pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686 
|
Post by pl on Jun 4, 2020 11:03:15 GMT
It is not "ridiculous". The issue has been exhaustively discussed here. There is no "right" answer. The General Election figures will overestimate and the December figures will underestimate. And this does have partisan implications. I agree that there is no right answer, and that there will be positives and negatives for whichever one ends up being chosen. What annoys me is the suggestion that it is somehow driven solely by a partisan desire to 'fiddle' the figures and give the Government an advantage. Remember that the people crying foul are the ones who want to use population figures - so that the "electorate" figures would include people who can't even vote. My sympathy for the Labour argument about what date to use is somewhat limited as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 4, 2020 11:11:44 GMT
The best solution would be to use 2021 census population figures, even if it includes those who cannot vote, which is how the Republic of Ireland does it when drawing Dail boundaries, even if this leads to the odd absurdity in terms of electorate (like Dublin Central only having 45,500 electors in 2016). They use a 5% quota as well although it is easier since Dail constituencies must contain 3, 4, or 5 seats.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 11:17:10 GMT
This is a perennial argument and I doubt it'll ever get resolved. Electorate figures rise and fall and are often inaccurate, population figures include people who can't vote, there is no simple solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 4, 2020 11:42:04 GMT
The best solution would be to use 2021 census population figures, even if it includes those who cannot vote, which is how the Republic of Ireland does it when drawing Dail boundaries, even if this leads to the odd absurdity in terms of electorate (like Dublin Central only having 45,500 electors in 2016). They use a 5% quota as well although it is easier since Dail constituencies must contain 3, 4, or 5 seats. How about averaging the two? Or would that create a four-dimensional Rubik cube? |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 4, 2020 11:45:09 GMT
Note to kevinlarkin - please create a four-dimensional version of Boundary Assistant. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 4, 2020 13:20:54 GMT
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 4, 2020 14:07:16 GMT
I agree that there is no right answer, and that there will be positives and negatives for whichever one ends up being chosen. What annoys me is the suggestion that it is somehow driven solely by a partisan desire to 'fiddle' the figures and give the Government an advantage. Remember that the people crying foul are the ones who want to use population figures - so that the "electorate" figures would include people who can't even vote. My sympathy for the Labour argument about what date to use is somewhat limited as a result. Previous Census figures are fine, as long as it is the total of over-18 UK citizens, which is fairly simple to extract to a good enough degree of accuracy, and can be made easier by tweeking the 'passport' question on the next Censuses. See link. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686
|
Post by pl on Jun 4, 2020 14:55:41 GMT
Remember that the people crying foul are the ones who want to use population figures - so that the "electorate" figures would include people who can't even vote. My sympathy for the Labour argument about what date to use is somewhat limited as a result. Previous Census figures are fine, as long as it is the total of over-18 UK citizens, which is fairly simple to extract to a good enough degree of accuracy, and can be made easier by tweeking the 'passport' question on the next Censuses. See link. I could live with that, provided it was UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens to make sure it reflected the actual franchise. Problems would be: 1. You only get to have one starting point for the review, and it's every 10 years 2. It would take a year to 18 months to get the numbers out of the census, so it makes the data quite "old" before you even start 3. You'd have to add a question, so as to remove peers who sit in the HoL (a marginal issue, I grant you) 4. I'm not sure how you deal with overseas voters (if you want to keep them) 5. You probably still get a slight undercount of more disadvantaged groups - especially those whose first language isn't English (a Labour attack line I would imagine) 6. You'd have to do a bit more work for how you marry up population/register numbers for council wards. Would it be based off the census or the register. If the register, surely the same criticisms apply as to the current situation. If the census, you'd potentially be using VERY old numbers when you do a ward boundary review |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,318
|
Post by maxque on Jun 4, 2020 15:08:49 GMT
Remember that the people crying foul are the ones who want to use population figures - so that the "electorate" figures would include people who can't even vote. My sympathy for the Labour argument about what date to use is somewhat limited as a result. Previous Census figures are fine, as long as it is the total of over-18 UK citizens, which is fairly simple to extract to a good enough degree of accuracy, and can be made easier by tweeking the 'passport' question on the next Censuses. See link. Again, exclution of people under 18 is discriminatory, as those people will eventually turn over 18 and be entitled to vote, mechanically. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 4, 2020 15:34:45 GMT
