|
|
Post by anthonyjwells on Nov 8, 2022 16:06:27 GMT
I'm pretty sure current boundaries is a thing they have to consider heavily due to the current law. Don't blame the commission for a law poorly written by the Government. It's really not. Well, the law isn't necessarily particularly well written, but one thing it isn't is overly prescriptive in terms of the relative weight of considerations and the degree to which the Commissions must consider them. I'd almost be tempted to criticise it for the opposite reason, other than a more prescriptive law would leave them more open to judicial review. They may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit (a)special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; (b)local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective, on the review date; (c)boundaries of existing constituencies; (d)any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e)the inconveniences attendant on such changes. My emphasis. So they aren't compelled, and they don't get any legislative guidance on how to weight those things against each other (and I think the courts have interpreted it in the past as deliberately giving them lots of leeway, so up to them.) Personally I really don't like the "any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies". It means on a strict reading, they shouldn't be taking account community ties like those raised by ilerda, because those aren't being broken by changes. They were already broken by changes at the previous review. By the letter of the law, potential improvements in the representation of local ties shouldn't really be a consideration. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 8, 2022 17:46:48 GMT
I'm pretty sure current boundaries is a thing they have to consider heavily due to the current law. Don't blame the commission for a law poorly written by the Government. It's really not. Well, the law isn't necessarily particularly well written, but one thing it isn't is overly prescriptive in terms of the relative weight of considerations and the degree to which the Commissions must consider them. I'd almost be tempted to criticise it for the opposite reason, other than a more prescriptive law would leave them more open to judicial review. They may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit (a)special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; (b)local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective, on the review date; (c)boundaries of existing constituencies; (d)any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e)the inconveniences attendant on such changes. My emphasis. So they aren't compelled, and they don't get any legislative guidance on how to weight those things against each other (and I think the courts have interpreted it in the past as deliberately giving them lots of leeway, so up to them.) Personally I really don't like the "any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies". It means on a strict reading, they shouldn't be taking account community ties like those raised by ilerda, because those aren't being broken by changes. They were already broken by changes at the previous review. By the letter of the law, potential improvements in the representation of local ties shouldn't really be a consideration. I think your last paragraph was what maxque was getting at: if they're not really supposed to consider improvements in local ties (or "convenience") then that inevitably increases the presumption in favour of retaining existing arrangements even when they're not very satisfactory and the reasons for them no longer exist; perhaps they were unfortunate consequences, or just plain bad decisions, at a previous review. It doesn't, however, apply so much in the case of Bulkington, as it is an orphan ward and so its removal from the Rugby constituency could be justified on criterion (b), which doesn't have the problems of (d) and (e), if you could get a workable map. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Nov 8, 2022 18:14:11 GMT
I’m really pi**ed off and actually quite concerned by the implications of the Commission’s insistence that maintaining the status quo is something to be aimed for and applauded, even when it is clearly not the best formulation of seats in an area. There are always times when imperfect solutions have to be employed to make an area work, but if we follow the Commission’s logic to its necessary next step, we will actually end up making these imperfect solutions permanent by saying what has come before should be preserved to avoid disruption. That in turn will lead to even more imperfect solutions in order to accommodate the preservation of pre-existing imperfect solutions that remain within range. As a Conservative I’m not naturally prone to radical overhauls, but surely a full scale review like this is opportunity to take a step back and look at things in the whole. If a sub-region has three seats that fit within range and one that doesn’t, why are we forced to look for a minimum change imperfect solution in order to preserve two existing seats that themselves might be illogical? If we actually care about good representative constituencies then it should be back to the drawing board at each review. As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it. The Rugby situation is quite ridiculous. There are so many better ways of organising Warwickshire. Still, I got my name in the report, even if they didn't like my sensible counter proposal. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Nov 8, 2022 18:19:20 GMT
As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it. In isolation you are entirely correct. But getting a more sensible Rugby seat leaves one seat in south Warwickshire below quota unless you're combining Warwickshire with somewhere else. Which obviously has quite significant knock-on effects elsewhere (though I'm fairly sure we came up with some decent Warwickshire-Solihull plans when the figures were first up on boundary assistant).
