|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2023 8:49:22 GMT
I voted "Reasonable / acceptable on the whole". I don't think the Commissions have done too bad a job given the rules they were given to work with, and indeed I'm not sure that the outcome is that much worse in terms of divided communities or incoherent constituencies than previous reviews. That isn't to say that everywhere has good boundaries: the urban West Midlands seems poor as already mentioned, especially the Solihull area, and "Montgomeryshire & Glyndŵr" is a real monstrosity and has a stupid name to boot. I agree that the minimal change criterion should be weakened, at least to give some standing to attempts to fix divided communities and incoherent constituencies from previous reviews. It's rather annoying that the rules will now suggest that the next review should preserve Tiverton & Minehead if it reasonably can. Personally I would also prefer to weaken the 5% rule so that slightly adjusted English ceremonial counties (with the obvious exceptions of the City of London, Rutland and using the Mersey as a border rather than the Merseyside/Cheshire one) can be used as review areas again. I don't think the cross county constituencies have done much for the quality of the map. My personal view is that the 5% rule should be modified, so all seats within a county should be within 5% of the average, and just assign each county/review area a whole number of seats. I think it's a big issue that eg the two current Northampton seats have about 30,000 electors fewer than the neighbouring South Northants seat, but it's not a great problem if the average seat in one county has a few thousand electors more than the average seat in another county, especially if it gets rid of cross-county seats that are almost never going to be anything more than the least worst option. Yes that does matter but cross-county or community seats don't matter at all. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 8, 2023 8:51:05 GMT
I've voted "reasonable". There are some absolute clunkers, in both boundaries and names. Much blame has to be laid at the original legislation. We can't claim that our system is immune from gerrymandering while allowing Parliament to set so many tight and restrictive rules in legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2023 9:02:24 GMT
I've voted "reasonable". There are some absolute clunkers, in both boundaries and names. Much blame has to be laid at the original legislation. We can't claim that our system is immune from gerrymandering while allowing Parliament to set so many tight and restrictive rules in legislation. How on earth could tight rules be said to lead to a Gerrymander? They make the possibility less easy. I think the rules are not tight enough and would prefer a maximum deviation of only 2% to concentrate minds entirely upon equality of size to the exclusion of virtually all other considerations, because despite all the blather here, those other considerations frankly don't matter at all to the vast majority of all electorates, and they certainly don't matter to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Aug 8, 2023 10:32:35 GMT
The problem is the refusal to split more wards, and if they had, they could have more sensibly shaped constituencies. I honestly have never got the obsession in not breaking them apart except in exceptional circumstances. Given some wards will have been put together to fit the electoral limits years beforehand (or indeed now after) the parliamentary boundaries.
As a former councillor, it was more annoying having bin collections on different days than it would have been having some of your electorate in different parliamentary constituencies!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,646
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 8, 2023 10:45:00 GMT
I've voted "reasonable". There are some absolute clunkers, in both boundaries and names. Much blame has to be laid at the original legislation. We can't claim that our system is immune from gerrymandering while allowing Parliament to set so many tight and restrictive rules in legislation. The often gratuitous and unnecessary name changes were why I downgraded my vote to "neither good nor bad". Overall, this is a decent job given the sometimes awkward constraints the commissioners had to work under (though there are a few fairly obvious exceptions) |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 8,899 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Aug 8, 2023 10:46:39 GMT
same as The Bishop for me
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 8, 2023 10:52:37 GMT
I know that my preferred criteria for good constituencies do not match those of the majority, but that does not make them invalid or even wrong, so I set them out here. My fundamental preference is for as near to numerical conformity as is possible. That is the one pivotal item. That the size of the electorate be nearly the same in every seat. I am prepared to endure all any any distortions to achieve that goal. For me the 'equal value' of every voter's vote is the near sole objective. Thus I would group most Scottish islands into the one seat 'Scottish Islands' and do away with Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland. And I would treat IOW and Anglesey as parts of the mainlaind to achieve better figures as found to be necessary. I don't think there should be any cross-border seats between England and either Wales or Scotland, or London and England. I have no objection to moving across county boundaries or to ward splitting or town splitting or community splitting at all. If it gets us close to the goal of seats with equal electorates. The areas of rapid expansion or continual contraction should be considered carefully with an attempt to get the estimated median electorate size correct for the life of that consituency on those borders. There will be errors and we live with those few errors and do better at the next review. Naming should be as close to historical continuation as possible. With a marked preference to the one single place name. The relative size and supposed importance of communaties should play no part at all in considerations with an absolute