthen. I'm sure most of the people who arrive at Carmarthen railway station have no idea that they are not in Carmarthen. |
|
