|
|
Post by islington on Jan 12, 2020 13:10:27 GMT
Let us assume that, as reported, the Government intends to jettison the 2018 review and launch a fresh review with 650 seats instead of 600. The current legislation governing this is the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended (including the substantial amendments effected by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). Assuming that the next GE has been pencilled in for 2024, either in May or in the autumn, the Government will have to get its legislative skates on if it wants new boundaries, with 650 seats, to be in place. In the first place, the existing legislation mandates the Government to lay the 2018 review before Parliament. And secondly, it requires a new review to start, with 600 seats based on the electorate as at 1 December 2020. Both these things make no sense if it is now intended to retain 650 seats. If I had the ear of Government, because of the need for urgency I’d recommend keeping the legislation as simple as possible. I’d suggest the following. - Remove the requirement to lay the 2018 review before Parliament.
- Keep the trigger date of 1 December 2020 for the first review under the amended Act, but amend s3 of the Act to reduce the frequency of reviews so that the future trigger dates are 1 December 2030, 2040, &c. This means that each set of boundaries would be in place for a minimum of two GEs. The Commissions would be required to submit their first report after 1 September 2023 but before 1 October 2023 (i.e. the same timetable as currently applies).
- Change Rule 1 to specify 650 seats instead of 600
- Change Rule 2 so that the electoral quota is obtained by dividing the UK electorate (less the islands) by 646 instead of 596.
- Also, change Rule 2 to allow some latitude on the 5% limit. I’d suggest keeping it, but allowing a Commission to propose one or more seats within 7% of the quota if, and only if, it is satisfied that no reasonable pattern of boundaries is possible within the 5% limit.
- Remove Rule 5(2), which allows the BCE to take account of constituencies for EU elections. In practice I’d envisage that the BCE would have regard to counties, UAs, metropolitan boroughs, &c, treating these separately where possible but otherwise treating two or more together to achieve a combination reasonably close to a multiple of the electoral quota. I’d probably add a rule that no constituency should cross the boundary of greater London.
- Perhaps most controversially, I’d require the Home Secretary, within a strict time limit of maybe two months, to prepare an Order in Council implementing the Commissions’ recommendations and I’d remove the necessity for Parliamentary approval of this Order. It would take effect automatically at the first GE after a specified date, which I’d suggest should be 1 March of the year following the submission of the final reports (i.e. 1 March 2024).
Would that meet the case?
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Jan 17, 2020 22:48:04 GMT
Let us assume that, as reported, the Government intends to jettison the 2018 review and launch a fresh review with 650 seats instead of 600. The current legislation governing this is the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended (including the substantial amendments effected by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011). Assuming that the next GE has been pencilled in for 2024, either in May or in the autumn, the Government will have to get its legislative skates on if it wants new boundaries, with 650 seats, to be in place. In the first place, the existing legislation mandates the Government to lay the 2018 review before Parliament. And secondly, it requires a new review to start, with 600 seats based on the electorate as at 1 December 2020. Both these things make no sense if it is now intended to retain 650 seats. If I had the ear of Government, because of the need for urgency I’d recommend keeping the legislation as simple as possible. I’d suggest the following. - Remove the requirement to lay the 2018 review before Parliament. Agreed
- Keep the trigger date of 1 December 2020 for the first review under the amended Act, but amend s3 of the Act to reduce the frequency of reviews so that the future trigger dates are 1 December 2030, 2040, &c. This means that each set of boundaries would be in place for a minimum of two GEs. The Commissions would be required to submit their first report after 1 September 2023 but before 1 October 2023 (i.e. the same timetable as currently applies). It was mentioned by a contributor here that spending half the time going through reviews would be a drag, and I am minded to agree upon thinking about it, so trigger dates should be every 12 years (2020, 2032, 2044...) enabling regular changes with a degree of continuity between reviews.
- Change Rule 1 to specify 650 seats instead of 600
- Change Rule 2 so that the electoral quota is obtained by dividing the UK electorate (less the islands) by 646 instead of 596. Agreed on both rule changes.
- Also, change Rule 2 to allow some latitude on the 5% limit. I’d suggest keeping it, but allowing a Commission to propose one or more seats within 7% of the quota if, and only if, it is satisfied that no reasonable pattern of boundaries is possible within the 5% limit. How about local government rules of aiming for 5%, but can allow up to 10%?
- Remove Rule 5(2), which allows the BCE to take account of constituencies for EU elections. In practice I’d envisage that the BCE would have regard to counties, UAs, metropolitan boroughs, &c, treating these separately where possible but otherwise treating two or more together to achieve a combination reasonably close to a multiple of the electoral quota. I’d probably add a rule that no constituency should cross the boundary of greater London. Use European Parliament regions as a basis for allocating the number of seats, but use the above for drawing boundaries. No constituency should cross the Devon-Cornwall border.
- Perhaps most controversially, I’d require the Home Secretary, within a strict time limit of maybe two months, to prepare an Order in Council implementing the Commissions’ recommendations and I’d remove the necessity for Parliamentary approval of this Order. It would take effect automatically at the first GE after a specified date, which I’d suggest should be 1 March of the year following the submission of the final reports (i.e. 1 March 2024). Does the Home Secretary still do this? I thought the Cabinet Office Minister would be responsible for this sort of thing now.
Would that meet the case?
