|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 20, 2020 23:24:13 GMT
Questions to Chloe Smith: 1) "Moving forward, each constituency will have a near equal number of eligible voters so that every vote counts the same" Define "near"? 2) "We will also still preserve the four protected constituencies – Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and the Isle of Wight – whose boundaries must remain as they are out of geographical necessity" And why not Ynys Môn (which you risk losing to a Labour or Plaid MP if you combine it with Bangor)? 3) "Now is the time to get it done" Is it, is it really? 1. Within 5% 2. Because Ynys Môn is closely connected to the mainland in a way that Wight isn't 3. Yes, because it's already badly out of date. It should have been done years ago. you're Chloe Smith? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on May 21, 2020 0:41:11 GMT
Questions to Chloe Smith: 1) "Moving forward, each constituency will have a near equal number of eligible voters so that every vote counts the same" Define "near"? 2) "We will also still preserve the four protected constituencies – Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and the Isle of Wight – whose boundaries must remain as they are out of geographical necessity" And why not Ynys Môn (which you risk losing to a Labour or Plaid MP if you combine it with Bangor)?3) "Now is the time to get it done" Is it, is it really? Are you actually advocating that Ynys Môn be "protected" for the partisan benefit of the Conservative Party? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 6:13:06 GMT
Questions to Chloe Smith: 1) "Moving forward, each constituency will have a near equal number of eligible voters so that every vote counts the same" Define "near"? 2) "We will also still preserve the four protected constituencies – Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, and the Isle of Wight – whose boundaries must remain as they are out of geographical necessity" And why not Ynys Môn (which you risk losing to a Labour or Plaid MP if you combine it with Bangor)? 3) "Now is the time to get it done" Is it, is it really? They "risk" losing Ynys Môn anyway. Combining it with Bangor would make it a near certainty. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 21, 2020 9:15:45 GMT
Ta. Does it then roll on, Electorate in December Year X-3 for Report in Year X? (and implied election in year X+1). That is an improvement on previous reviews - the 2010 election used the 2000 electorate. It would really be better to use an actual electorate from a General Election, especially in light of the tendency since Individual Electoral Registration was introduced for there to be electorate surges during election and referendum campaigns. That could be done in conjunction with some sort of trigger system for a review: if you have a General Election and some percentage of constituencies are more than 10% from average a review is triggered. Triggering a review based on divergences from the average at a GE would probably work if the ensuing Parliament ran to something like a full term. But what if the 'triggering' GE produced a result that was very close, or completely indecisive? In that situation you'd probably be looking at a further GE while the 'triggered' review was still in progress, and of course the second GE would then give you an additional, and more up-to-date, set of electorate numbers to muddy the water. It would feel perverse to order the Boundary Commissions to plod on doggedly with the triggered review, based on electorates at the first GE, if the second GE had revealed significant increases or reductions in electorates meaning that certain seats would be outside tolerance even before they took effect.
So getting rid of the FTPA really implies that reviews have to be based on electorates as at a predetermined date rather than at a GE. I take YL's point about electorate surges, but on the other hand, if you are eligible to vote it's your civic duty to ensure your name is on the register whether or not an election is due (and am I correct in thinking that failing to register is an offence subject to a £1000 fine?).
Another option might be to include in the census a question about eligibility to vote, and use the numbers emerging from that, so that each decennial census would trigger a review as soon as the numbers became available (broken down by ward and, possibly, PD).
I note, incidentally, that although the Government has a manifesto commitment to repealing the FTPA, it has not yet brought forward legislation to do so.
