2023 Review

[Adam Gray]

It's perfectly fine to disagree. All I'd say is that this is where boundary review arguments slightly lose perspective. We're talking about urban and suburban London here: I'm not proposing to pair one village west of the Cairngorms with Deeside. This is not the reincarnation of Mersey Banks. Lea Banks [who s/he?] - perhaps.

It is not in the least difficult to traverse most built-up London wards yet we end up vehemently throwing up all sorts of community arguments about transport links flowing this way but not that. That's understandable: we all want to make our case as strongly as we can. It's just if we step back is there really going to be a demonstrable, let alone significant, impairment in the quality of political representation for Cockfosters if they're part of an Enfield constituency rather than a Southgate constituency? There is a dense road network MPs should be capable of navigating to get them from Hadley Wood to Bush Hill Park without traumatising them too greatly. They could maybe even cycle it!

And this is what reviews are about: not about whether a constituent more naturally navigates between Cockfosters and Enfield or between Cockfosters and Wood Green, but whether their elected representative can do so effectively. MPs have considerable special needs but in most cases mobility isn't one of them - in compact, developed boroughs like Enfield at least.

Enfield Road connects Oakwood via Worlds End with old Enfield directly: they're next door. The southern parts of Oakwood and the southern parts of Grange Park merge into each other seamlessly. Hadley Wood is as remote from Southgate than it is Enfield town and, as you reiterate, the strongest link Cockfosters has is with neither Enfield or Southgate but to East Barnet over an opaque borough boundary. But the commission rejected pairing Enfield with Barnet so reopening that argument isn't a goer - to do so would mean redrawing most of west London and I think they are unlikely to countenance that.

The argument can be turned around: Edmonton is a pretty distinctly defined neighbourhood and yet the sprawling spaghetti-like mess of that revised recommendation splits those quite densely-packed communities south of Southgate and around the North Circular detrimentally - more so than pairing Cockfosters ward with Enfield.

I don't disagree with your view about Carterhatch, Peter: ideally both it and Bullsmoor would have fitted into my Edmonton + Lea Valley seat, but they don't. It's as optimal a split of a ward as there can be and the south isn't quite as depopulated as you suggest - something like 4,400 in the north and 2,900 in the south [got Enfield electoral services to give me the current PD electorates].

Most of the residents in the south are in the far south around Southbury station, sharing a community with Ponders End and Southbury itself. The retail park-land sort of splits the south from the north of Carterhatch, though again let's not over-egg the pudding: it's easy enough to navigate this area without the need of crampons and a week's worth of supplies. Cambridge Road and the railway line are stronger borders than the revised rec Edmonton has, in my view - and Enfield Lea-side is a distinctly different area to historic Enfield.

So, when you talk about links between Carterhatch and Bullsmoor, the Lea-side communities run as or more strongly north-south rather than east-west. It makes more sense, to me, for Edmonton to expand north rather than west and, if that's the choice made, other decisions get imposed by the review criteria until you end up with this outcome - which I maintain is (far) better than the revised rec. I agree Bullsmoor is more oriented to the east, but Bullsmoor proper also spreads westward into Whitewebbs - and Whitewebbs could be described as Old Enfield North, transitioning into Town and Ridgeway wards.

Looked at that way it's maybe not so outrageous as to merit me being sent to the Tower without passing Go?

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2022 18:52:22 GMT Adam Gray said:

[snip]

And this is what reviews are about: not about whether a constituent more naturally navigates between Cockfosters and Enfield or between Cockfosters and Wood Green, but whether their elected representative can do so effectively. MPs have considerable special needs but in most cases mobility isn't one of them - in compact, developed boroughs like Enfield at least.

[snip]

Wrong way round, surely? Drawing constituencies is about local representation; people will not feel adequately represented if they share representation with areas they don't identify with, and wile transport connections are not the be all and end all of this, they are a very significant indicator

[Adam Gray]

In ward boundary reviews the concept of convenient and effective representation is one of the core criteria. What does that mean? Convenience for the elector? To do what - attend an advice surgery? Surely it's about drawing the boundaries that most effectively enable their councillors to represent their constituents? It's essentially about the representative, not the constituent.

We have a revised recommendation for Wimbledon to pair it with Coombe - which cannot be reached without leaving the constituency and going around the edges. Similarly in an earlier review Roehampton was paired with Wimbledon - same issue. On the face of it, that's not going to be convenient for whoever represents Wimbledon and presumably will make their representation somewhat less effective as a consequence.

Yet I very much doubt that Coombe residents are going door to door to demand a better arrangement: voters really don't give a stuff about this. These consultations are all about parties, representatives and activists. Let's drop the pretence that the public influence any of this - are even aware of it. Look how many of the submissions from genuine members of the public have somehow got it into their heads that moving constituencies mean their local neighbourhood is somehow going to be abolished. Who we are represented by is only of concern to politicos - and usually because of electoral considerations.

