|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 28, 2019 23:56:22 GMT
Sir Bill Cash and David Davis would not really have anything to lose from the boundary changes, as they are old enough and have been in Parliament long enough to retire voluntarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Dec 29, 2019 1:27:16 GMT
A Hull West & Haltemprice seat would be notionally Conservative if Davis wanted to fight a marginal for the rest of his career. A quick scan of the numbers leads me to think his seat might be doomed even in a 650 seat Parliament, so that wouldn't help.
I do think a new review should be done now though - doesn't the legislation specify one next year anyway? Cross-county seats should be out, and the quota should be widened to get rid of some of the monstrosities in the current proposals. 650 seats would get Tory MPs on side - if the government force through 600 now they'll have 40 odd potential rebels for the next five years.
650 with a 10% quota would leave most seats very similar to now as long as they aren't in a county gaining or losing seats. And guarantees every county except Northumberland a whole number of seats within quota (and Rutland obviously, maybe put the Wirral in with Cheshire to avoid Mersey Banks)
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 29, 2019 10:53:49 GMT
Sir Bill Cash and David Davis would not really have anything to lose from the boundary changes, as they are old enough and have been in Parliament long enough to retire voluntarily. On a R4 Programme yesterday he disclosed he is a distant cousin to Johnny Cash of Country Music fame and has been contacted by the American side after family research has been undertaken. An unlikely pairing. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 29, 2019 11:21:28 GMT
Personally, I haven’t got a strong preference either way between 600 and 650, but I can see why the Government might be tempted to jettison the 2018 review and go for a 650-seat approach instead.
But I don’t agree with a 10% variance; it’s too much. Using the numbers given upthread as an example, I make the UK 650-seat electoral quota 47,562,702 - 168,338 (islands) = 47,394,364 / 646 = 73366. A 10% variance would give a permitted range of 66030 to 80702.
That seems to me an unacceptably wide variation between freshly-drawn constituencies, especially when you remember that, within the present rules, all that is required of the Boundary Commissions is that they draw seats falling within the permitted range. They are not under any obligation to aim for the middle of the range, and in fact if they attempted this they would find themselves on the wrong end of a judicial review because they would have had regard to an irrelevant consideration.
Consider a situation with two adjoining seats, in the same local authority area, one near the top of the range and the other near the bottom, their electorates thus varying by over 14000, with a nice juicy ward with around 7000 electors in the larger seat but on its border with the smaller one, perfectly suitable to be moved and with no particular administrative or geographical factors giving rise to a preference for inclusion in one seat or the other. Yet you couldn’t move it; there would be no relevant reason to do so because both seats are within range.
The rules currently imply that all seats within range are to be treated as functionally equal, and this approach makes perfect sense because they will, after all, have the same representation in Parliament. But of course this implication of equality is a fiction; some degree of variation is needed to allow sensible boundaries to be drawn. A 5% tolerance means that the fiction is close enough to reality to be acceptable, but 10% is too much to swallow.
If we stay at 600, then the 5% should stay as well. I reluctantly accept that an increase to 650 seats would require a slightly greater tolerance. Maybe 6% would suffice; I’d be deeply loth to see it go above 7%.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Dec 29, 2019 12:32:43 GMT
Perhaps have 5% as the desired tolerance and then something like 7.5% (or a bit lower) as the maximum tolerance? The latter would only be used when clearly justified eg; geographic considerations or avoid splitting wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 29, 2019 14:14:39 GMT
Perhaps have 5% as the desired tolerance and then something like 7.5% (or a bit lower) as the maximum tolerance? The latter would only be used when clearly justified eg; geographic considerations or avoid splitting wards. Similar to my suggestion that a higher tolerance be allowed when the average ward size is greater than 10,000, which at the moment leads to a car crash that only islington supports. I’d support the bipartisan recommendation of the parliamentary select committee of 7.5%. Seats should be equal, but if we have first past the post constituencies, then they should also reasonably reflect communities. More generally this really isn’t an area that should be partisan. Confidence in our democracy should require consensus on all issues related to the mechanics of elections. Cameron’s decision to dispense with this may well have long term implications, if not reversed. Discussions on the “voter suppression” thread show that suspicions of the motives of others is already rampant, on both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 29, 2019 15:03:06 GMT
