YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,344
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Apr 21, 2021 11:27:54 GMT
A new cross-border seat ("Hemsworth & Darton"?) contains the remaining Barnsley wards (Darton x2, Royston, Cudworth, North East) plus Hemsworth, Crofton et al and all of Wakefield Rural except Crigglestone parish. I think Hemsworth and Royston might be a better name for this seat. Royston is recognised by Barnsley Council as one of their so-called "principal towns", and sits in the middle of the five wards you're moving across. I would say don't be fooled by the fact two wards are named after Darton. They cover a collection of differently named communities that just happened to be part of the old Darton Urban District and also share Darton station. Most of the area covered isn't the core of Darton itself. My motivation for that (tentative) choice of name was actually to describe the geographical spread of the constituency by picking somewhere in the west of the Barnsley component to balance Hemsworth, which is very much in the east of the constituency. But it was only a tentative choice, and I don't mind "Hemsworth & Royston".
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 21, 2021 21:22:07 GMT
This is a little better than what I had before (edit: for that group, I haven't changed my preference for the Doncaster/Axholme link) but has an extra ward split (Wakefield Rural): All Sheffield seats and Penistone & Stocksbridge exactly as before (i.e. P & S, B & H, Hallam unchanged, transfer Manor Castle to Heeley, split Richmond between Heeley and SE/Attercliffe). Rother Valley re-aligned to new ward boundaries. Rotherham gains Wickersley North and Bramley & Ravenfield from Wentworth & Dearne, which in turn gains Darfield and Stairfoot in Barnsley. Barnsley Central loses both Darton wards and Royston, but gains Wombwell, Worsbrough and the two Hoyland wards. A new cross-border seat ("Hemsworth & Darton"?) contains the remaining Barnsley wards (Darton x2, Royston, Cudworth, North East) plus Hemsworth, Crofton et al and all of Wakefield Rural except Crigglestone parish. Wakefield contains the two Ossett wards, the four Wakefield compass point wards (hi islington ) and the Crigglestone part of Wakefield Rural. That leaves Castleford & Outwood, a strip along the northern border of Wakefield borough, and Pontefract & Normanton, including the Elmsalls. Thanks for this. I'd wasted a bit of time on including a Wentworth & Ecclesfield seat. Compared with your outline above, I'd swap Rother Vale/Sitwell into Rotherham, in order to put all of Wickersley/Bramley together in Rother Valley. This isn't minimum change, but it puts Catcliffe and Whiston in Rotherham where they belong. The Wombwell and Stairfoot wards should obviously be swapped over too, except it puts the Dearne seat 7 votes over the limit. But all in all I think it's a pretty good arrangement. Although the majority opinion here is to "go through" Doncaster, I remember that the Commission has two great loves: bacon strips and minimum change. So I wouldn't be surprised if they leave Doncaster largely alone.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,344
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Apr 22, 2021 6:36:46 GMT
Compared with your outline above, I'd swap Rother Vale/Sitwell into Rotherham, in order to put all of Wickersley/Bramley together in Rother Valley. This isn't minimum change, but it puts Catcliffe and Whiston in Rotherham where they belong. I looked at this myself after posting, and agree that this is better, uniting both greater Wickersley and Rotherham town, though possibly not that easy to justify if you take the rules literally. Yes, it's workable, though I'd need to see it in the context of a plan for the whole region. I don't think it's great for Barnsley, which gets three border crossings, Stairfoot in the wrong seat, and a rather silchesterish leftovers cross-county seat, but it works well in Rotherham and it's nice to be able to put Wakefield together (albeit needing a split ward to do so). What I really don't like is the inevitable Axholme-Goole-Howden monstrosity, but there is precedent for that so maybe it will be proposed.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 22, 2021 14:50:29 GMT