I agree with you that it's always better to contain whole communities or neighbourhoods within constituencies though in London that's a questionable attainment given how neighbourhoods merge into each other. For every place we unite we split somewhere else. Streatham is united but Norwood is wrecked. Old and New Malden are together, Kingston town is massacred. Revised recommendation Southgate doesn't contain all of Southgate and putting White Hart Lane ward into Wood Green means people at the eastern end of that ward who strongly identify with Tottenham will not be in a Tottenham constituency any more. As already discussed, Cockfosters is better linked with Barnet not Haringey or Enfield town.

All I'm saying is that transport links, community links, shopping links, school catchment areas and so on are valid justifications for drawing boundaries. But lets not suggest that if we can't squeeze all of those that matter most into every constituency in dense, urban areas it's going to result in constituents picketing the BCE offices in protest.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2022 19:33:05 GMT Adam Gray said:

In ward boundary reviews the concept of convenient and effective representation is one of the core criteria. What does that mean? Convenience for the elector? To do what - attend an advice surgery? Surely it's about drawing the boundaries that most effectively enable their councillors to represent their constituents? It's essentially about the representative, not the constituent.

We have a revised recommendation for Wimbledon to pair it with Coombe - which cannot be reached without leaving the constituency and going around the edges. Similarly in an earlier review Roehampton was paired with Wimbledon - same issue. On the face of it, that's not going to be convenient for whoever represents Wimbledon and presumably will make their representation somewhat less effective as a consequence.

Yet I very much doubt that Coombe residents are going door to door to demand a better arrangement: voters really don't give a stuff about this. These consultations are all about parties, representatives and activists. Let's drop the pretence that the public influence any of this - are even aware of it. Look how many of the submissions from genuine members of the public have somehow got it into their heads that moving constituencies mean their local neighbourhood is somehow going to be abolished. Who we are represented by is only of concern to politicos - and usually because of electoral considerations.

I agree with you that it's always better to contain whole communities or neighbourhoods within constituencies though in London that's a questionable attainment given how neighbourhoods merge into each other. For every place we unite we split somewhere else. Streatham is united but Norwood is wrecked. Old and New Malden are together, Kingston town is massacred. Revised recommendation Southgate doesn't contain all of Southgate and putting White Hart Lane ward into Wood Green means people at the eastern end of that ward who strongly identify with Tottenham will not be in a Tottenham constituency any more. As already discussed, Cockfosters is better linked with Barnet not Haringey or Enfield town.

All I'm saying is that transport links, community links, shopping links, school catchment areas and so on are valid justifications for drawing boundaries. But lets not suggest that if we can't squeeze all of those that matter most into every constituency in dense, urban areas it's going to result in constituents picketing the BCE offices in protest.

Many submissions from members of the public were genuinely worrying. The lack of understanding about the basic principles of the process was astonishing. And frankly I don't think the line that 'the Commission / politicians should explain it better' washes. It is not astrophysics, and if you are concerned enough to submit a response through official channels then you can check on what the actual proposals you're objecting to mean(!)

[islington]

Dec 9, 2022 19:33:05 GMT Adam Gray said:

In ward boundary reviews the concept of convenient and effective representation is one of the core criteria. What does that mean? Convenience for the elector? To do what - attend an advice surgery? Surely it's about drawing the boundaries that most effectively enable their councillors to represent their constituents? It's essentially about the representative, not the constituent.

We have a revised recommendation for Wimbledon to pair it with Coombe - which cannot be reached without leaving the constituency and going around the edges. Similarly in an earlier review Roehampton was paired with Wimbledon - same issue. On the face of it, that's not going to be convenient for whoever represents Wimbledon and presumably will make their representation somewhat less effective as a consequence.

Yet I very much doubt that Coombe residents are going door to door to demand a better arrangement: voters really don't give a stuff about this. These consultations are all about parties, representatives and activists. Let's drop the pretence that the public influence any of this - are even aware of it. Look how many of the submissions from genuine members of the public have somehow got it into their heads that moving constituencies mean their local neighbourhood is somehow going to be abolished. Who we are represented by is only of concern to politicos - and usually because of electoral considerations.

I agree with you that it's always better to contain whole communities or neighbourhoods within constituencies though in London that's a questionable attainment given how neighbourhoods merge into each other. For every place we unite we split somewhere else. Streatham is united but Norwood is wrecked. Old and New Malden are together, Kingston town is massacred. Revised recommendation Southgate doesn't contain all of Southgate and putting White Hart Lane ward into Wood Green means people at the eastern end of that ward who strongly identify with Tottenham will not be in a Tottenham constituency any more. As already discussed, Cockfosters is better linked with Barnet not Haringey or Enfield town.

All I'm saying is that transport links, community links, shopping links, school catchment areas and so on are valid justifications for drawing boundaries. But lets not suggest that if we can't squeeze all of those that matter most into every constituency in dense, urban areas it's going to result in constituents picketing the BCE offices in protest.

The words in bold are true if we're talking about the public in general; but the word 'public' also includes people with an active interest in this subject who submit well-thought-out proposals that focus on the issues properly in play and comply with the rules governing the exercise. There are several members of this forum to whom this applies, but when we submit we categorize ourselves as 'Member of the public' because it's an accurate description and the only one that applies (except that one or two of us may be elected councillors).

