Changes to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986

[greenchristian]

Mar 29, 2020 15:47:03 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Here's the really blatant Dyfedmander that I was alluding to:

For those of us unfamiliar with the area what would the partisan effect of those boundaries be?

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 30, 2020 11:08:34 GMT greenchristian said:

Mar 29, 2020 15:47:03 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

Here's the really blatant Dyfedmander that I was alluding to:

For those of us unfamiliar with the area what would the partisan effect of those boundaries be?

Basically it preserves the two current Conservative seats and knocks out one of the Plaid ones. In actual fact my Carmarthen seat would quite likely have gone Tory at the last general election but the 'Dyfedmander' would make two seats more secure I guess.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

This is a radical change:

[simonc30]

The Parliamentary Constituencies Bill is being presented in the House of Commons for first reading today. Means it should be available for reading on the House of Commons website later on today.

[kevinlarkin]

There are a number of dubious assertions in this article by Chloe Smith about the bill to be introduced today.

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/your-vote-matters-wherever-it-is-cast-in-the-uk

[Pete Whitehead]

May 19, 2020 10:12:51 GMT kevinlarkin said:

There are a number of dubious assertions in this article by Chloe Smith about the bill to be introduced today.

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/your-vote-matters-wherever-it-is-cast-in-the-uk

Still going with the 5% variance then, "as has been the case under governments of all colours" apparently.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2020 10:44:08 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

May 19, 2020 10:12:51 GMT kevinlarkin said:

There are a number of dubious assertions in this article by Chloe Smith about the bill to be introduced today.

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/your-vote-matters-wherever-it-is-cast-in-the-uk

Still going with the 5% variance then, "as has been the case under governments of all colours" apparently.

"We will also still preserve the four protected constituencies – Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and the Isle of Wight..."

Here too she knows not of what she speaks...

[iain]

Here is the bill:
publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0127/20127.pdf

[Deleted]

I notice this in Section 6:

6 Taking account of local government boundaries
(1) Rule 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (factors a Boundary Commission may take
into account) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In rule 5(1) (list of factors), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective,
on the review date;”.
(3) After rule 5(1) insert—
“(1A) In the case of a local government boundary which is prospective on
the review date, it is that boundary rather than any existing
boundary which it replaces, which may be taken into account under sub-paragraph (1)(b).”

[timrollpickering]

May 19, 2020 10:44:08 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

May 19, 2020 10:12:51 GMT kevinlarkin said:

There are a number of dubious assertions in this article by Chloe Smith about the bill to be introduced today.

www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/your-vote-matters-wherever-it-is-cast-in-the-uk

Still going with the 5% variance then, "as has been the case under governments of all colours" apparently.

But that's true.

Governments have wrapped themselves in the rainbow flag to be of all colours.

[mondialito]

May 19, 2020 16:33:18 GMT @pr1berske said:

I notice this in Section 6:

6 Taking account of local government boundaries
(1) Rule 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (factors a Boundary Commission may take
into account) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In rule 5(1) (list of factors), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective,
on the review date;”.
(3) After rule 5(1) insert—
“(1A) In the case of a local government boundary which is prospective on
the review date, it is that boundary rather than any existing
boundary which it replaces, which may be taken into account under sub-paragraph (1)(b).”

A possible concession that using ward boundaries could in some cases be incompatible with creating coherent constituencies within 5% of quota?

[Wisconsin]

May 19, 2020 17:07:00 GMT mondialito said:

A possible concession that using ward boundaries could in some cases be incompatible with creating coherent constituencies within 5% of quota?

It stops them from having to use any local ward boundaries that they know are just about to change (ie due to a LGBCE review) and allows them to use the new soon-to-be-used local ward boundaries instead.

[Wisconsin]

Additional bill documents, including Explanatory Notes and Impact Assessments are here:

services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/parliamentaryconstituencies/documents.html

[robert1]

There are regularly complaints that Boundary Commission proposals relate to 'old' wards. The proposed wording makes it possible to use wards that are to be introduced and have completed full process on the review date.

[timrollpickering]

I note also the public consultation is rejigged to two stages of 8 weeks each (racther than 12 & 4) with public hearings moved to the second stage.

[greenhert]

May 19, 2020 18:09:13 GMT robert1 said:

There are regularly complaints that Boundary Commission proposals relate to 'old' wards. The proposed wording makes it possible to use wards that are to be introduced and have completed full process on the review date.

Most districts that needed "re-warding" have already had those new wards implemented by now (there were lots of re-wardings for the 2018 and 2019 elections), so only those few districts whose new ward boundaries will not be in place by the time the Boundary Commission would finish such a report would be affected.

[ilerda]

I think there was a rumour that the LGBCE is planning quite a thorough review of the wards of metropolitan boroughs once they've finished the London boroughs. That might end up coinciding with the 2021 boundary review, leading to quite major misalignment if the old ward boundaries had to be followed.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2020 18:11:23 GMT timrollpickering said:

I note also the public consultation is rejigged to two stages of 8 weeks each (racther than 12 & 4) with public hearings moved to the second stage.

That's not actually such a bad idea.

[YL]

May 19, 2020 18:22:26 GMT ilerda said:

I think there was a rumour that the LGBCE is planning quite a thorough review of the wards of metropolitan boroughs once they've finished the London boroughs. That might end up coinciding with the 2021 boundary review, leading to quite major misalignment if the old ward boundaries had to be followed.

Any such reviews won't be ready in time, though: the definition of a "prospective" change essentially means the change has to be finalised by December 2020. So it will apply to places which had ward boundary changes planned to come into effect this year (but which of course have not come into effect yet due to the postponement of the elections) and to those for 2021 or 2022 if the statutory instrument is made in time. So it will apply in Rotherham, for example, and in several London boroughs (e.g. Ealing, Brent and Harrow, where orders have already been made, for 2022 elections).

[J.G.Harston]

The Bill seems to have omitted:

"In Schedule 2 replace U/596 with U/646"

in setting the quota.