Compared with your outline above, I'd swap Rother Vale/Sitwell into Rotherham, in order to put all of Wickersley/Bramley together in Rother Valley. This isn't minimum change, but it puts Catcliffe and Whiston in Rotherham where they belong. I looked at this myself after posting, and agree that this is better, uniting both greater Wickersley and Rotherham town, though possibly not that easy to justify if you take the rules literally. Yes, it's workable, though I'd need to see it in the context of a plan for the whole region. I don't think it's great for Barnsley, which gets three border crossings, Stairfoot in the wrong seat, and a rather silchesterish leftovers cross-county seat, but it works well in Rotherham and it's nice to be able to put Wakefield together (albeit needing a split ward to do so). What I really don't like is the inevitable Axholme-Goole-Howden monstrosity, but there is precedent for that so maybe it will be proposed.By which you mean the 1983-97 constituency of Boothferry. That can be avoided and should be avoided.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,344
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Apr 22, 2021 15:04:16 GMT
From the Haltemprice & Howden profile in the Almanac: When Haltemprice and Howden was created as a constituency in 1997 it excised from the political landscape one of the most illogical and unlamented constituencies in Boothferry. Named after the bridge over the Ouse just south west of Howden (which was important pre-M62) this seat was a direct impact of that other outrage forced upon this area, namely the 1974 county of Humberside. Boothferry CC took in a sizeable amount of the old Howden seat but also went south to take in the town of Goole (formerly in the West Riding) and parts of rural Lincolnshire around the Isle of Axholme. Freed from the straitjacket of creating boundaries using Humberside as the base, the Boundary Commissioners split Boothferry into four and no one except Pete Whitehead has to my knowledge suggested it should be resurrected.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 22, 2021 16:39:01 GMT
From the Haltemprice & Howden profile in the Almanac: When Haltemprice and Howden was created as a constituency in 1997 it excised from the political landscape one of the most illogical and unlamented constituencies in Boothferry. Named after the bridge over the Ouse just south west of Howden (which was important pre-M62) this seat was a direct impact of that other outrage forced upon this area, namely the 1974 county of Humberside. Boothferry CC took in a sizeable amount of the old Howden seat but also went south to take in the town of Goole (formerly in the West Riding) and parts of rural Lincolnshire around the Isle of Axholme. Freed from the straitjacket of creating boundaries using Humberside as the base, the Boundary Commissioners split Boothferry into four and no one except Pete Whitehead has to my knowledge suggested it should be resurrected. I like to think I wasn't being entirely serious (or even remotely so) when I suggested that. That seat really was an abomination but as I was socialised, so to speak, on the 1983 boundaries I wouldn't have appreciated that to the extent that I came to subsequently. Had I been 10 or 15 years older when those boundaries came into being I think I would have viewed that seat as almost on a par with Mersey Banks (and a fucking awful name as well) but I would have had a lot of other new seats to trouble me at that time
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 15, 2021 11:34:57 GMT
I've been looking again at this region in a spirit of ward-splitting, and it's reminded me of one of the reasons i was so resistant to this approach, namely that it's dangerously habit-forming. Put another way, ward splits are like sugar almonds: you tell yourself that just one won't hurt, then another, and before you know where you are you've finished the packet.
Wandsworth (see the London thread) is very attractive because a single split solves a raft of problems.
In W Yorks, I quite see the attraction of splitting one ward in Calderdale, presumably Hipperholme, so that the borough can be divided into two whole seats that closely align with the existing ones. But as I wrestle with the knock-on effects of doing this, I find that the splits just keep coming. I'm currently treating Leeds and Kirklees together for twelve seats, which is fine on the numbers (887487 = 12.09) but seems to require four further splits (two in Leeds and two in Kirklees). This leaves Wakefield to go with N Yorks for ten seats, which seems to be all right (with no splits) if you can overlook a sprawling Mid Yorks seat. And while S Yorks can be done without splits, the consensus of opinion from our Sheffield contingent seems to be that at least one split (Manor Castle ward, I think without checking back) is highly desirable.
So that's six ward splits, which seems to me a lot in a region where workable, albeit flawed, plans are available with no splits at all.