Previous Census figures are fine, as long as it is the total of over-18 UK citizens, which is fairly simple to extract to a good enough degree of accuracy, and can be made easier by tweeking the 'passport' question on the next Censuses. See link. I could live with that, provided it was UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens to make sure it reflected the actual franchise. Problems would be: Yes, that's the figures I pulled out of the 2011 Census. Long term, the franchise needs to be updated so that UK citizens are UK electors. All redistribution methods suffer from some form of lag. We are currently using electoral divisions based on the 2000 electoral register (2002 for viewers in Scotland). Many countries use the census figures for electoral redistribution, the lag can be addressed by mandating that Parliamentary reviews are done within X to Y years after the census. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,843
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 4, 2020 15:43:20 GMT
Previous Census figures are fine, as long as it is the total of over-18 UK citizens, which is fairly simple to extract to a good enough degree of accuracy, and can be made easier by tweeking the 'passport' question on the next Censuses. See link. Again, exclution of people under 18 is discriminatory, as those people will eventually turn over 18 and be entitled to vote, mechanically. And inclusion of oldsters is discriminatory because they'll die off, mechanically. Both the dead people and the new adults will be captured at the next census. Which is only ten years, which is a lot faster update cycle than the current Parliamentary review cycle. We were going to have a 2020 General Election on 2000/2002 figures. To clarify, I prefer any division of *electors* to be based on the most recent count of *electors*. A big advantage of the *elector* count is that it is done annually, with nine monthly updates, so is never more than 12 months out of date - the issue with reviews is that the review takes longer than an elector count cycle, so even that count is out of date. The argument I'm putting is just "if you insist on using population, to be workable it has to be X". No system is perfect, but some arguments are trying to get an unattainable perfection instead of an attainable good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 4, 2020 17:08:38 GMT
4. I'm not sure how you deal with overseas voters (if you want to keep them) Medium term I think ex pat voters are going to have to be represented by special ex pat constituencies with their own electoral roll and postal voting arrangements. Proposals to extend/restore the franchise beyond a 15 year cut off rely on records being kept that prove they were registered to vote at a particular location all those years ago and the longer the voter has been abroad the less contact they may have with their old constituency. Overseas postal voting is proving increasingly cumbersome. It would appear that other countries are also running down the speed & frequency of their physical mail services which makes it harder to get the ballot packs out and back in time - and this is made even worse when cash stretched electoral services resort to remailers via third countries plus all the problems of snap election that can further delay ballot paper production. Already we're seeing complaints about ballot papers arriving way too late to be returned and if we continue with the current set up they're only going to get worse. Dedicated ex pat constituencies with elections run through embassies (e.g. you would only have to get the postal vote back to your local embassy in time, not all the way to an English provincial town hall) would be a much more effective way to allow ex pats to be voted and to have their concerns listened to. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 4, 2020 18:07:37 GMT
The Boundary Commission for England accepts the imminent demise of the 2018 review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2020 18:12:03 GMT
The Boundary Commission for England accepts the imminent demise of the 2018 review. Some things take time to heal. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 4, 2020 19:13:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 4, 2020 19:27:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 4, 2020 20:00:03 GMT
It is basically moot now anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 4, 2020 20:24:15 GMT
It is basically moot now anyway. The 17-seat plan may itself be moot, but the judgment is going to affect the next review. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 5, 2020 11:06:11 GMT
Looking at the seat/votes ratio for last year's election:-  The net effect of this review should be modest. The Tories should lose more than Labour with the seat reductions in Wales and the North East. The current plan in London doesn't do Labour much favour. The North West was practically PR between Con and Lab! |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 9, 2020 12:55:17 GMT