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on Jan 30, 2020 22:38:40 GMT
Not sure about removing any role for Parliament, although after what has happened with the last two attempted reviews I can see why you'd suggest it. Otherwise, could agree on all of this. I'm not against a few less MPs in principle, but clearly its not going to be approved.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 10, 2020 18:58:04 GMT
The MP for Wellingborough has a bone to pick with the boundary changes (Sorry, couldn't help myself). Peter Bone has tabled a "Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill" but so far there is no indication as to what he wants to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 10, 2020 22:04:16 GMT
The MP for Wellingborough has a bone to pick with the boundary changes (Sorry, couldn't help myself). Peter Bone has tabled a "Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill" but so far there is no indication as to what he wants to happen. altogether now...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2020 14:54:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 24, 2020 15:29:05 GMT
Eight years is a slightly odd figure, given that the FTPA remains in place. If we're going to have boundary reviews at fixed, regular, intervals then the frequency should be in synch with the expected Westminster election cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2020 15:32:38 GMT
It may be a hint that the FTPA is not remaining in place. Most Parliaments used to last four years, so an eight year gap between boundary reviews does sync.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 24, 2020 16:20:11 GMT
Initial thoughts are that this will make it a lot easier in Sheffield, as Sheffield neatly fits into 5.5 seats that it is entitled to in a 650-seat Parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 24, 2020 16:25:24 GMT
It may be a hint that the FTPA is not remaining in place. Most Parliaments used to last four years, so an eight year gap between boundary reviews does sync. More than a hint, the statement explicitly states they intend to repeal the FTPA. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 24, 2020 16:47:26 GMT
Initial thoughts are that this will make it a lot easier in Sheffield, as Sheffield neatly fits into 5.5 seats that it is entitled to in a 650-seat Parliament.
It's a bit swings-and-roundabouts. No matter how many constituencies you set a review at, there will be areas where it's difficult to draw sensible boundaries. With the electorate figures as they are on boundary assistant, 650 seats means Solihull borough won't fit into two constituencies. Which caused me all sorts of problems when I was playing around with that area after the site relaunch a month or two back (I suspect solving the problem would be easier once the Birmingham figures are updated for the new wards, though). |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2020 16:49:52 GMT
It may be a hint that the FTPA is not remaining in place. Most Parliaments used to last four years, so an eight year gap between boundary reviews does sync. More than a hint, the statement explicitly states they intend to repeal the FTPA. Best news of a grim day. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,870
|
Post by Crimson King on Mar 24, 2020 16:59:15 GMT
well, something for us all to do over the next few weeks stuck at home. We could probably deliver a perfect review in 3 months and leave the commission nothing much to do
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 24, 2020 17:03:41 GMT
Thank you for that David. I welcome all parts of that statement. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 51,152
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 24, 2020 17:09:52 GMT
Eight years is a slightly odd figure, given that the FTPA remains in place. If we're going to have boundary reviews at fixed, regular, intervals then the frequency should be in synch with the expected Westminster election cycle. No. Far better to be on a different interval and a longer one. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 24, 2020 17:16:06 GMT
I dislike the tolerance (although that could be mitigated by capping local government ward sizes and making the local commissions split oversized ones). I also dislike preventing Parliament from voting one or more of the Commissions' reports down or amending them -- the Welsh Commission's history of incompetence deserves to be amended.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Mar 24, 2020 17:58:04 GMT
Eight years is a slightly odd figure, given that the FTPA remains in place. If we're going to have boundary reviews at fixed, regular, intervals then the frequency should be in synch with the expected Westminster election cycle. No. Far better to be on a different interval and a longer one. The issue is that if we have five year Parliaments and eight year reviews, we'll inevitably have years where there's less than a year between a set of new boundaries and the election on those boundaries. Which will cause all sorts of issues for party organisations in terms of selection of candidates, selection of target seats, and the like. It would be far better for everyone if the number of years between reviews were an integer multiple of the expected gap between Westminster elections, ensuring that (unpredictable snap elections aside) reviews complete somewhere in the middle of a Parliament, rather than just before the end of one. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 24, 2020 17:58:33 GMT
More than a hint, the statement explicitly states they intend to repeal the FTPA. Best news of a grim day. Wasn't that in both major parties' manifestos? |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Mar 24, 2020 18:01:29 GMT
I dislike the tolerance (although that could be mitigated by capping local government ward sizes and making the local commissions split oversized ones). I also dislike preventing Parliament from voting one or more of the Commissions' reports down or amending them -- the Welsh Commission's history of incompetence deserves to be amended. With the tolerance issue, another solution would be allowing ward splits. In many areas, the size of the wards isn't the problem, it's their shape. The worst offender is Durham, but many other areas have similar issues (especially unitary counties). |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 24, 2020 18:07:34 GMT
Initial thoughts are that this will make it a lot easier in Sheffield, as Sheffield neatly fits into 5.5 seats that it is entitled to in a 650-seat Parliament.
It's a bit swings-and-roundabouts. No matter how many constituencies you set a review at, there will be areas where it's difficult to draw sensible boundaries. With the electorate figures as they are on boundary assistant, 650 seats means Solihull borough won't fit into two constituencies. Which caused me all sorts of problems when I was playing around with that area after the site relaunch a month or two back (I suspect solving the problem would be easier once the Birmingham figures are updated for the new wards, though). But Sheffield has a total number of wards which is (near enough) a multiple of 5.5, so it makes it a lot easier to juggle them together into larger units. 600 seats left us trying to fit 28 wards into five seats.
Anyway! Time to dig out the electorate maps again! 
|
|