That said, i absolutely agree with your general point. I'm just not sure Rugby is the best illustration of it.
No, it doesn't leave any seats below quota. If you have a Rugby seat that is 100% Rugby with nothing added or taken away, there are many possible configurations for the remainder of the county. Indeed the Warwick+Stratford area is exactly the right size for three seats. There could hardly be a better illustration of the BCEs wrongheadedness. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 8, 2022 18:42:54 GMT
It's really not. Well, the law isn't necessarily particularly well written, but one thing it isn't is overly prescriptive in terms of the relative weight of considerations and the degree to which the Commissions must consider them. I'd almost be tempted to criticise it for the opposite reason, other than a more prescriptive law would leave them more open to judicial review. They may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit (a)special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; (b)local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective, on the review date; (c)boundaries of existing constituencies; (d)any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; (e)the inconveniences attendant on such changes. My emphasis. So they aren't compelled, and they don't get any legislative guidance on how to weight those things against each other (and I think the courts have interpreted it in the past as deliberately giving them lots of leeway, so up to them.) Personally I really don't like the "any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies". It means on a strict reading, they shouldn't be taking account community ties like those raised by ilerda, because those aren't being broken by changes. They were already broken by changes at the previous review. By the letter of the law, potential improvements in the representation of local ties shouldn't really be a consideration. I think your last paragraph was what maxque was getting at: if they're not really supposed to consider improvements in local ties (or "convenience") then that inevitably increases the presumption in favour of retaining existing arrangements even when they're not very satisfactory and the reasons for them no longer exist; perhaps they were unfortunate consequences, or just plain bad decisions, at a previous review. It doesn't, however, apply so much in the case of Bulkington, as it is an orphan ward and so its removal from the Rugby constituency could be justified on criterion (b), which doesn't have the problems of (d) and (e), if you could get a workable map. I’m not sure that is what maxque was saying (but happy to be told otherwise). Maxque said “current boundaries is a thing they have to consider heavily”, which as Anthony points out isn’t true. It’s something they can chose to consider and it doesn’t have to be weighted at all heavily. Yet reading through some of the regional reports as I have been today, in many cases the Commission as choosing to rely on it pretty heavily, and in my view unreasonably and damagingly so in many areas. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 8, 2022 18:44:46 GMT
As an example I take my former home seat of Rugby. The Bulkington ward of Nuneaton & Bedworth was included at the last review (ie from 2010) to make up for the loss of two wards in the south of Rugby borough to the new Kenilworth & Southam. Everyone from Bulkington and the wider area would tell you it doesn’t belong in the Rugby constituency (and even the local MP would agree), and yet because it’s already there the BCE now insists that keeping it there is the optimal outcome and any alternative solution would cause too much disruption. It’s completely absurd and illogical, and yet another example and bureaucracy being so blinkered that it cannot see what’s right in front of it. In isolation you are entirely correct. But getting a more sensible Rugby seat leaves one seat in south Warwickshire below quota unless you're combining Warwickshire with somewhere else. Which obviously has quite significant knock-on effects elsewhere (though I'm fairly sure we came up with some decent Warwickshire-Solihull plans when the figures were first up on boundary assistant).
That said, i absolutely agree with your general point. I'm just not sure Rugby is the best illustration of it.
I did favour a Warwickshire/Solihull crossing, but I think it was shown somewhere on the forum (and maybe even in the BCE’s alternative scheme) that Warwick and Stratford together could accommodate two whole seats with a very sensible split of the Bishop’s Tachbrook ward. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 8, 2022 19:08:23 GMT
In isolation you are entirely correct. But getting a more sensible Rugby seat leaves one seat in south Warwickshire below quota unless you're combining Warwickshire with somewhere else. Which obviously has quite significant knock-on effects elsewhere (though I'm fairly sure we came up with some decent Warwickshire-Solihull plans when the figures were first up on boundary assistant).
That said, i absolutely agree with your general point. I'm just not sure Rugby is the best illustration of it.