Chloe Smith has just released this written statement: www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-06-09/HCWS278/Update on Annual CanvassI wish to update the House on the work that HM Government has been doing to address the risks presented by Covid-19 in relation to the next boundary review due to start in 2021, and to the annual canvass. This follows the introduction of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill on 19 May, and its Second Reading on 2 June. Boundary review and electoral dataUnder current legislation, the next boundary review will be based on the number of registered electors as at 1 December 2020, following the annual canvass. This is in accordance with the normal, long-established position and that, as a general rule, the revised register that is produced following the annual canvass represents the most up-to-date, robust and transparent information source on which to base a boundary review. The Government has introduced the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, which will provide for boundary reviews based on a House of Commons with 650 seats. As I set out during the Second Reading of the Bill on 2 June, in light of the potential impact of Covid-19 on the operation of ongoing electoral registration activities and the annual canvass, we have already been considering carefully the options for the next boundary review to be based on an alternative set of electoral data. I am now in a position to update Parliament on the Government’s plans, following my commitment to the House to do so during the Second Reading debate. Having engaged with representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral stakeholders, the Government has decided to bring forward an amendment to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill at Committee stage to address this issue. This Government amendment will make provision for the next boundary review to be based, on a one-off basis, on the number of registered electors at 2 March 2020. It is intended that this data will be supplied by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to the Office for National Statistics (in England and Wales) and National Records of Scotland (in Scotland), and that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland will produce the data for Northern Ireland. ONS will collate and publish the data for all four constituent nations of the United Kingdom. This approach will provide the most up-to-date electoral registration data available from the point before the impacts of Covid-19 became widespread. It will capture the registrations that took place in the run-up to the 2019 General Election, subject to any monthly updates made to the register between the election and 2 March 2020. We have engaged with the Parliamentary Parties Panel, other party representatives and electoral stakeholders on this issue in recent months. There is a consensus that, as a consequence of Covid-19, a different approach will be needed this year, and I hope this amendment will deliver that. Annual canvass 2020The Government intends shortly to lay before Parliament a draft of the Representation of the People (Electoral Registers Publication Date) Regulations 2020. Like many sectors, the work of Electoral Services teams have been affected by the current Covid-19 pandemic. This includes staff members having reduced access to office facilities; undertaking greater caring responsibilities whilst working from home; and being shielded or self-isolating, as well as some team members pivoting toward providing essential services within their local communities. At present, however, EROs in England, Scotland and Wales are legally obliged to publish the revised electoral register by 1 December 2020 or they will be liable for prosecution for failure to conduct their statutory duties under the Representation of the People Act 1983. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to provide additional flexibility to EROs in the conduct of this year’s annual canvass, this legislation will delay the publication deadline for the final revised 2020 electoral register in Great Britain by two months from 1 December 2020 to 1 February 2021. This is in line with existing legislation which allows the final publication deadline to be delayed by the same period of time should an election be held in an ERO’s area within the canvass period of 1 July and 1 December. This change in publication date will have no negative impact on the conduct of the May 2021 elections, indeed it will allow EROs the greatest possible preparation for their safe and effective conduct. This greater flexibility for the date of publication for the revised registers complements the flexibility already provided by the newly reformed annual canvass, which will allow EROs to conduct safer and more responsive canvasses than ever before. EROs now have greater flexibility to use digital contact methods in place of paper forms, thereby reducing the amount of manual handling, and are able to use telephone contacts where possible in place of door knocking. The Electoral Commission has already issued guidance to EROs on carrying out a Covid-secure canvass and Government officials are monitoring the situation in order to provide further non-legislative support as needed. In Northern Ireland the canvass is not conducted annually but must be held at least every 10 years. The last canvass was held in Northern Ireland in 2013 and the Coronavirus Act 2020 has postponed the canvass that was due to be held this year to 2021. Under the Northern Ireland system of continuous registration, the Chief Electoral Officer publishes a revised register on 1 December every year (as well as monthly updates) regardless of whether a canvass has been conducted. As boundary reviews are required to be based on electoral data from the same date in all four nations, it is appropriate for the March 2020 data to be used for the next boundary review in Northern Ireland. In developing our policy we have worked extensively with stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Scottish Assessors Association, who have all welcomed our proposals. We have also worked closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to agree a consistent policy of extending the publication deadline of revised registers across Great Britain, and they intend to bring forward separate, complementary legislation in relation to the local government registers in their respective nations. |
|