Perhaps have 5% as the desired tolerance and then something like 7.5% (or a bit lower) as the maximum tolerance? The latter would only be used when clearly justified eg; geographic considerations or avoid splitting wards. This wouldn’t be unreasonable. The onus would have to be on the Commission proposing an outsized or undersized seat to show that it had tried, and failed, to find a reasonable alternative arrangement with seats within the 5% range. I think this would be better than John Chanin’s suggestion about average ward sizes because it’s inevitable that large wards will be found mainly in urban areas and I don’t see why urban voters should be expected to put up with greater variations in their representation than rural voters. The 2018 proposals are far from ideal and could have been significantly improved upon, without splitting wards, even within the 5% tolerance. But they are not so bad as all that, and I don’t think it’s fair to characterize them as a car crash. They are, for instance, markedly better than the final proposals of the zombie review conducted on exactly the same rules, and I am (naively?) optimistic enough to take this as a sign that as the Commissions become more accustomed to these rules their proposals will improve in future. The basic problem with the 2018 review, in my view, was not the rules themselves but the fact that in several parts of the country the initial proposals were palpably unsatisfactory, and there’s a limit to how much improvement can be effected by two rounds of consultation. Overall I’d say the general result of the consultations was to move us from ‘not very good’ initial proposals to ‘OK-ish’ final recommendations. If the Commissions (well, really, I mean the BCE, I didn’t follow the process so closely elsewhere) had put more effort into the initial plans, the whole process would have worked better and the consultations might have moved us from ‘not bad’ to ‘pretty good’. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 29, 2019 15:35:10 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between three things:
1) the deviation of a regional/county average from the national average – this is a function of the smallest number of constituencies in a region/county that is permitted (and if we want Cornwall to stand on its own, then we're going to end up with this being in high single figures)
2) the deviation permitted within a region/county when the constituencies are drawn – I'd be happy for this to be 5%, so long as it relates to the average of the region/county, rather than the national average
3) the deviation of an individual constituency within a region/county that should trigger a further review – this should obviously be higher than (2)
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,845
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 29, 2019 18:34:56 GMT
Perhaps have 5% as the desired tolerance and then something like 7.5% (or a bit lower) as the maximum tolerance? The latter would only be used when clearly justified eg; geographic considerations or avoid splitting wards. I'd go for local government rules, target 5%, require 10%. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Dec 30, 2019 12:42:09 GMT
Perhaps have 5% as the desired tolerance and then something like 7.5% (or a bit lower) as the maximum tolerance? The latter would only be used when clearly justified eg; geographic considerations or avoid splitting wards. I'd go for local government rules, target 5%, require 10%. This is the bleeding obvious solution IMO. Which there is already widespread precedent for! The only question is why they ever went for 5% and not this. (I would also go for county-level quotas and allocations but that's another matter) |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 31, 2019 1:04:38 GMT
I'd go for local government rules, target 5%, require 10%. This is the bleeding obvious solution IMO. Which there is already widespread precedent for! The only question is why they ever went for 5% and not this. Because they drew the new rules up for partisan reasons, rather than psephelogical ones. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Dec 31, 2019 1:20:35 GMT
This is the bleeding obvious solution IMO. Which there is already widespread precedent for! The only question is why they ever went for 5% and not this. Because they drew the new rules up for partisan reasons, rather than psephelogical ones. Untrue. A 5% limit or a 10% limit favours no party over another, so long as the principal of equality throughout the country is accepted (ie no lower quotas for smaller nations). The evidence was (and is) most countries manage with a 5% or lower limit, eg the US, or Australia, to give two countries with single member seats. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,845
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 31, 2019 5:18:36 GMT
Because they drew the new rules up for partisan reasons, rather than psephelogical ones. Untrue. A 5% limit or a 10% limit favours no party over another, so long as the principal of equality throughout the country is accepted (ie no lower quotas for smaller nations). The evidence was (and is) most countries manage with a 5% or lower limit, eg the US, or Australia, to give two countries with single member seats. Those countries use smaller building blocks. In the case of the US, individual houses with no regard for social or geographical realities, resulting in some right abominations. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 31, 2019 10:06:59 GMT
The US uses resident population to equalise districts. Australia uses resident population to allocate the number of seats to each state (although registered electorate for each individual district).
