andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,577 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 14, 2020 13:42:37 GMT
It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties. What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge. I also think that the boundary commission sets such strict rules and ‘norms’, that it often makes only one feasible combination of seats in an area. Without such strict rules better patterns can be developed. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by pl on Jul 14, 2020 13:48:26 GMT
It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties. What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge. Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 14, 2020 13:54:56 GMT
What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge. Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. The ones that I knew held strong opinions (across spectrum) but not party members, which is very understandable. A former colleague was involved with the Enfield judgment. Can you imagine the cross-examination if he had known membership/inclinations? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 14:02:52 GMT
It's just that for me, given the fluidity of the boundaries between Berks/Oxon on the one hand and Berks/Bucks on the other, the one boundary you don't want to cross is the one between Bucks and Oxon - I know that's just my traditional county fetish and it isn't going to cut any ice with the BCE. I also can't see a really logical place to make that crossing - I suppose Henley and Marlow go pretty well together if thats the thinking Given that you have to split Bicester from Banbury and that the latter therefore needs to reach into West Oxfordshire, it seemed to me like the least disruptive spot to cross would be west of Bicester, roughly along the route of East-West rail. Then again, given that Marlow is a little difficult to squeeze into most Bucks seats, your suggestion has definite potential. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 14, 2020 15:13:10 GMT
If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties. I passed on the details of this forum at the last now aborted review's hearing in Portsmouth so it might be different this time round. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 14, 2020 21:47:47 GMT
Big hello to the Boundary Commissioners lurking on this thread over the past few pages, taking notes. If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. Has there been no suggestion that the Commission should (a) invite proposals before it produces its own (a la local govt boundaries) and/or (b) produce 2 or 3 sets of proposals that people can chew over? The current system has wasted a lot of time over the years because it's not really fit for purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 14, 2020 22:06:27 GMT
What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge. Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. I suspect it's more blatant than that. I wonder whether there is a connection between Paul Loveluck, Welsh boundary commissioner, and Belinda Loveluck-Edwards, failed Welsh Labour candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 22:19:34 GMT
One of them appears to be based in rural Powys and the other one in the Vale of Glamorgan and a quick Google doesn't suggest any sign of a link besides the surname, so I think maybe we're learning more about you here than either of them?
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 15, 2020 7:33:54 GMT
If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. Has there been no suggestion that the Commission should (a) invite proposals before it produces its own (a la local govt boundaries) and/or (b) produce 2 or 3 sets of proposals that people can chew over? The current system has wasted a lot of time over the years because it's not really fit for purpose. These are nice ideas in theory, but the BCE would no doubt be upset to find itself usurped by more intelligent amateurs. The problem I can foresee with them consulting on two or three sets of proposals is you’d get idiots asking them to use half the constituencies from Set A and half the constituencies from Set B, with some wards used twice and others not used at all. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 15, 2020 8:00:50 GMT
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats, there is no need for Nottinghamshire to have a cross-county seat. In a 47 seat scenario, Nottinghamshire can have 11 seats, Lincolnshire and Rutland 8, Northamptonshire 7, and Leicestershire with Derbyshire 21. If it qualifies for 48, Nottinghamshire can still have 11 seats, Lincolnshire and Rutland 8, Derbyshire 11, and Leicestershire and Northamptonshire 18. An 11 seat Nottinghamshire is certainly possible, but it's quite challenging. I presume someone will be able to do better than the map below, which crosses the Nottingham city border no fewer than four times, but you certainly need to cross it at least once. With Nottingham being a separate unitary authority which is in the right range for three seats and the County Council area being too big for 8 seats, I doubt the Commission would go for this approach, but we'll see. View AttachmentWhether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats, Nottinghamshire is a mess if Nottingham is treated on its own for 3 seats. If Nottingham and Broxtowe have four seats between them, a much neater Nottinghamshire follows. 1 Nottingham North 75387 2 Nottingham East 76157 3 Nottingham South 75078 4 Broxtowe 71931  |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Jul 15, 2020 8:46:10 GMT
The Ripon seat contains Adel and many other areas of Leeds that are part of the urban conurbation of the city. These aren't like Wetherby which acts as its own quasi-town in the city. The seat is really bad and probably that alone sinks the plan. I am aware of how difficult Yorkshire and Humber is to do, which is the main reason I think this whole enterprise is flawed. Hopefully the final map is so bad it cannot be passed with a straight face and they modify the requirements to allow a 10% variation and go back to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 15, 2020 9:15:12 GMT
What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge. Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. Actually the small band here who are very interested in boundaries have no interest in gerrymandering, as a cursory read of this thread, and similar threads on previous reviews will show. Unlike the political parties who are quite shameless in their lobbying of the commissions. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 15, 2020 9:16:52 GMT