Edited to add: Basing reviews on fixed dates still leaves the possibility, simply in the course of normal political events, that a GE may occur while a review is in progress. After all, who are we to say what the state of politics will be between 2029 and 2031 (when the next review is scheduled) or 2037 and 2039? One solution might be to amend the Bill to provide for reviews at 10-year intervals (so that the trigger dates would be 1 Dec 2030, 1 Dec 2040, &c) but to allow the Government of the day, by Order in Council, to advance the date of any particular review by up to two years provided that it served the Order at least six months before the proposed new trigger date. This wouldn't altogether remove the possibility of a GE in the middle of a review but it would introduce some flexibility into the timing and increase the likelihood that each review could be conducted within the lifetime of a single Parliament.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686 
|
Post by pl on May 21, 2020 9:45:49 GMT
It would really be better to use an actual electorate from a General Election, especially in light of the tendency since Individual Electoral Registration was introduced for there to be electorate surges during election and referendum campaigns. That could be done in conjunction with some sort of trigger system for a review: if you have a General Election and some percentage of constituencies are more than 10% from average a review is triggered. Triggering a review based on divergences from the average at a GE would probably work if the ensuing Parliament ran to something like a full term. But what if the 'triggering' GE produced a result that was very close, or completely indecisive? In that situation you'd probably be looking at a further GE while the 'triggered' review was still in progress, and of course the second GE would then give you an additional, and more up-to-date, set of electorate numbers to muddy the water. It would feel perverse to order the Boundary Commissions to plod on doggedly with the triggered review, based on electorates at the first GE, if the second GE had revealed significant increases or reductions in electorates meaning that certain seats would be outside tolerance even before they took effect. So getting rid of the FTPA really implies that reviews have to be based on electorates as at a predetermined date rather than at a GE. I take YL's point about electorate surges, but on the other hand, if you are eligible to vote it's your civic duty to ensure your name is on the register whether or not an election is due (and am I correct in thinking that failing to register is an offence subject to a £1000 fine?). Another option might be to include in the census a question about eligibility to vote, and use the numbers emerging from that, so that each decennial census would trigger a review as soon as the numbers became available (broken down by ward and, possibly, PD).
I note, incidentally, that although the Government has a manifesto commitment to repealing the FTPA, it has not yet brought forward legislation to do so. Edited to add: Basing reviews on fixed dates still leaves the possibility, simply in the course of normal political events, that a GE may occur while a review is in progress. After all, who are we to say what the state of politics will be between 2029 and 2031 (when the next review is scheduled) or 2037 and 2039? One solution might be to amend the Bill to provide for reviews at 10-year intervals (so that the trigger dates would be 1 Dec 2030, 1 Dec 2040, &c) but to allow the Government of the day, by Order in Council, to advance the date of any particular review by up to two years provided that it served the Order at least six months before the proposed new trigger date. This wouldn't altogether remove the possibility of a GE in the middle of a review but it would introduce some flexibility into the timing and increase the likelihood that each review could be conducted within the lifetime of a single Parliament.
I would be very interested to know how much of the "surge" in registrations is due to people registering in a second location eg students at university, people registering at a second home they are staying at etc. Obviously, there is a large amount of people having moved and not registered, but still I imagine that using a non-GE year may actually be more representative than a GE year. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 21, 2020 9:48:39 GMT
Labour's reasoned amendment: "That this House whilst supporting the retention of 650 parliamentary constituencies declines to give a Second Reading to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill because the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate power over constituency sizes and boundaries in the hands of the executive, because the Bill fails to create a more flexible electoral quota allowing greater consideration to be given to local ties and community connections when drawing constituency boundaries, and because the proposed numeration date for the boundary review of 1 December 2020 risks boundaries being based on an incomplete register owing to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the preparation of electoral registers."
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686
|
Post by pl on May 21, 2020 9:51:43 GMT
Labour's reasoned amendment: "That this House whilst supporting the retention of 650 parliamentary constituencies declines to give a Second Reading to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill because the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate power over constituency sizes and boundaries in the hands of the executive, because the Bill fails to create a more flexible electoral quota allowing greater consideration to be given to local ties and community connections when drawing constituency boundaries, and because the proposed numeration date for the boundary review of 1 December 2020 risks boundaries being based on an incomplete register owing to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the preparation of electoral registers." Interesting point about the annual canvass - if we have a second peak, I doubt door to door canvassers will be getting people to fill in the forms. Similar point, if there's a second/third peak, will we end up delaying the 2021 census? Getting the enumerators out could be difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 21, 2020 10:10:24 GMT
Labour's reasoned amendment: "That this House whilst supporting the retention of 650 parliamentary constituencies declines to give a Second Reading to the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill because the Bill would disproportionately and undemocratically concentrate power over constituency sizes and boundaries in the hands of the executive, because the Bill fails to create a more flexible electoral quota allowing greater consideration to be given to local ties and community connections when drawing constituency boundaries, and because the proposed numeration date for the boundary review of 1 December 2020 risks boundaries being based on an incomplete register owing to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the preparation of electoral registers." Well, I'd be quite cynical about the 'incomplete register' point; this is surely simply an attempt to defer the start date so that the review won't be finished in time for the next GE. It's in the nature of things that the register will never be 'complete' in the strict sense of the word; and to the extent that the pandemic may mean that it's less complete than usual, this is material only if that effect is disproportionately greater in some parts of the country than others.
