|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 31, 2019 20:03:10 GMT
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. I have forgotten the details of the 2011 census but I assume you are right. However the census does also ask for country of birth. There is no published cross tab, as far as I remember, but there could be. When I was a local authority policy officer, you could ask ONS to run queries for you, and I did. You canβt as far as I remember do this on NOMIS, but obviously it is trivial for ONS. Obviously itβs not 100%, but it is still the best measure of eligible voters available. And we should all be able to agree that in principle the total number of eligible voters is the correct baseline. One great advantage of the census, as pointed out above, is that it deals with dual registrations. For the base it counts everyone once and once only, even if they may have the right to register and vote in more than one place. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 31, 2019 22:16:21 GMT
Unfortunately, the Census phrased this question in a very unhelpful way that is virtually designed to generate bad data: ... I have forgotten the details of the 2011 census but I assume you are right. However the census does also ask for country of birth. There is no published cross tab, as far as I remember, but there could be. When I was a local authority policy officer, you could ask ONS to run queries for you, and I did. You canβt as far as I remember do this on NOMIS, but obviously it is trivial for ONS. Obviously itβs not 100%, but it is still the best measure of eligible voters available. And we should all be able to agree that in principle the total number of eligible voters is the correct baseline. One great advantage of the census, as pointed out above, is that it deals with dual registrations. For the base it counts everyone once and once only, even if they may have the right to register and vote in more than one place. I agree that the census is flakey dealing with number of citizens, but you'd be changing redistricting rules for the future, so you wouldn't use the current census, you'd be using the 2021 and future ones, so you'd fix the question to get the correct answer. When I did a study of possible under-registration in Sheffield I was able to get decent enough figures from the 2011 census. ( link, data) On a tangent, the Census asks way too many questions nowadays, it really needs to go back to something like a single A4 per household as before WW2. |
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Jan 2, 2020 20:09:50 GMT
Full regional figures: Total 47,562,702 Scotland 4,053,056 (including 55317 in the two island constituencies) Wales 2,319,826 N Ireland 1,293,971 England 39,895,849 (including Isle of Wight 113,021 ) East 4,495,896 E Mids 3,481,371 London 5,581,948 NE 1,946,969 NW 5,369,541 SE 6,628,249 (including Isle of Wight 113,021 ) SW 4,239,783 W Mids 4,194,011 Yorks+H 3,958,085 Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Isle of Wight total 168,338 If we kept 650 seats with four for the islands, that would give (England and Scotland excluding island seats): England 542 (+10) Scotland 54 (-3) Wales 32 (-8) Northern Ireland 18 (no change) Islands 4 (+1) For the English regions I make it East 61 (+3) E Mids 47 (+1) London 76 (+3) N East 27 (-2) N West 73 (-2) S East 89 (+6) excluding the Isle of Wight S West 58 (+3) W Mids 57 (-2) Yorks+H 54 (nc) I thought I would drill down into these figures and see what what happens at county/constituency levels. I am going to assume that there will be a new review, and that it will continue to be based on a parliament of 650 seats. I will try and cover the country, but may take a bit of time, but here is a start:- South West Electorate 4,239,783, and is allocated 58 constituencies, so that is an average of 73,100. The electorate for each county and the seats allocated are:- Cornwall 437,455 (5.98 seats) Devon 919,717 (12.58 seats) Dorset 589,120 (8.06 seats) Somerset 426,458 (5.83 seats) Wiltshire 531,978 (7.28 seats) Avon 850,063 (11.63 seats) Gloucestershire 484,244 (6.62 seats) Cornwall (6 seats), Dorset (8 seats) and Somerset (6 seats) would appear to stand on their own. Wiltshire would be reduced 7 seats, whilst Devon (13 seats), Avon (12 seats) and Gloucestershire (7 seats) should all be rounded up, making the grand total of 59 for the region. That is one