No, it doesn't leave any seats below quota. If you have a Rugby seat that is 100% Rugby with nothing added or taken away, there are many possible configurations for the remainder of the county. Indeed the Warwick+Stratford area is exactly the right size for three seats. There could hardly be a better illustration of the BCEs wrongheadedness. Yes, it is possible, but it makes the other seats much worse. Your proposal split both Bedworth and Leamington which is much worse than the current Rugby. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Nov 8, 2022 19:22:02 GMT
No, it doesn't leave any seats below quota. If you have a Rugby seat that is 100% Rugby with nothing added or taken away, there are many possible configurations for the remainder of the county. Indeed the Warwick+Stratford area is exactly the right size for three seats. There could hardly be a better illustration of the BCEs wrongheadedness. Yes, it is possible, but it makes the other seats much worse. Your proposal split both Bedworth and Leamington which is much worse than the current Rugby.
You know I don't agree with that, and I consider having as few LA splits and as many wholly contained seats to be the single most desirable feature of any review (and when the underlying LA boundaries poorly reflect communities and/or geography, the solution is to change the LA boundaries, rather than horrible seats). Others disagree.
However, this isn't really relevant to Rugby.
There are lots of other ways to configure Nuneaton & Bedworth + North Warwickshire into two seats, and lots of other ways to get three seats out of Warwick + Stratford.
A single, entire, complete, self-contained Rugby seat does not affect the totals for the rest of the county, which fit nicely into two seats North of Rugby and three to the South.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 8, 2022 19:52:34 GMT
I’ve spent all day updating my records for 5 regions, and reading the reports. North East is much much improved. East Midlands reverts to something closer to the present in Leicestershire - not necessarily better. anthonyjwells is incorrect in stating that preservation of existing constituencies is not a major determining consideration - the requirements in the act about breaking of ties, and inconvenience, mean exactly that. And the Commission are very obsequious to the political parties, who (apart from fairly useless attempts at gerrymandering) tend to support the status quo. West Midlands is little changed and remains pretty miserable. Yorkshire isn’t easy at all. East Yorkshire is definitely improved. South Yorkshire was OK in the original proposals. West Yorkshire is marginally better I think - I don’t mind one dreadful constituency (Wetherby) if it leads to sensible results elsewhere. Eastern is heavily overhauled with a shift to a Norfolk-Suffolk cross county seat which most of us preferred in the first case, and so did the assistant commissioners. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire the original proposals - pretty decent - stand. I still prefer the West Suffolk-Thetford solution, but the Waveney Valley seat isn’t too bad. Essex is still a bit of a mess, but the Castle Point/Southend solution is better. The less said about north-east Essex the better, but there really isn’t any good solution here. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 9, 2022 7:54:49 GMT
anthonyjwells is incorrect in stating that preservation of existing constituencies is not a major determining consideration - the requirements in the act about breaking of ties, and inconvenience, mean exactly that. And the Commission are very obsequious to the political parties, who (apart from fairly useless attempts at gerrymandering) tend to support the status quo. If I got my hands on the rules, one of the first things I'd change would be to remove the privileged role of the "qualified political parties" in the consultation. Of course you can't stop them submitting their gerrymanders, but really they're not contributing much other than giving the BCE an opportunity to ignore criticisms of their initial proposals where the parties have gone along with them. To be fair I think the Lib Dems contributed a little more than the other three, e.g. the improved East Riding map is based on their submission. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 9, 2022 11:14:13 GMT
anthonyjwells is incorrect in stating that preservation of existing constituencies is not a major determining consideration - the requirements in the act about breaking of ties, and inconvenience, mean exactly that. Where is community ties defined as meaning existing constituencies? For most people their community is defined not by their parliamentary constituency, but by their village, town, city, suburb, district, or county. It’s which high street or hospital you use, which schools your kids qualify for, where you go to work or meet up with friends, or where you local IKEA or John Lewis is. That’s what community ties actually means. And with regard to not breaking them, I would argue (to return to my original example) that, in terms of Bulkington, it is not removing it from the Rugby constituency that breaks ties, but instead it is choosing not to include it in the same constituency as Nuneaton or Bedworth. Making that decision is an active choice to break the sort of community ties that actually mean something. And God help anyone who seriously tries to use the inconvenience argument for opposing change. The only people it could possibly cause a modicum of additional work for (and work is not a synonym of inconvenience) is council electoral officers and constituency party officials. And as much as I like and have worked with many of both of these types of people, I don’t consider their needs to be above those of representative democracy. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,624
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 9, 2022 11:20:07 GMT
If I could tweak the rules, it would be along the lines of:
-feedback on previous proposals can be factored into current review (i.e. learn from previous pitchforks)
-when considering ties broken in changes, the quality of the boundaries must to be taken into account - to include local authority boundaries.