preference for continuity, history and simplicity. I am happy to have a sole name of historic integrity even though that place is smaller than four other communities in the constituency. Continuity and universal recognition throughout the realm are far more important that the petty susceptabilities of a few vociferous locals who should be totally ignored. On balance this effort seems reasonable to good except for the issue of naming where a significant minority are entirely woeful. I have a preference for place names over county names with compass points. I prefer names in cities to compass points. I don't think it's possible for every voter's vote to have equal value in any constituency system, because in practice the value is the difference it makes to vote versus not voting - in an extremely safe seat your vote will make much less difference than in a highly marginal one. I think in practice what you want is a system that is least likely to produce wrong-winner results or obvious malapportionment, and I'm not sure that the equality of constituency sizes is that important (so long as the variance isn't correlated with political behaviour.) Certainly a 2% limit seems pointlessly tight, given that those are the sorts of differences that can be blown through in a year or two. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2023 11:40:31 GMT
I know that my preferred criteria for good constituencies do not match those of the majority, but that does not make them invalid or even wrong, so I set them out here. My fundamental preference is for as near to numerical conformity as is possible. That is the one pivotal item. That the size of the electorate be nearly the same in every seat. I am prepared to endure all any any distortions to achieve that goal. For me the 'equal value' of every voter's vote is the near sole objective. Thus I would group most Scottish islands into the one seat 'Scottish Islands' and do away with Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland. And I would treat IOW and Anglesey as parts of the mainlaind to achieve better figures as found to be necessary. I don't think there should be any cross-border seats between England and either Wales or Scotland, or London and England. I have no objection to moving across county boundaries or to ward splitting or town splitting or community splitting at all. If it gets us close to the goal of seats with equal electorates. The areas of rapid expansion or continual contraction should be considered carefully with an attempt to get the estimated median electorate size correct for the life of that consituency on those borders. There will be errors and we live with those few errors and do better at the next review. Naming should be as close to historical continuation as possible. With a marked preference to the one single place name. The relative size and supposed importance of communaties should play no part at all in considerations with an absolute preference for continuity, history and simplicity. I am happy to have a sole name of historic integrity even though that place is smaller than four other communities in the constituency. Continuity and universal recognition throughout the realm are far more important that the petty susceptabilities of a few vociferous locals who should be totally ignored. On balance this effort seems reasonable to good except for the issue of naming where a significant minority are entirely woeful. I have a preference for place names over county names with compass points. I prefer names in cities to compass points. I don't think it's possible for every voter's vote to have equal value in any constituency system, because in practice the value is the difference it makes to vote versus not voting - in an extremely safe seat your vote will make much less difference than in a highly marginal one. I think in practice what you want is a system that is least likely to produce wrong-winner results or obvious malapportionment, and I'm not sure that the equality of constituency sizes is that important (so long as the variance isn't correlated with political behaviour.) Certainly a 2% limit seems pointlessly tight, given that those are the sorts of differences that can be blown through in a year or two. All clearly and succinctly expressed. My concerns are not to to with potential outcomes but the attempt to make the weight of a personal vote in any one constituency the same for all seats from the drawing up and publication. In a minority the effect may be 'blown away' by totally unforseen events, but the majority of seats will remain largely unchanged and I would wish to see the electorate size very similar in all seats for much of the life of those seats. Even now NI and England are a bit underrepresented with Scotland and Wales overrepresented. This is a technical exercise and the political characteristics of the seat should be of no concern to the commissioners. The value and weight of a vote is to be the same. The fact that a vote is more valuable in party terms in a marginal is quite irrelevant to these considerations. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 8, 2023 12:15:52 GMT
I would take the view that the value of a vote as perceived by electors is the key thing. Having a knowledge of the size of your electorate relative to others is exceedingly rare. Having a view that your vote counts more where the seat is more likely to change hands is comparatively common.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,031
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 8, 2023 14:27:41 GMT
Slightly tangential but I really hate it when people say "my vote doesn't count" because they live in a safe seat. It absolutely does count, exactly the same as everyone else's. It's just that most people happen not to have voted the same way as you. Them's the breaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 8, 2023 14:51:22 GMT
Slightly tangential but I really hate it when people say "my vote doesn't count" because they live in a safe seat. It absolutely does count, exactly the same as everyone else's. It's just that most people happen not to have voted the same way as you. Them's the breaks. I'd go further and say that there's no such thing as a safe seat.