So before I post any maps, I'd appreciate it if someone could give me a steer. Am stupidly failing to spot options that involve fewer splits? Or have I simply not drunk sufficiently deeply of the ward-split kool-aid?
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by ilerda on May 15, 2021 12:09:19 GMT
I know this won't be popular amongst those who see the world through the prism of number above all else, but my view is this:
Historically, we have focussed on constituencies reflecting communities. This has slowly, over the years, come to be more balanced with the need for some degree of electoral equality. For example, we went from a time when each county got 2 MPs, to a situation where they were allowed more to reflect their population. Then, before the 1974 reforms, constituencies were largely made up of combinations of whole local government districts, even if that meant they were rather unequal (exceptions did of course exist, in areas where districts were supremely awkward like Basford in Nottinghamshire).
As time moved on, we moved to using wards as building blocks, because they allowed us to largely respect communities whilst bringing in greater electoral equality. There seemed to be a strong consensus that this was a happy medium that allowed both interests to be preserved. (I should at this point say that for me, a "good" constituency is one that is a decent reflection of communities and links between them, not merely a group of people who happen to reach the right number when pooled together)
As we move into a more formalised a stricter electoral equality world, we cannot maintain sensible community ties whilst sticking to whole wards in lots of areas. I know some people will take the list of factors to be considered as an unbreakable law, but remember that the only factor that has an actual legal obligation is that of the number of electors. Using only whole wards is not part of this.
What I'm essentially saying, in a rather clumsy way, is that over time we have allowed ourselves to use smaller and smaller units in order to bring in better electoral equality. The natural next step in the process, as we move to even stricter numerical rules, is to allow ourselves to use even smaller units like split wards in order to maintain some degree of the other important element in constituency building - reflecting communities.
The world won't fall apart if a few electoral officers have to deal with split wards at election time (they already do in areas with new ward boundaries), and if it allows people to feel that their constituency is a better reflection of their community then I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 15, 2021 13:03:47 GMT
I know this won't be popular amongst those who see the world through the prism of number above all else, but my view is this: Historically, we have focussed on constituencies reflecting communities. This has slowly, over the years, come to be more balanced with the need for some degree of electoral equality. For example, we went from a time when each county got 2 MPs, to a situation where they were allowed more to reflect their population. Then, before the 1974 reforms, constituencies were largely made up of combinations of whole local government districts, even if that meant they were rather unequal (exceptions did of course exist, in areas where districts were supremely awkward like Basford in Nottinghamshire). As time moved on, we moved to using wards as building blocks, because they allowed us to largely respect communities whilst bringing in greater electoral equality. There seemed to be a strong consensus that this was a happy medium that allowed both interests to be preserved. (I should at this point say that for me, a "good" constituency is one that is a decent reflection of communities and links between them, not merely a group of people who happen to reach the right number when pooled together) As we move into a more formalised a stricter electoral equality world, we cannot maintain sensible community ties whilst sticking to whole wards in lots of areas. I know some people will take the list of factors to be considered as an unbreakable law, but remember that the only factor that has an actual legal obligation is that of the number of electors. Using only whole wards is not part of this. What I'm essentially saying, in a rather clumsy way, is that over time we have allowed ourselves to use smaller and smaller units in order to bring in better electoral equality. The natural next step in the process, as we move to even stricter numerical rules, is to allow ourselves to use even smaller units like split wards in order to maintain some degree of the other important element in constituency building - reflecting communities. The world won't fall apart if a few electoral officers have to deal with split wards at election time (they already do in areas with new ward boundaries), and if it allows people to feel that their constituency is a better reflection of their community then I'm all for it. I don't see why that should be an unpopular view because you're not proposing to get rid of the numerical limits, you're simply suggesting that we should be more willing to depart from ward boundaries to meet the other criteria.
There's definitely a reasonable case to be made for this.