over quota, so I would see two options:- 1. Devon is reduced to 12 seats (as the least deserving of the rounding up) or 2. Gloucestershire and Avon are combined and considered in total, being allowed 18 seats altogether. Drilling down into counties. CornwallThe good new is that Cornwall can be awarded 6 seats, and there is no cross border constituency. The existing boundaries actually would not need to be changed very much, but they would need to be realigned as the wards have changed, so there could potentially be some disruption. Devon/PlymouthIf Devon is awarded an extra seat, then there is going to be substantial changes. The average constituency electorate would be 70,747. Plymouth Moorview is slightly under quota, but Plymouth Sutton & Devonport is 10% over quota, meaning it should lose a ward. There is not an ideal option for this one. but it may well be Sutton & Mount Gould going into Devon South West. Devon South West actually is pretty close to quota (+2.5%), as it Totnes (-0.2%), so added another Plymouth ward is not ideal. Newton Abbot is also comfortably in quota (+2.5%), Torbay is 6.1% over quota and so could do with losing a ward, as is Devon West & Torridge (+13.1%), North Devon (+7.1%), Central Devon (+5.6%), Exeter (+16.0%), East Devon (+22.8%) and Tiverton & Honiton (+17.3%). It would seem that the additional constituency is going to be based in the east of the county, but that seats in the north and west will also need to lose electorate, thus creating a knock on effect. It is likely that Devon really is not going to be pretty. DorsetDorset will be unchanged with 8 seats, however the creation of the two new councils and subsequent ward boundary changes will mean additional changes. Of the existing constituencies South Dorset (-1.0%), North Dorset (+3.1%), Poole (0.5%), Bournemouth West (0.8%), Bournemouth West (+0.7%) and Christchurch (-2.9%) are West Dorset is over quota (+9.9%) and needs to lose electors, whilst Mid Dorset and Poole North is 11.2% under quota, so needs to be supplemented with electors. It is a sham that the boundaries between the two hardly touch and therefore bigger changes will be needed. SomersetAs it would be awarded a new constituency, there will be wholesale changes. This is not helped by the fact that all the existing seats are well over quota, Yeovil (+16%), Taunton Deane (24.8%), Bridgwater & West Somerset (+20.1%), Wells (+18.4%) and Somerton & Frome (+17.5%). Wiltshire/SwindonAll of the constituencies within Wiltshire are pretty close to the quota, with the exception of Swindon North which is 8.5% over. The transfer of one ward from Swindon North to Swindon South would correct that. For Wiltshire whilst the existing constituencies work well, the major boundary changes for the Unitary Authority might well mean wholesale changes. Avon/GloucestershireOnce again a number of difficult decisions to be made. Bath is undersized (-8.6%), but is totally surrounded by Somerset North East which is almost exactly on quota. Weston-super-Mare is over-sized at +11.3%, as is North Somerset at +8.2%, but without mixing some of these areas with Bristol wards, the only other option is to move the centre of gravity of Somerset North East to the south to take in territory from these seats. Bristol is also a challenge, with only Bristol East (-0,4%) and Bristol North West (+2.9%) being on quota, Bristol South (+13.4%) and Bristol West (+33.9%) will need addressing. Bristol South could lose one ward (Southville?) to Bristol West, and then Bristol West would lose wards to Bristol North West or Bristol East, which in turn would lose out to Filton & Bradley Stoke (-0.2%). This in turn would pass wards onto Thornton & Yate (-6.7%). In Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean is on quota (-3.6%), however every other seat is oversized. Stroud (+14%), Cotswolds (+10.5%), Gloucester (+9.7%), Cheltenham (+9.3%) and Tewkesbury (+13.3%), would all need to lose electors. It is difficult to see how this would eventually work out, but a new seat based on the area between Gloucester and Cheltenham would seem to be the most realistic, taking electors from all of the oversized constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 2, 2020 20:38:32 GMT
The solution to creating a new seat in Devon is made easier by breaking up Central Devon, and essentially recreating (as much as possible) Torrington and Tavistock.