An 11 seat Nottinghamshire is certainly possible, but it's quite challenging. I presume someone will be able to do better than the map below, which crosses the Nottingham city border no fewer than four times, but you certainly need to cross it at least once. With Nottingham being a separate unitary authority which is in the right range for three seats and the County Council area being too big for 8 seats, I doubt the Commission would go for this approach, but we'll see. View AttachmentWhether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats, Nottinghamshire is a mess if Nottingham is treated on its own for 3 seats. If Nottingham and Broxtowe have four seats between them, a much neater Nottinghamshire follows. 1 Nottingham North 75387 2 Nottingham East 76157 3 Nottingham South 75078 4 Broxtowe 71931 View AttachmentIf 48 seats, you might want to have a cross-county seat. 1 Bassetlaw 73846 2 Mansfield 73891 3 Ashfield 69659 4 Sherwood 74623 5 Newark 70386 6 Gedling 74502 7 Rushcliffe 71177 8 Melton & Bingham 74180  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 15, 2020 9:19:10 GMT
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats, Nottinghamshire is a mess if Nottingham is treated on its own for 3 seats. If Nottingham and Broxtowe have four seats between them, a much neater Nottinghamshire follows. 1 Nottingham North 75387 2 Nottingham East 76157 3 Nottingham South 75078 4 Broxtowe 71931 View AttachmentIf 48 seats, you might want to have a cross-county seat. 1 Bassetlaw 73846 2 Mansfield 73891 3 Ashfield 69659 4 Sherwood 74623 5 Newark 70386 6 Gedling 74502 7 Rushcliffe 71177 8 Melton & Bingham 74180 View AttachmentIf 47, you are almost forced not to cross the county boundary. 1 Bassetlaw 75896 2 Newark 74189 3 Mansfield 74359 4 Ashfield 75953 5 Hucknall 75719 6 Carlton 74690 7 Rushcliffe 75506  |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by pl on Jul 15, 2020 9:22:20 GMT
Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. Actually the small band here who are very interested in boundaries have no interest in gerrymandering, as a cursory read of this thread, and similar threads on previous reviews will show. Unlike the political parties who are quite shameless in their lobbying of the commissions. That's why I said most and not all! :-) Of course the parties are shameless - they are either employed to do this or have dragooned in as volunteers in the smaller parties. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 15, 2020 16:38:26 GMT
The Ripon seat contains Adel and many other areas of Leeds that are part of the urban conurbation of the city. These aren't like Wetherby which acts as its own quasi-town in the city. The seat is really bad and probably that alone sinks the plan. I am aware of how difficult Yorkshire and Humber is to do, which is the main reason I think this whole enterprise is flawed. Hopefully the final map is so bad it cannot be passed with a straight face and they modify the requirements to allow a 10% variation and go back to the drawing board. Yes, a 10% variation is what is realistically needed given how large many British council wards are. North Yorkshire as a whole (excluding York) is too large for 6 constituencies but not large enough for 7. If I were to keep Skipton & Ripon the only practical solution would be to cut the constituency of Elmet & Rothwell in half, form an Otley constituency with Otley & Yeadon, Adel & Wharfedale, Alwoodley, half of Harewood, and Wetherby, form a Rothwell constituency with the other three wards in Elmet & Rothwell and the lower half of Selby & Ainsty, and create a more awkward Selby & Ainsty constituency by expanding it further north. That will not go down well either, but we have to pick and choose. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 15, 2020 19:25:52 GMT
Mind you, it's probably for the best that the Boundary Commission doesn't employ most of the people on this forum - most people would spend their time trying to gerrymander seats for their party, or at the very least finding a not bad scenario for their party. And that is completely understandable. The counter would of course be that we'd notice obvious gerrymanders. But from the Boundary Commission that brought you Mersey Banks we'd never know what was a gerrymander, what was sheer incompetence, and what was petulance at not liking the rules they operate under. I do wonder though how many of the people who work for the Boundary Commission have very firm political views, which they've just never expressed because they work in the civil service. Actually the small band here who are very interested in boundaries have no interest in gerrymandering, as a cursory read of this thread, and similar threads on previous reviews will show. Unlike the political parties who are quite shameless in their lobbying of the commissions. Several of the posters comment on the political effect of different redistributions. That would put the Commission off from considering the contents of these threads. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 15, 2020 22:33:05 GMT
Actually the small band here who are very interested in boundaries have no interest in gerrymandering, as a cursory read of this thread, and similar threads on previous reviews will show. Unlike the political parties who are quite shameless in their lobbying of the commissions. Several of the posters comment on the political effect of different redistributions. That would put the Commission off from considering the contents of these threads. Indeed, but most postings about political implications are made as matters of fact or calculated guesswork befitting the academic nature of the exercise rather than any particular desired consequence. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 16, 2020 8:59:21 GMT
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats,Lincolnshire and Rutland are good for 8. 1 Gainsborough 73789 2 Louth 71677 3 Lincoln 74773 4 Sleaford 74734 5 Boston 72872 6 Grantham 71429 7 Spalding 73424 8 Rutland & Stamford 69336  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 16, 2020 9:00:12 GMT
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats,Lincolnshire and Rutland are good for 8. 1 Gainsborough 73789 2 Louth 71677 3 Lincoln 74773 4 Sleaford 74734 5 Boston 72872 6 Grantham 71429 7 Spalding 73424 8 Rutland & Stamford 69336 View Attachment |
|