Staying in the Y&H region, look at Bradford. The city has a clear entitlement to its present allowance of five whole seats and the current ones are all within tolerance except Bradford S, which is short by 405. It's possible to rectify this without ward splits but it involves shifting quite a lot of electors. But splitting a single ward allows a much simpler and less disruptive alternative. You could divide Lt Horton ward to put the area east of Lt Horton Lane (if that's a PD boundary) into Bradford S - that's got to be worth at least 1500 or 2000 electors and it brings everything into line with no further changes at all.
But then, that's seven splits in Y&H, so you see what I mean about sugar almonds.
Edited to add: But where the numeric limits come into play is that the 5% tolerance is essentially a compromise, allowing reasonable electoral equality (a good thing) whilst not dividing wards, or at least not very many of them (also a good thing). But if we've now decided that ward splits aren't an issue, and I must admit that after resisting this doggedly for years I'm now moving rapidly in this direction, the key argument for allowing as much as 5% tolerance then falls away, so maybe we should look at a much tighter tolerance in future reviews (2%?).
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,682
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 15, 2021 13:47:08 GMT
I don't see why that should be an unpopular view because you're not proposing to get rid of the numerical limits, you're simply suggesting that we should be more willing to depart from ward boundaries to meet the other criteria. There's definitely a reasonable case to be made for this. Staying in the Y&H region, look at Bradford. The city has a clear entitlement to its present allowance of five whole seats and the current ones are all within tolerance except Bradford S, which is short by 405. It's possible to rectify this without ward splits but it involves shifting quite a lot of electors. But splitting a single ward allows a much simpler and less disruptive alternative. You could divide Lt Horton ward to put the area east of Lt Horton Lane (if that's a PD boundary) into Bradford S - that's got to be worth at least 1500 or 2000 electors and it brings everything into line with no further changes at all. But then, that's seven splits in Y&H, so you see what I mean about sugar almonds. Edited to add: But where the numeric limits come into play is that the 5% tolerance is essentially a compromise, allowing reasonable electoral equality (a good thing) whilst not dividing wards, or at least not very many of them (also a good thing). But if we've now decided that ward splits aren't an issue, and I must admit that after resisting this doggedly for years I'm now moving rapidly in this direction, the key argument for allowing as much as 5% tolerance then falls away, so maybe we should look at a much tighter tolerance in future reviews (2%?).
Additionally, using whole wards as building blocks "because they are communities" is flawed, as wards are just as numbers-bound as constituencies. In the 1980 review in Sheffield we ended up with some monstrocities, Woodland View sliced in half, Hillsborough sliced into three, Crookes sliced into four, etc. In the 2004 and 2016 reviews everybody worked had to repair these splits, but the numbers are the over-riding requirement. In 2004 the split Handworth was still couldn't be unified, having a quarter sliced off into Darnall. In 2016 that slice was finally removed and Darnall unified - but Handworth ended up with a different bit sliced off into Richmond. There's wiggly bits between Birley and Richmond that have pushed back and forth to get the numbers right but break the communities. A great chunk of Walkley was sliced off and added onto Hillsborough Because Numbers, even though there was a better sliced version that would have worked better. And don't suggest using polling disitrcts. They are even worse, as they are purely for electoral conventience on polling day. They are absolutely nothing to do with anything related to people on the ground. Eg, if you needed a bit of Arbourthorne Ward you wouldn't add all of Myrtle PD just because it's a whole PD, you'd slice off the southern "Heeley Green" bit of Mytle PD.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by ilerda on May 15, 2021 13:56:27 GMT
I know this won't be popular amongst those who see the world through the prism of number above all else, but my view is this: Historically, we have focussed on constituencies reflecting communities. This has slowly, over the years, come to be more balanced with the need for some degree of electoral equality. For example, we went from a time when each county got 2 MPs, to a situation where they were allowed more to reflect their population. Then, before the 1974 reforms, constituencies were largely made up of combinations of whole local government districts, even if that meant they were rather unequal (exceptions did of course exist, in areas where districts were supremely awkward like Basford in Nottinghamshire). As time moved on, we moved to using wards as building blocks, because they allowed us to largely respect communities whilst bringing in greater electoral equality. There seemed to be