Combining Gloucestershire and the ex-Gloucestershire part of Avon does not necessitate this awkward seat between Gloucester and Cheltenham, as it allows Dursley, Thornbury & Yate and the recreation of Bristol North East (Southville should remain part of Bristol South; instead shave the eastern wards from it). This means Quedgeley can be moved into a redrawn Stroud constituency, solving the Gloucester/Cheltenham issue since Gloucester will then get Longlevens ward back from Tewkesbury.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach FlannbhuΓ on Jan 3, 2020 0:23:52 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). Which says bugger all about a 5% limit. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach FlannbhuΓ on Jan 3, 2020 0:26:59 GMT
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 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. No, you liar. There is a difference between providing an advantage to the Conservatives, and removing a disadvantage to Labour. But this has nothing to do with whether a 5% limit is advantageous to any party. There is no advantage to any particular limit; Cameron could have set a 10% limit in 2011, and it would have had no real effect; the bias to Labour would have been removed, generally speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by DavΔ±d Boothroyd on Jan 3, 2020 0:32:17 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). Which says bugger all about a 5% limit. So what? I was making a different point - namely that equal representation should be achieved by equalising populations, not electorates. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 3, 2020 14:31:36 GMT
Full regional figures: Total 47,562,702 Scotland 4,053,056 (including 55317 in the two island constituencies) Wales 2,319,826 N Ireland 1,293,971 England 39,895,849 (including Isle of Wight 113,021 ) East 4,495,896 E Mids 3,481,371 London 5,581,948 NE 1,946,969 NW 5,369,541 SE 6,628,249 (including Isle of Wight 113,021 ) SW 4,239,783 W Mids 4,194,011 Yorks+H 3,958,085 Orkney and Shetland, Western Isles, Isle of Wight total 168,338 If we kept 650 seats with four for the islands, that would give (England and Scotland excluding island seats): England 542 (+10) Scotland 54 (-3) Wales 32 (-8) Northern Ireland 18 (no change) Islands 4 (+1) For the English regions I make it East 61 (+3) E Mids 47 (+1) London 76 (+3) N East 27 (-2) N West 73 (-2) S East 89 (+6) excluding the Isle of Wight S West 58 (+3) W Mids 57 (-2) Yorks+H 54 (nc) I thought I would drill down into these figures and see what what happens at county/constituency levels. I am going to assume that there will be a new review, and that it will continue to be based on a parliament of 650 seats. I will try and cover the country, but may take a bit of time, but here is a start:- South West Electorate 4,239,783, and is allocated 58 constituencies, so that is an average of 73,100. The electorate for each county and the seats allocated are:- Cornwall 437,455 (5.98 seats) Devon 919,717 (12.58 seats) Dorset 589,120 (8.06 seats) Somerset 426,458 (5.83 seats) Wiltshire 531,978 (7.28 seats) Avon 850,063 (11.63 seats) Gloucestershire 484,244 (6.62 seats) Cornwall (6 seats), Dorset (8 seats) and Somerset (6 seats) would appear to stand on their own. Wiltshire would be reduced 7 seats, whilst Devon (13 seats), Avon (12 seats) and Gloucestershire (7 seats) should all be rounded up, making the grand total of 59 for the region. That is one over quota, so I would see two options:- 1. Devon is reduced to 12 seats (as the least deserving of the rounding up) or 2. Gloucestershire and Avon are combined and considered in total, being allowed 18 seats altogether. Drilling down into counties. CornwallThe good new is that Cornwall can be awarded 6 seats, and there is no cross border constituency. The existing boundaries actually would not need to be changed very much, but they would need to be realigned as the wards have changed, so there could potentially be some disruption. Devon/PlymouthIf Devon is awarded an extra seat, then there is going to be substantial changes. The average constituency electorate would be 70,747. Plymouth Moorview is slightly under quota, but Plymouth Sutton & Devonport is 10% over quota, meaning it should lose a ward. There is not an ideal option for this one. but it may well be Sutton & Mount Gould going into Devon South West. Devon South West actually is pretty close to quota (+2.5%), as it Totnes (-0.2%), so added another Plymouth ward is not ideal. Newton Abbot is also comfortably in quota (+2.5%), Torbay is 6.1% over quota and so could do with losing a ward, as is Devon West & Torridge (+13.1%), North Devon (+7.1%), Central Devon (+5.6%), Exeter (+16.0%), East Devon (+22.8%) and Tiverton & Honiton (+17.3%). It would seem that the additional constituency is going to be based in the east of the county, but that seats in the north and west will also need to lose electorate, thus creating a knock on effect. It is likely