If Labour is serious about this point, the obvious response from Government would be to base the review on the registered electorate on 1 Dec 2019, before we had ever heard of coronavirus. Then we could get down to business right away.
The point about flexibility has more merit.
If I were Government I'd go back to Labour and say that if they are prepared to offer general support for the Bill, so that it becomes a bipartisan measure, then the Government will accept amendments - increasing the tolerance to 7.5% (but no more), and
- if Labour are really serious about the pandemic point, using the electorate as registered on 1 Dec 2019.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 21, 2020 10:26:48 GMT
I think the problem is that using 1 December electorates is an undercount, and using General Election electorates is an overcount. It didn’t use to matter so much, but two things have changed. Firstly the rolling register means that many people now only register when they actually want to vote -ie just before an election. The level of return of registration forms was never that great, door to door by the local authority only improved things so much, and there was a tendency, which I’d guess still persists, to simply leave people on the register if no return was received from that address. But the discrepancies have got much bigger. Secondly the very strong salience of age in voting patterns at the moment makes the issue partisan in a way it wasn’t in the past. It is very desirable that there is general acceptance that the system itself is fair. Given that no register is “right” I’d second islington that we should use the decennial census. This is both about the right time period for a review, and has the additional advantage of dealing with those with two homes. And of ignoring those who have emigrated. (While this is a separate issue I would argue that if we do allow those resident overseas to vote, we should set up separate constituencies for them.) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 21, 2020 10:49:22 GMT
The key issue over the electorate figures is about the distribution of population and a lag in registration by people who move. Some areas of the country (heavily private rented areas in urban centres, and student districts) have a fast population turnover and slow registration, so on the December figures they have (or look like they have) fewer voters than will actually be living there at election time in spring. It would be better to use May electorates, but this problem will still be present.
A minor connected point is that redistribution on the basis of registered electorate is always going to count twice those who are legitimately registered in more than one area - people with multiple homes, and students studying away from home.
There are two good ways of doing it fairly:
1) An effective system of automatic voter registration would mean it not mattering very much when you took the figures.
2) Use Census usually resident population instead of electoral registration, so it doesn't matter whether people register to vote.
Both would also solve the dual registration problem.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686
|
Post by pl on May 21, 2020 11:01:12 GMT
The key issue over the electorate figures is about the distribution of population and a lag in registration by people who move. Some areas of the country (heavily private rented areas in urban centres, and student districts) have a fast population turnover and slow registration, so on the December figures they have (or look like they have) fewer voters than will actually be living there at election time in spring. It would be better to use May electorates, but this problem will still be present. A minor connected point is that redistribution on the basis of registered electorate is always going to count twice those who are legitimately registered in more than one area - people with multiple homes, and students studying away from home. There are two good ways of doing it fairly: 1) An effective system of automatic voter registration would mean it not mattering very much when you took the figures. 2) Use Census usually resident population instead of electoral registration, so it doesn't matter whether people register to vote. Both would also solve the dual registration problem. David, how would you marry up local government boundary reviews. Would they use the same census data or would you use the roll data for them? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 21, 2020 11:25:58 GMT
If Labour is serious about this point, the obvious response from Government would be to base the review on the registered electorate on 1 Dec 2019, before we had ever heard of coronavirus. Then we could get down to business right away. Because of the general election different authorities rolled over the register at different points - in the Assembly seat I'm agenting we have at least one case where the new register was brought forward into November (nearly catching out people trying to collect the signatures early!) and another where the new register didn't arrive until February with new voters found in the annual canvass simply added to the old register for the general election. So which should be picked? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 21, 2020 12:46:06 GMT
David, how would you marry up local government boundary reviews. Would they use the same census data or would you use the roll data for them? If we were using population for Parliamentary redistribution then we should use it for local government wards as well. I always check if ward residents seeking my help are on the electoral register. They get the same level of service no matter what, but there are certainly some who are long term residents while not on the register. They are still constituents. So the same argument applies: if equal sized constituencies means equal numbers of constituents, then that means usual resident population not electors. |
|
|
|
Post by belvoir on May 21, 2020 13:06:38 GMT