And these submissions do influence the outcome. It's quite clear from the Commission's reports, as well as from the actual boundaries proposed, that this is so. I'm not saying that our role is  determinative; it couldn't be, because we don't always agree with each other and there are plenty of other factors that also bear on the eventual outcome. But I don't see how you can deny that we have influence.

Regarding Southgate/Cockfosters: this is an area with which I am familiar and I sympathize with a lot of what Adam Gray has to say on the subject, but I think he's missed out an essential factor, namely the borough boundary. He is arguing that the boundary between Enfield and Barnet doesn't make sense on the ground, which is true, and that the whole Southgate/Cockfosters area is better linked with Barnet than with Enfield, which is probably also true. But I don't think this allows us to treat the borough boundary as if it didn't exist: it's a fact of political and administrative life and it needs to be taken into account at least as much as the other factors Adam mentions. Moreover, the initial proposals may have looked better from Southgate's point of view (if you ignore the borough boundary) but they were terrible from a Barnet perspective, with a boundary separating East Barnet from High Barnet and ploughing right through the middle of New Barnet.

I don't hold a particular brief for the revised plan, which has its flaws and isn't what I proposed; but it is a defensible way of reconciling the various difficulties in this part of London. I'd say the same about the revised plan in Kingston: there's no ideal solution here but what the BCE has come up with, although a bit messy, is not irrational and is definitely an improvement on the initial proposals.

Edited to add: Incidentally, the A238 (Coombe Lane) runs directly between Coombe wards and the rest of the proposed Wimbledon seat, so Adam is mistaken is saying there is no link.

[bjornhattan]

Dec 19, 2022 15:12:57 GMT Andrew_S said:

Nov 8, 2022 1:30:13 GMT bjornhattan said:

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)!

I'm curious to know how you managed to put this up within 30 minutes of the boundary report being published. (Curious in a positive way).

The vast majority of the work had been done in advance. I had worked out figures for each census LSOA in the country and knew where each was, so it was just a case of matching up local areas to constituencies and then adding up the figures for each seat.

It actually took longer to format the tables and make it pretty on Google Sheets than it did to aggregate the figures in QGIS!

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Everything is rather quiet as the Boundary Commissions enter the last month before they have to submit their final recommendations. The PBCE has confirmed it's "on track" to meet the deadline. Nothing from the other commissions.

[nyx]

While it won't happen much, I'm sure there will be a few seats with enough changes from Revised to Final proposals that parties will have to go through the selection process again for their parliamentary candidates. Will be interesting to see where that happens if it does.

[gerrardwinstanley]

I noticed that the BCE website is currently under maintenance, because they will shortly be releasing their final recommendations. Does anyone know when they will be released?

[carolus]

Jun 26, 2023 21:39:11 GMT gerrardwinstanley said:

I noticed that the BCE website is currently under maintenance, because they will shortly be releasing their final recommendations. Does anyone know when they will be released?

At the end of May they said they were on track to submit the final proposals to the speaker before 1 July, so there can't be much longer.

[islington]

Yes, they issued a press release to this effect on 31 May. It want on to explain the process by which the boundaries will come into effect. The final sentence reads as follows.

After the Privy Council approves the Oder, the new constituencies take effect at the next General Election.

Well, what could be Neisse?

[YL]

The Welsh Commission has submitted its report to the Speaker.

[ilerda]

From a source:


Dear XXX

I am pleased to inform you that the Boundary Commission for England has today presented its final recommendations report for the 2023 Review of Parliamentary constituencies to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

The legislation to which we work sets out that the Speaker is required to lay our final recommendations before Parliament. As Parliament must be the first audience for our report, we cannot publish our recommendations until such time as the report has been laid in Parliament. We understand that the Speaker’s Office will be in touch with you regarding the provision of printed copies once the Report has been laid.

Once it has been laid in Parliament we will publish the final recommendations on our website.

The Commissioners would like to thank you for your interest in the 2023 Boundary Review.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Bowden
Secretary to the Commission

[Wisconsin]

They’ve just tweeted something similar:

[carolus]

Scotland also www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/?q=resources/news/27-june-2023-2023-review-report-submitted

[carolus]

And indeed NI

[John Chanin]

So when can we expect the eggs to be laid?

[ilerda]

According to the Speaker's office: "I will be laying these before Parliament and printed copies of the reports will be available [to Members] from 11.30am on Wednesday 28 June. Members will also be sent links by email to the reports published by the Boundary Commissions."

[islington]

Jun 27, 2023 10:39:20 GMT ilerda said:

According to the Speaker's office: "I will be laying these before Parliament and printed copies of the reports will be available [to Members] from 11.30am on Wednesday 28 June. Members will also be sent links by email to the reports published by the Boundary Commissions."

Last time the reports were submitted on Wed 5 Sep 2018 and published at lunchtime on Mon 10 Sep, so it seems the process may be quicker this time.

[nyx]

Last minute predictions- which areas of the country do we think will have some changes from the Revised Proposals to the final recommendations?

I think they'll probably try to do something about the Pencoed salient in Rhondda.