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 31, 2019 12:41:33 GMT
The downside of using population is that certain local authorities have very large proportions of non-citizens, roughly a third of whom overall are in Greater London, which would have a concentrated distortionary effect. The 2018/9 estimates show the following local authorities as having at least double the average proportion (10%) of people who do not hold British nationality (and the largest three groups in each case): - Kensington and Chelsea 56% (EU 1995, N America, Europe Non-EU) - Westminster 53% (EU 1995, N America, E Asia) - Brent 50% (EU 1995, Bulgaria & Romania, EU 2004 Expansion)- Cambridge 48% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, N America)- Camden 47% (EU 1995, E Asia, N America) - Haringey 41% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, Europe Non-EU)- Hammersmith and Fulham 40% (EU 1995, SS Africa, N America) - Redbridge 39% (S Asia, Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995)
- Hounslow 38% (S Asia, EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Harrow 37% (Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Boston 33% (EU 2004 Expansion, Bulgaria & Romania, [censored])
- Barking and Dagenham 33% (EU 2004 Expansion, Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995)
- Luton 33% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, S Asia)
- Southwark 32% (EU 1995, SS Africa, N America) - Newham 32% (Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995, S Asia)
- Leicester 32% (EU 1995, S Asia, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Tower Hamlets 32% (EU 1995, S Asia, EU 2004 Expansion) - Forest Heath 31% (EU 2004 Expansion, S Asia, SE Asia)
- Hackney 30% (EU 1995, SS Africa, Europe Non-EU) - Lambeth 30% (EU 1995, SS Africa, C&S America) - Lewisham 30% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, Bulgaria & Romania) - Merton 29% (EU 1995, Bulgaria & Romania, S Asia)
- Corby 29% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, EU 1995)
- Oxford 29% (EU 1995, N America, C&S America)
- Enfield 28% (EU 1995, Bulgaria & Romania, SS Africa)
- Woking 28% (EU 1995, S Asia, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Reading 27% (S Asia, EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Watford 27% (EU 2004 Expansion, S Asia, EU 1995)
- Wandsworth 27% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, S Asia) - Ealing 27% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, S Asia)
- Islington 27% (EU 1995, N America, EU 2004 Expansion) - Hillingdon 26% (S Asia, EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion)- Slough 26% (EU 2004 Expansion, S Asia, EU 1995)
- Manchester 26% (EU 1995, S Asia, SS Africa)- Barnet 26% (EU 1995, Bulgaria & Romania, EU 2004 Expansion)
- Greenwich 25% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, Bulgaria & Romania) - Nottingham 25% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, SS Africa)
- Waltham Forest 24% (EU 2004 Expansion, Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995)
- Peterborough 23% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, Bulgaria & Romania)
- Lincoln 23% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, [censored])
- Kingston upon Thames 23% (EU 1995, Europe Non-EU, Mid East & C Asia)
- Harlow 23% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, [censored])
- Hertsmere 22% (Bulgaria & Romania, EU 1995, [censored])
- Richmond upon Thames 22% (EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion, C&S America)- Coventry 22% (S Asia, EU 1995, EU 2004 Expansion)- Croydon 21% (EU 2004 Expansion, EU 1995, S Asia)
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Dec 31, 2019 12:50:55 GMT
Because they drew the new rules up for partisan reasons, rather than psephelogical ones. Untrue. A 5% limit or a 10% limit favours no party over another, so long as the principal of equality throughout the country is accepted (ie no lower quotas for smaller nations). The evidence was (and is) most countries manage with a 5% or lower limit, eg the US, or Australia, to give two countries with single member seats. The reason Cameron changed the rules was to make the boundaries more favourable to the Conservatives. The Lib Dems went along with the proposals because they thought they'd get both (limited) electoral reform and Lords reform out of it. And then torpedoed zombie review 1 when it became clear they would get neither. The 5% tolerance was probably the least partisan of the three major changes, but it was still included in there because the Conservatives thought it would help tilt the bias in the system in their direction. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 31, 2019 13:24:44 GMT
The downside of using population is that certain local authorities have very large proportions of non-citizens, roughly a third of whom overall are in Greater London, which would have a concentrated distortionary effect. The 2018/9 estimates show the following local authorities as having at least double the average proportion (10%) of people who do not hold British nationality (and the largest three groups in each case):
I agree that we should not use straight population figures. However the census collects nationality, so there is no bar to using census figures of those with British citizenship (or Irish & Commonwealth so long as they retain the right to vote) as the baseline. It would be the best measure available of those eligible to vote, which ought to be the baseline for allocation of seats. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 31, 2019 14:49:24 GMT
The downside of using population is that certain local authorities have very large proportions of non-citizens, roughly a third of whom overall are in Greater London, which would have a concentrated distortionary effect. The 2018/9 estimates show the following local authorities as having at least double the average proportion (10%) of people who do not hold British nationality (and the largest three groups in each case):
I agree that we should not use straight population figures. However the census collects nationality, so there is no bar to using census figures of those with British citizenship (or Irish & Commonwealth so long as they retain the right to vote) as the baseline. It would be the best measure available of those eligible to vote, which ought to be the baseline for allocation of seats. Unfortunately, the Census phrased this question in a very unhelpful way that is virtually designed to generate bad data: "Which passports do you hold?" This resulted in only 76% claiming to be British, despite the official estimates showing that just a smidgen over 10% are non-citizens. The Census does not break down those claiming not to hold a passport by country of birth; so it is not possible to distinguish between a British person who feels no need to go abroad and an undocumented immigrant from the Census. Perhaps unsurprisingly, passport-holding again skews things in favour of London. Only 3% of people in Kensington and Chelsea (the sort of place that people who write Census questions frequent) do not have a passport. This rises to 30% in Great Yarmouth and in Blaenau Gwent. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,845
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 31, 2019 16:36:10 GMT
The downside of using population is that certain local authorities have very large proportions of non-citizens
So you use the resident adult citizen population. select from "census" where age>=18 && citizenship="uk" |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 31, 2019 17:20:39 GMT
The downside of using population is that certain local authorities have very large proportions of non-citizens
So you use the resident adult citizen population. select from "census" where age>=18 && citizenship="uk" Which requires the census to identify citizens, a question that is not actually asked per we, and the analogues are very faulty, almost perversely so. |
|