If an area has a surfeit of under-18s or foreign nationals, I don't see that as any reason to give the British/Commonwealth adults of that area greater voting power. We shouldn't have 50,000 voters in one seat and 80,000 in another just because there are 100,000 people in both. MPs do more than just act as casework processors, to be given equal-sized seats based on equal-sized casework loads; they also have a representative role and indeed there is an argument there should be more focus on the latter than the former.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 21, 2020 13:50:15 GMT
If an area has a surfeit of under-18s or foreign nationals, I don't see that as any reason to give the British/Commonwealth adults of that area greater voting power. We shouldn't have 50,000 voters in one seat and 80,000 in another just because there are 100,000 people in both. MPs do more than just act as casework processors, to be given equal-sized seats based on equal-sized casework loads; they also have a representative role and indeed there is an argument there should be more focus on the latter than the former. Census forms already have an Age box, those I've seen from before 1922 had a Nationality question, just ensure future Censuses has a Nationality box. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on May 21, 2020 15:06:47 GMT
The key issue over the electorate figures is about the distribution of population and a lag in registration by people who move. Some areas of the country (heavily private rented areas in urban centres, and student districts) have a fast population turnover and slow registration, so on the December figures they have (or look like they have) fewer voters than will actually be living there at election time in spring. It would be better to use May electorates, but this problem will still be present. A minor connected point is that redistribution on the basis of registered electorate is always going to count twice those who are legitimately registered in more than one area - people with multiple homes, and students studying away from home. There are two good ways of doing it fairly: 1) An effective system of automatic voter registration would mean it not mattering very much when you took the figures. 2) Use Census usually resident population instead of electoral registration, so it doesn't matter whether people register to vote. Both would also solve the dual registration problem. David, how would you marry up local government boundary reviews. Would they use the same census data or would you use the roll data for them? On this point, it's probably worth remarking that local government boundary reviews currently don't directly use either - instead, they seem to use the relevant local authority's estimates of electoral roll totals for a date five years after the review, at a very localised level (full postcode or equivalent?) where possible. (But I'm not an expert on this - corrections, elucidations or amplifications welcome.) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 21, 2020 15:18:55 GMT
They do indeed use five year forecasts for ward boundary reviews. It does allow an element in which councils can guide the process, because five years is long enough for major developments to go from nothing to fully built and occupied - or from nothing to nothing because they've been abandoned. There is considerable room for debate about whether major development will happen and where; the council and its political leadership are almost always in agreement. I dispute belvoir 's argument fundamentally as it begs the question: it assumes that equal representation must mean equal numbers of electors. To that I say: Oh no it doesn't. Equal representation means equal numbers of people. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on May 21, 2020 15:22:01 GMT
They do indeed use five year forecasts for ward boundary reviews. It does allow an element in which councils can guide the process, because five years is long enough for major developments to go from nothing to fully built and occupied - or from nothing to nothing because they've been abandoned. There is considerable room for debate about whether major development will happen and where; the council and its political leadership are almost always in agreement. I dispute belvoir 's argument fundamentally as it begs the question: it assumes that equal representation must mean equal numbers of electors. To that I say: Oh no it doesn't. Equal representation means equal numbers of people. No. It means equal numbers of electors. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,686
|
Post by pl on May 21, 2020 15:35:06 GMT
They do indeed use five year forecasts for ward boundary reviews. It does allow an element in which councils can guide the process, because five years is long enough for major developments to go from nothing to fully built and occupied - or from nothing to nothing because they've been abandoned. There is considerable room for debate about whether major development will happen and where; the council and its political leadership are almost always in agreement. Indeed, at the last review prior to the 2014 locals, Tower Hamlets were terrible in underplaying the number of properties likely to be built in the Conservative-held wards, whilst maximising the numbers forecast in Labour wards. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 21, 2020 15:35:49 GMT
If an area has a surfeit of under-18s or foreign nationals, I don't see that as any reason to give the British/Commonwealth adults of that area greater voting power. We shouldn't have 50,000 voters in one seat and 80,000 in another just because there are 100,000 people in both. MPs do more than just act as casework processors, to be given equal-sized seats based on equal-sized casework loads; they also have a representative role and indeed there is an argument there should be more focus on the latter than the former. On the other hand, people who cannot vote for one reason or another may need the help of their MP or representative, which is a justification for the Republic of Ireland using census populations to determine constituency boundaries instead of electoral populations, even if it ends up with the odd absurdity or two like Dublin Central having an electorate of approx. 45,500 in 2016 for a 3-seat constituency. |
|