There are seats with big majorities but that's not the same as being safe.
As evidence of this, I think I've mentioned before the case of my brother. A diehard Labour man, in the 1990s he moved to the Midlands for work reasons and found himself a home that happens to lie in the Bolsover constituency. He thought, perfectly understandably given the complexion of the seat and its electoral history, that so long as he stayed put he'd always have a Labour MP.
He still lives in the same house but now, whenever we speak on the phone he has to endure my invariable opening gambit, which is to ask how life is treating him in the leafy Tory shires. (I should make the most of this while I can because I suspect it won't be available after the next GE.)
So next time you hear someone say they live in a safe seat, just remind them of Bolsover. Or Canterbury. Or Hove. Or Stoke.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,786
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Aug 8, 2023 14:55:08 GMT
Slightly tangential but I really hate it when people say "my vote doesn't count" because they live in a safe seat. It absolutely does count, exactly the same as everyone else's. It's just that most people happen not to have voted the same way as you. Them's the breaks. Arguably every vote which didn't help to elect anyone 'didn't count' - but that actually means that there are more non-counting votes in marginals. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 8, 2023 14:56:29 GMT
I've voted "reasonable". There are some absolute clunkers, in both boundaries and names. Much blame has to be laid at the original legislation. We can't claim that our system is immune from gerrymandering while allowing Parliament to set so many tight and restrictive rules in legislation. They make the possibility less easy. I think the rules are not tight enough and would prefer a maximum deviation of only 2% to concentrate minds entirely upon equality of size to the exclusion of virtually all other considerations, because despite all the blather here, those other considerations frankly don't matter at all to the vast majority of all electorates, and they certainly don't matter to me. Easily.
Look at the US. Within each state, the congressional districts are required to be eye-wateringly close in terms of their population at the relevant census. Yet in state after state, the ascendant party (Democrats as well as Republicans) draws the lines to suit its own book.
It's political influence that engenders gerrymandering, not variations in population / electorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 8, 2023 15:16:03 GMT
How on earth could tight rules be said to lead to a Gerrymander? They make the possibility less easy. I think the rules are not tight enough and would prefer a maximum deviation of only 2% to concentrate minds entirely upon equality of size to the exclusion of virtually all other considerations, because despite all the blather here, those other considerations frankly don't matter at all to the vast majority of all electorates, and they certainly don't matter to me. Easily.
Look at the US. Within each state, the congressional districts are required to be eye-wateringly close in terms of their population at the relevant census. Yet in state after state, the ascendant party (Democrats as well as Republicans) draws the lines to suit its own book.
It's political influence that engenders gerrymandering, not variations in population / electorate.