a strong consensus that this was a happy medium that allowed both interests to be preserved. (I should at this point say that for me, a "good" constituency is one that is a decent reflection of communities and links between them, not merely a group of people who happen to reach the right number when pooled together) As we move into a more formalised a stricter electoral equality world, we cannot maintain sensible community ties whilst sticking to whole wards in lots of areas. I know some people will take the list of factors to be considered as an unbreakable law, but remember that the only factor that has an actual legal obligation is that of the number of electors. Using only whole wards is not part of this. What I'm essentially saying, in a rather clumsy way, is that over time we have allowed ourselves to use smaller and smaller units in order to bring in better electoral equality. The natural next step in the process, as we move to even stricter numerical rules, is to allow ourselves to use even smaller units like split wards in order to maintain some degree of the other important element in constituency building - reflecting communities. The world won't fall apart if a few electoral officers have to deal with split wards at election time (they already do in areas with new ward boundaries), and if it allows people to feel that their constituency is a better reflection of their community then I'm all for it. I don't see why that should be an unpopular view because you're not proposing to get rid of the numerical limits, you're simply suggesting that we should be more willing to depart from ward boundaries to meet the other criteria.
There's definitely a reasonable case to be made for this.
Staying in the Y&H region, look at Bradford. The city has a clear entitlement to its present allowance of five whole seats and the current ones are all within tolerance except Bradford S, which is short by 405. It's possible to rectify this without ward splits but it involves shifting quite a lot of electors. But splitting a single ward allows a much simpler and less disruptive alternative. You could divide Lt Horton ward to put the area east of Lt Horton Lane (if that's a PD boundary) into Bradford S - that's got to be worth at least 1500 or 2000 electors and it brings everything into line with no further changes at all.
But then, that's seven splits in Y&H, so you see what I mean about sugar almonds.
Edited to add: But where the numeric limits come into play is that the 5% tolerance is essentially a compromise, allowing reasonable electoral equality (a good thing) whilst not dividing wards, or at least not very many of them (also a good thing). But if we've now decided that ward splits aren't an issue, and I must admit that after resisting this doggedly for years I'm now moving rapidly in this direction, the key argument for allowing as much as 5% tolerance then falls away, so maybe we should look at a much tighter tolerance in future reviews (2%?).
Reassuring to know I'm not alone! I used to have the same reluctance, but when I saw the wider benefits of ward splitting in order to achieve a greater number of "good" constituencies because it avoids nasty knock-on effects I came round. Personally I wouldn't look at it solely as number of splits on a regional level. More in terms of ward splits within (groups of) local authorities. After all, a ward split in Bradford (provided we take that one LA as good for 5 seats on its own) has absolutely no impact on anywhere else in the Y&H region. So why bother with a cumulative figure? Similarly in Sheffield, a single ward split there actually has wider benefits for the rest of the South Yorkshire area. The total number of ward splits needs to be looked at in context, rather than just as a pure number.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 15, 2021 14:22:22 GMT
Yes, that's fair comment.
But there's still a question about the priority for community ties as opposed to other issues such as LA boundaries and minimum change.
My suggested Bradford ward split is a prime example. In community terms, it's not very good because it puts a boundary right through the middle of Lt Horton. On the other hand, in terms of 'minimum change', it's excellent.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 15, 2021 19:10:49 GMT
Yes, that's fair comment. But there's still a question about the priority for community ties as opposed to other issues such as LA boundaries and minimum change. My suggested Bradford ward split is a prime example. In community terms, it's not very good because it puts a boundary right through the middle of Lt Horton. On the other hand, in terms of 'minimum change', it's excellent. And note that minimum change (or rather minimum change-that-would-break-local-ties) is a requirement, something that was a little meaningless with the reduction to 600 seats but isn't now - hence why more ward splits may be a consequence of the change even though it also made the creation of a somewhat reasonable map w/o splits easier. Of course the regular realigning to new ward boundaries sat somewhat uneasily with minimum change even pre 5% rule.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 16, 2021 12:33:19 GMT
Just as a first stab, how about this for W Yorks?