that Devon really is not going to be pretty. DorsetDorset will be unchanged with 8 seats, however the creation of the two new councils and subsequent ward boundary changes will mean additional changes. Of the existing constituencies South Dorset (-1.0%), North Dorset (+3.1%), Poole (0.5%), Bournemouth West (0.8%), Bournemouth West (+0.7%) and Christchurch (-2.9%) are West Dorset is over quota (+9.9%) and needs to lose electors, whilst Mid Dorset and Poole North is 11.2% under quota, so needs to be supplemented with electors. It is a sham that the boundaries between the two hardly touch and therefore bigger changes will be needed. SomersetAs it would be awarded a new constituency, there will be wholesale changes. This is not helped by the fact that all the existing seats are well over quota, Yeovil (+16%), Taunton Deane (24.8%), Bridgwater & West Somerset (+20.1%), Wells (+18.4%) and Somerton & Frome (+17.5%). Wiltshire/SwindonAll of the constituencies within Wiltshire are pretty close to the quota, with the exception of Swindon North which is 8.5% over. The transfer of one ward from Swindon North to Swindon South would correct that. For Wiltshire whilst the existing constituencies work well, the major boundary changes for the Unitary Authority might well mean wholesale changes. Avon/GloucestershireOnce again a number of difficult decisions to be made. Bath is undersized (-8.6%), but is totally surrounded by Somerset North East which is almost exactly on quota. Weston-super-Mare is over-sized at +11.3%, as is North Somerset at +8.2%, but without mixing some of these areas with Bristol wards, the only other option is to move the centre of gravity of Somerset North East to the south to take in territory from these seats. Bristol is also a challenge, with only Bristol East (-0,4%) and Bristol North West (+2.9%) being on quota, Bristol South (+13.4%) and Bristol West (+33.9%) will need addressing. Bristol South could lose one ward (Southville?) to Bristol West, and then Bristol West would lose wards to Bristol North West or Bristol East, which in turn would lose out to Filton & Bradley Stoke (-0.2%). This in turn would pass wards onto Thornton & Yate (-6.7%). In Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean is on quota (-3.6%), however every other seat is oversized. Stroud (+14%), Cotswolds (+10.5%), Gloucester (+9.7%), Cheltenham (+9.3%) and Tewkesbury (+13.3%), would all need to lose electors. It is difficult to see how this would eventually work out, but a new seat based on the area between Gloucester and Cheltenham would seem to be the most realistic, taking electors from all of the oversized constituencies. Fascinating stuff and quite possibly germane since there are rumours that the Government plans to abandon the 2018 review and reset the boundary process with 650 seats. But RLβs plans here make a number of other assumptions: (i) that the numbers will be based on the registered electorate at the last monthβs GE rather than on 1 Dec in whatever year is decided upon; (ii) that counties are to be used as a fundamental unit; and (iii), partly in consequence of (ii), that the 5% limit is to be jettisoned. All these assumptions are deeply questionable. On (i), the existing legislation provides for quinquennial reviews based on the registered electorate as at 1 Dec 2015, 1 Dec 2020 and so on. This makes sense in the context of a GE every 5 years as envisaged by the FTPA. But the failure of that Act and its (presumably) imminent repeal means that there is no longer any particular expectation that a new Parliament will run for a full term. It would be very odd, I feel, to pass legislation requiring the Boundary Commissions to start work based on the electorate at each GE even if the political reality was that a fresh GE would be likely within a year or two so there would be no time for the new boundaries to be implemented. I suggest, therefore, that there will have to be a regular, calendar-based trigger date for each new review, regardless of the timing of GEs. My suggestion would be a decennial cycle based on the registered electorate on 1 Dec 2020, 2030, &c. Iβve no idea whether thatβs what the Govβt will propose, of course; but my basic point is that the idea of basing reviews on the electorate at the date of a GE assumes on a degree of regularity in the timing of GEs, and without the FTPA such an assumption is not valid. As for assumptions (ii) and (iii), they may be correct but is there any reason to think so? In particular, as a personal view, Iβd be very sorry to see the end of a tight limit on constituency size. I accept that 650 seats, rather than 600, probably means a slight relaxation of the limit to, say, 6% or (at a push) 7%, but this wouldnβt be enough to allow all counties to be treated separately as RL suggests. Having said all that, I agree that itβs interesting, if only as a thought experiment, to try a review based on the GE electorates and 650 seats and see how it might work. Based on RLβs numbers for the South West, as above, but using a national quota of 73366 and assuming the retention of a tight limit, Iβd suggest Cornwall 437,455 (5.96 = 6 seats) Devon + Somerset + Avon 2,196,238 (29.94 = 30 seats) Dorset 589,120 (8.03 = 8 seats) Gloucestershire and Wiltshire 1,016,222 (13.85 = 14 seats) |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jan 3, 2020 16:34:04 GMT