Firstly we have a quite independent commission so that is not relevant to the UK at all. Secondly I am sure that the poster up-thread to whom I replied meant that it did lead to gerrymandering here and it does not. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 8, 2023 16:21:33 GMT
Slightly tangential but I really hate it when people say "my vote doesn't count" because they live in a safe seat. It absolutely does count, exactly the same as everyone else's. It's just that most people happen not to have voted the same way as you. Them's the breaks. Arguably every vote which didn't help to elect anyone 'didn't count' - but that actually means that there are more non-counting votes in marginals. Some people make the same complaint even if they voted for the winner. If the result of the election is A n+m B n C x D y E z Majority m Total (2n + m + x + y + z) then they argue that the only votes which “counted” in electing the winner (candidate A) are n+1. Most of the majority (m-1) is surplus to requirements and therefore “wasted”. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 8, 2023 16:29:02 GMT
Slightly tangential but I really hate it when people say "my vote doesn't count" because they live in a safe seat. It absolutely does count, exactly the same as everyone else's. It's just that most people happen not to have voted the same way as you. Them's the breaks. I remember an article or website somewhere a few years ago which analysed constituencies and made a big fuss of saying (in each safe constituency) that the voters had “little say in their MP”. They repeated the same description for each constituency. What they meant was that the MP was de-facto selected by the party which held the seat, and that that decision was more decisive than the actual election. It was another way of saying the same patronising rubbish about votes being wasted or not counting. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 8, 2023 18:44:05 GMT
How on earth could tight rules be said to lead to a Gerrymander? They make the possibility less easy. I think the rules are not tight enough and would prefer a maximum deviation of only 2% to concentrate minds entirely upon equality of size to the exclusion of virtually all other considerations, because despite all the blather here, those other considerations frankly don't matter at all to the vast majority of all electorates, and they certainly don't matter to me. Easily.
Look at the US. Within each state, the congressional districts are required to be eye-wateringly close in terms of their population at the relevant census. Yet in state after state, the ascendant party (Democrats as well as Republicans) draws the lines to suit its own book.
It's political influence that engenders gerrymandering, not variations in population / electorate.
But surely in the UK context, "political influence" is the rules set by Parliament? Set maximum of seats, fixed quota, no crossing of English regional boundaries: aren't these rules forcing the Commission to create seats with little alternative? Maybe : gerrymandering' is not the word in the UK, it's..... influence to restrict the variety of available constituencies. Within some counties the lack of wiggle room could have political consequences. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2023 22:50:42 GMT
I think they've done a good job. The naming is the biggest 'thumb down' for me.
The crucial thing, in my opinion, was correcting the inequalities in electorates. There may be one or two more exceptions allowed in this review than I'd have plumped for myself, but the overall change is only a positive.
I'm in favour of the 5%, and to be blunt I think some people blame it too much for what they don't like. The tight rules were a necessity to bang heads together and actually do what needed to be done. I have little doubt that slackening the rules or introducing loopholes would have lead to exceptions all over the place; put forward by parties for partisan advantage; put forward by the local busy-body who believes the wapentake should remain intact indefinitely even though it means naff all to anyone; put forward by commissioners who wanted an easy life.
I think the struggles over these three most recent reviews has demonstrated the necessity of the change. Mindsets had to be challenged. Compromises were made, and they needed to be. A better result has emerged. But Wales will finally have a sensible number of seats. The bullet has been bitten on the Isle of Wight. We're actually going to have electorates that are broadly the same across the UK.
It's only taken... oooh what is it? 800 years?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 9, 2023 8:12:57 GMT
Easily. Look at the US. Within each state, the congressional districts are required to be eye-wateringly close in terms of their population at the relevant census. Yet in state after state, the ascendant party (Democrats as well as Republicans) draws the lines to suit its own book. It's political influence that engenders gerrymandering, not variations in population / electorate.
But surely in the UK context, "political influence" is the rules set by Parliament? Set maximum of seats, fixed quota, no crossing of English regional boundaries: aren't these rules forcing the Commission to create seats with little alternative? Maybe : gerrymandering' is not the word in the UK, it's..... influence to restrict the variety of available constituencies. Within some counties the lack of wiggle room could have political consequences. There are occasions where only one outcome is probable (although now that we've accepted ward-splitting as acceptable, there are fewer of those occasions.) It's not the case that those occasions consistently benefit one party over another, however, nor in practice are today's electoral coalitions stable enough for that to be long-term predictable. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,799
Member is Online
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 9, 2023 13:36:28 GMT
Reasonable, although a) I don't like the rules as laid down and b) Warwick and Leamington (the latest in a long run of constituencies within constituencies) and hope that if there is a change of government, the new government passes a law stating that if the number of electors per constituency is to be 1/650th of the UK average with a 5% margin of error for a 650 seat House, then make sure that the previous census is used to calculate the number of electors in a constituency, not the electoral register (at least that data cannot never be leaked)
|
|