Ward splits in Leeds (2), Kirklees (2), Bradford (1), Calderdale (1).
Compared with the best non-split plan I could come up with, this has much more regard for LA boundaries and far more existing seats are retained either unchanged or subject to relatively small adjustments.
I don't like Leeds E, though, or the sprawling Mid Yorks seat (or 'Vale of York' or 'Thirsk and Tadcaster' if you don't like 'Mid' names - basically it's a mess whatever you call it, but it allows York UA to be treated separately).
I'd welcome feedback on whether I'm on the right lines here.
PS: Not relevant to this thread, but I'd add Wirral to the list of examples where a single ward split allows a much better map.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,344
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 16, 2021 14:11:38 GMT
That's pretty close to what I have at the moment, though I'm waiting for the PD numbers to finalise the details. I was also not very happy with the options in the east Leeds area, but I think Tadcaster & Thirsk is better than it looks: the main thing wrong with it is just that it's so big.
Personally I'm not inclined to split wards just to stay close to existing arrangements; I'd want another argument as well. In the Bradford case there possibly is, as I find the simple ward swaps unsatisfactory in that they put areas in Bradford South which really don't seem to belong there.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 17, 2021 11:09:13 GMT
That's pretty close to what I have at the moment, though I'm waiting for the PD numbers to finalise the details. I was also not very happy with the options in the east Leeds area, but I think Tadcaster & Thirsk is better than it looks: the main thing wrong with it is just that it's so big. Personally I'm not inclined to split wards just to stay close to existing arrangements; I'd want another argument as well. In the Bradford case there possibly is, as I find the simple ward swaps unsatisfactory in that they put areas in Bradford South which really don't seem to belong there. May I ask why?
If ward splits are justified in order to respect LA boundaries, because that's a Rule 5 criterion, they why not to minimize disturbance to the current map, which is three Rule 5 critera?
(I'm not asking this purely as a debating point. I'd really like to have a convincing reason for the approach you suggest because I still don't like ward splits and I'd like to have as few as possible. But my problem is that once they have been accepted in principle to avoid LA boundary-crossings, then I'm struggling to find a defensible case for not using them in places like Bradford, Solihull and Coventry where a single split, involving relatively few electors, gets a seat within range and removes the need for ward swaps that involve shifting far more electors.)
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 17, 2021 11:26:15 GMT
That's pretty close to what I have at the moment, though I'm waiting for the PD numbers to finalise the details. I was also not very happy with the options in the east Leeds area, but I think Tadcaster & Thirsk is better than it looks: the main thing wrong with it is just that it's so big. Personally I'm not inclined to split wards just to stay close to existing arrangements; I'd want another argument as well. In the Bradford case there possibly is, as I find the simple ward swaps unsatisfactory in that they put areas in Bradford South which really don't seem to belong there. May I ask why?
If ward splits are justified in order to respect LA boundaries, because that's a Rule 5 criterion, they why not to minimize disturbance to the current map, which is three Rule 5 critera?
(I'm not asking this purely as a debating point. I'd really like to have a convincing reason for the approach you suggest because I still don't like ward splits and I'd like to have as few as possible. But my problem is that once they have been accepted in principle to avoid LA boundary-crossings, then I'm struggling to find a defensible case for not using them in places like Bradford, Solihull and Coventry where a single split, involving relatively few electors, gets a seat within range and removes the need for ward swaps that involve shifting far more electors.)
And wherever the current constituencies are generally considered as welldrawn, that is the reasonable approach. The problems begin where badly designed (or merely so-so, no better than the new nonsplit alternative) extant constituencies can be saved this way. As is probably going to happen once the idea of wardsplitting is generally accepted. Minimum change becomes the law of the land except where a region gains or loses a whole seat, and Rossendale hold Darwen forever.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 17, 2021 12:36:13 GMT
May I ask why?