As for assumptions (ii) and (iii), they may be correct but is there any reason to think so? In particular, as a personal view, Iβd be very sorry to see the end of a tight limit on constituency size. I accept that 650 seats, rather than 600, probably means a slight relaxation of the limit to, say, 6% or (at a push) 7%, but this wouldnβt be enough to allow all counties to be treated separately as RL suggests. I'd go for a 5% target but allow 7.5 or 8% in specific circumstances. 10 years between reviews sounds fine, but I'd also allow for limited local interim reviews if a constituency exceeds a certain deviation (12.5% ?) In such a situation, the commission would merely have to bring it within the higher figure of 7.5 or 8%. Those limited reviews could potentially affect the size of parliament by a couple of seats, but that would be reset to 650 in the 10-year review. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 4, 2020 17:17:28 GMT
Wales
National Quota: 73,366
Gwynedd: 183,145 = 2.49 seats
Clwyd: 335,381 = 4.57 seats
Powys: 104,478 = 1.42 seats
Dyfed: 292,399 = 3.99 seats
West Glamorgan: 284,325 = 3.88 seats
Mid Glamorgan: 401,994 = 5.48 seats
South Glamorgan: 356,282 = 4.86 seats
Gwent: 360,039 = 4.91 seats
North Wales (Gwynedd and Clwyd): 518,526 = 7.07 seats
Mid Wales (Dyfed and Powys): 396,877 = 5.41 seats
South Wales West (West Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan): 686,319 = 9.35 seats
South Wales East (South Glamorgan and Gwent) : 716,321 = 9.76 seats
|
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Jan 4, 2020 18:09:50 GMT
Wales
National Quota: 73,366
Gwynedd: 183,145 = 2.49 seats Clwyd: 335,381 = 4.57 seats Powys: 104,478 = 1.42 seats Dyfed: 292,399 = 3.99 seats West Glamorgan: 284,325 = 3.88 seats Mid Glamorgan: 401,994 = 5.48 seats South Glamorgan: 356,282 = 4.86 seats Gwent: 360,039 = 4.91 seats North Wales (Gwynedd and Clwyd): 518,526 = 7.07 seats Mid Wales (Dyfed and Powys): 396,877 = 5.41 seats South Wales West (West Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan): 686,319 = 9.35 seats South Wales East (South Glamorgan and Gwent) : 716,321 = 9.76 seats Combining Dyfed with anything on those numbers is silly. It's bound to turn out as Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire, South Pembrokeshire, and some sort of split of Carmarthenshire (preferably abolishing the Llanelli constituency to create East and West divisions). I'm surprised that Gwynedd is so high. You haven't put Aberconwy in the wrong county, have you? |
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Jan 4, 2020 18:48:02 GMT
Okay, so those Wales numbers are wrong. I've used the CSV file from Parliament, which gives the following:
Clwyd: 380,067 (5.18)
Gwynedd: 138,502 (1.89)
Powys: 104,487 (1.42)
Dyfed: 293,087 (3.99)
West Glamorgan: 284,459 (3.88)
Mid Glamorgan: 326,630 (4.45) [modelled as 44,023 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney]
Gwent: 436,266 (5.95) [modelled as 12,299 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney]
South Glamorgan: 356,328 (4.86)
(Total: 31.62, Average: 72,495)
Edit: corrected errors
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 4, 2020 19:00:05 GMT
Okay, so those Wales numbers are wrong. I've used the CSV file from Parliament, which gives the following: Clwyd: 380,067 (5.18) Gwynedd: 138,502 (1.89) Powys: 104,487 (1.42) Dyfed: 293,057 (3.99) West Glamorgan: 284,459 (3.88) Mid Glamorgan: 373,936 (5.10) [modelled as 44,023 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] Gwent: 436,266 (5.94) [modelled as 12,299 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] South Glamorgan: 356,328 (4.86) (Total: 31.62, Average: 72,495) Those figures aren't right either. The entitlements add up to 32.26, not 31.62. |
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Jan 4, 2020 19:09:42 GMT
Okay, so those Wales numbers are wrong. I've used the CSV file from Parliament, which gives the following: Clwyd: 380,067 (5.18) Gwynedd: 138,502 (1.89) Powys: 104,487 (1.42) Dyfed: 293,057 (3.99) West Glamorgan: 284,459 (3.88) Mid Glamorgan: 373,936 (5.10) [modelled as 44,023 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] Gwent: 436,266 (5.94) [modelled as 12,299 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] South Glamorgan: 356,328 (4.86) (Total: 31.62, Average: 72,495) Those figures aren't right either. The entitlements add up to 32.26, not 31.62. No, I've checked, and this adds up to the same 2,319,826 (31.62) in lancastrian's post on the first page. Where have you got 32.26 from? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 4, 2020 21:21:13 GMT