-previous constituency configurations carry some, but lesser weight, than current ones, decaying with age.
-where there is a choice of several good seats and a poor one (the leftovers seat) or several mediocre ones then the number of good seats a compromise will enable should be taken into account.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 9, 2022 11:29:13 GMT
anthonyjwells is incorrect in stating that preservation of existing constituencies is not a major determining consideration - the requirements in the act about breaking of ties, and inconvenience, mean exactly that. Where is community ties defined as meaning existing constituencies? For most people their community is defined not by their parliamentary constituency, but by their village, town, city, suburb, district, or county. It’s which high street or hospital you use, which schools your kids qualify for, where you go to work or meet up with friends, or where you local IKEA or John Lewis is. That’s what community ties actually means. And with regard to not breaking them, I would argue (to return to my original example) that, in terms of Bulkington, it is not removing it from the Rugby constituency that breaks ties, but instead it is choosing not to include it in the same constituency as Nuneaton or Bedworth. Making that decision is an active choice to break the sort of community ties that actually mean something. It's because the phrasing is "any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies". So Bulkington's local ties to Nuneaton and Bedworth aren't, on a strict reading, relevant for that rule, because they're already broken as far as the constituency map goes. I'm not actually sure what that criterion is meant to mean. Is it the sort of inconvenience you describe there, or is it the inconvenience caused by a badly connected constituency where, for example, your MP's office might be in Lancaster but you live in Fleetwood? |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Nov 10, 2022 11:54:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 10, 2022 12:07:22 GMT
I'm not actually sure what that criterion is meant to mean. Is it the sort of inconvenience you describe there, or is it the inconvenience caused by a badly connected constituency where, for example, your MP's office might be in Lancaster but you live in Fleetwood? It is I suspect deliberately vague, and is usually interpreted as the inconvenience to MPs of having to cultivate a new set of electors. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 11, 2022 10:15:31 GMT
Sorry if I'm being dense, but where are the submissions on the BCE website?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 11, 2022 10:59:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 11, 2022 11:19:54 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 14, 2022 20:50:21 GMT
I've come up with some very rough (emphasis on the very!) results estimates, using a demographic model to map voting patterns to local areas. These suggest that the 2019 general election results on these boundaries might have been Con 373 (+8) Lab 200* (-3) SNP 48 (nc) LD 9 (-2) PC 1 (-3) Green 1 (nc) * 199 excluding the Speaker There are a few seats which are far too close to call: Ceredigion Preseli has a tiny Conservative majority of 17 - if Plaid did even 0.2% better in the Fishguard area than my model suggests they would flip the seat. It also has the new Cheltenham as a Lib Dem seat because of the loss of Springbank ward - but the Lib Dems overperform demographics there and so it being removed will not flip the seat and it should remain Conservative on the new boundaries. These examples are why these figures should be taken as a rough guide and not as a gospel (and I'm sure there will be better notionals along before long)! . They are quite similar to the above, but have two more Tory seats, two fewer Labour, one more Plaid and one fewer Lib Dem. I think the seats which are different are: BH Lab, EC Con: Bury South, Kensington & Bayswater, Walsall & Bloxwich, Wirral West BH Con, EC Lab: Cramlington & Killingworth, Dagenham & Rainham BH Con, EC Plaid: Ceredigion Preseli BH Lib Dem, EC Con: Cheltenham |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 15:27:51 GMT
It is.  |
|