If ward splits are justified in order to respect LA boundaries, because that's a Rule 5 criterion, they why not to minimize disturbance to the current map, which is three Rule 5 critera?
(I'm not asking this purely as a debating point. I'd really like to have a convincing reason for the approach you suggest because I still don't like ward splits and I'd like to have as few as possible. But my problem is that once they have been accepted in principle to avoid LA boundary-crossings, then I'm struggling to find a defensible case for not using them in places like Bradford, Solihull and Coventry where a single split, involving relatively few electors, gets a seat within range and removes the need for ward swaps that involve shifting far more electors.)
And wherever the current constituencies are generally considered as welldrawn, that is the reasonable approach. The problems begin where badly designed (or merely so-so, no better than the new nonsplit alternative) extant constituencies can be saved this way. As is probably going to happen once the idea of wardsplitting is generally accepted. Minimum change becomes the law of the land except where a region gains or loses a whole seat, and Rossendale hold Darwen forever.Yes. I think that's the implication, and the legislative intent, of the current rules.
Remember the bulleted factors in Rule 5: - special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency;
- local government boundaries as they existed (or were in prospect) on 1 December 2020;
- boundaries of existing constituencies;
- any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; and
- the inconveniences attendant on such changes.
While the surrounding wording gives Commissions are fair bit of wiggle room, it would be a very bold Commission that exercised its discretion in such a way as to discount these criteria entirely - especially so in the case of avoiding disruption of the current map, given that this accounts for three of the five bullets. And nowhere is there any indication that some constituencies are more equal than others when it comes to minimizing change. (This is basically why I've changed my approach. I came to the conclusion that I'd allowed myself to drift too far away from minimizing change.)
So I think you are right. Except when a major upheaval becomes unavoidable in a given area, usually because seats have to be added or removed, then the normal outcome should be that the current pattern is more or less maintained even if it is not particularly satisfactory.
I don't much like it either.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,344
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 17, 2021 13:12:33 GMT
Remember the bulleted factors in Rule 5: - special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency;
- local government boundaries as they existed (or were in prospect) on 1 December 2020;
- boundaries of existing constituencies;
- any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies; and
- the inconveniences attendant on such changes.
While the surrounding wording gives Commissions are fair bit of wiggle room, it would be a very bold Commission that exercised its discretion in such a way as to discount these criteria entirely - especially so in the case of avoiding disruption of the current map, given that this accounts for three of the five bullets. And nowhere is there any indication that some constituencies are more equal than others when it comes to minimizing change. (This is basically why I've changed my approach. I came to the conclusion that I'd allowed myself to drift too far away from minimizing change.)
I disagree on the "some are more equal than others" point. There are lots of changes you could make which wouldn't, in my view, trouble the "local ties" criterion at all. Consider my current seat, Sheffield Hallam. I don't think there are any local ties worth speaking of between Stannington and the rest of the constituency, so IMO you could remove Stannington without any worries as far as that bit of the rules is concerned. (Not that I'm actually suggesting removing it.) I'm not really sure what the "inconveniences" criterion is getting at. It could be taken as referring to the inconveniences of having a sprawling incoherent constituency, in which case new boundaries which work on their own terms wouldn't really engage that criterion very much either. I don't recall seeing it used much in justifying decisions. So yes, minimal change is an important criterion, but I don't think it should always trump the others, and that hasn't been the Commissions' past approach either.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by ilerda on May 17, 2021 14:13:24 GMT
Minimum change, in and of itself, is only actually a benefit to political parties, incumbent MPs, electoral officials, and the guy who does the maps for Britain Elects.
As a standalone concept I would say it's largely irrelevant to the people who actually matter (the voters) unless the proposed change happens to be to a set of boundaries that also don't follow sensible community ties/LA boundaries etc.
|
|