Those figures aren't right either. The entitlements add up to 32.26, not 31.62. No, I've checked, and this adds up to the same 2,319,826 (31.62) in lancastrian 's post on the first page. Where have you got 32.26 from? Just tried adding it up old-skool and got the same result:  The discrepancy is 47,276. Is this a figure you recognise? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 4, 2020 21:38:03 GMT
Because of special geographical issues Powys and Ynys Mon should be exempt from being combined with any other Welsh region (not an issue with the other Welsh regions but an issue for Powys because of its low population density and poor transport links), meaning Ynys Mon can remain separate and Powys can keep its two current seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 4, 2020 21:50:45 GMT
Because of special geographical issues Powys and Ynys Mon should be exempt from being combined with any other Welsh region (not an issue with the other Welsh regions but an issue for Powys because of its low population density and poor transport links), meaning Ynys Mon can remain separate and Powys can keep its two current seats. There are two bridges between Anglesey and the mainland, carrying two roads and a rail link. Combining Anglesey with the Bangor area would be entirely reasonable. It's scarcely Orkney, Shetland or the Western Isles ! |
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Jan 4, 2020 21:54:46 GMT
No, I've checked, and this adds up to the same 2,319,826 (31.62) in lancastrian 's post on the first page. Where have you got 32.26 from? Just tried adding it up old-skool and got the same result: The discrepancy is 47,276. Is this a figure you recognise? No, the figure's a mystery. But I've been through it, caught a typo in Dyfed, a rounding error in South Glam Gwent (Muphry's Law strikes again!), and a pile of electors I'd somehow invented in Mid Glam. Thanks for catching that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 4, 2020 22:06:16 GMT
Okay, so those Wales numbers are wrong. I've used the CSV file from Parliament, which gives the following: Clwyd: 380,067 (5.18) Gwynedd: 138,502 (1.89) Powys: 104,487 (1.42) Dyfed: 293,0 87 (3.99) West Glamorgan: 284,459 (3.88) Mid Glamorgan: 3 26,630 ( 4.45) [modelled as 44,023 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] Gwent: 436,266 (5.9 5) [modelled as 12,299 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] South Glamorgan: 356,328 (4.86) (Total: 31.62, Average: 72,495) Edit: corrected errors On those figures and a 5% tolerance, you could get away with just two cross-county constituencies: one for Gwynedd + Clwyd, and one for Powys + Mid Glamorgan which wouldn't be pretty. Everywhere else could stand alone. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 4, 2020 22:09:28 GMT
Wales
National Quota: 73,366
Gwynedd: 183,145 = 2.49 seats Clwyd: 335,381 = 4.57 seats Powys: 104,478 = 1.42 seats Dyfed: 292,399 = 3.99 seats West Glamorgan: 284,325 = 3.88 seats Mid Glamorgan: 401,994 = 5.48 seats South Glamorgan: 356,282 = 4.86 seats Gwent: 360,039 = 4.91 seats North Wales (Gwynedd and Clwyd): 518,526 = 7.07 seats Mid Wales (Dyfed and Powys): 396,877 = 5.41 seats South Wales West (West Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan): 686,319 = 9.35 seats South Wales East (South Glamorgan and Gwent) : 716,321 = 9.76 seats Combining Dyfed with anything on those numbers is silly. It's bound to turn out as Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire, South Pembrokeshire, and some sort of split of Carmarthenshire (preferably abolishing the Llanelli constituency to create East and West divisions). I'm surprised that Gwynedd is so high. You haven't put Aberconwy in the wrong county, have you? What's wrong with the Llanelli constituency? I'd have thought the obvious thing to do with Carmarthenshire would be to revert to the pre-1997 set up, with Llanelli extending to Ammanford and a massive Carmarthen constituency covering the rest of the county. Okay, so those Wales numbers are wrong. I've used the CSV file from Parliament, which gives the following: Clwyd: 380,067 (5.18) Gwynedd: 138,502 (1.89) Powys: 104,487 (1.42) Dyfed: 293,0 87 (3.99) West Glamorgan: 284,459 (3.88) Mid Glamorgan: 3 26,630 ( 4.45) [modelled as 44,023 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] Gwent: 436,266 (5.9 5) [modelled as 12,299 electors from Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney] South Glamorgan: 356,328 (4.86) (Total: 31.62, Average: 72,495) Edit: corrected errors On those figures and a 5% tolerance, you could get away with just two cross-county constituencies: one for Gwynedd + Clwyd, and one for Powys + Mid Glamorgan which wouldn't be pretty. Everywhere else could stand alone. If you wanted to avoid Powys + Mid Glamorgan, and also leave Dyfed alone (and Powys + Dyfed doesn't work with a 5% tolerance), a better solution might be a Powys-Gwent seat (ie Brecon & Monmouth) and another crossing Gwent-Mid Glamorgan. |
|
