YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Aug 19, 2023 22:27:18 GMT
Which constituencies that have been abolished by the Boundary Commissions are you glad to see gone? My list is: Meon Valley Tiverton & Honiton Hitchin & Harpenden Hampstead & Kilburn Brigg & Goole Denton & Reddish Weaver Vale Unfortunately Central Suffolk & Ipswich North, Sherwood (now Sherwood Forest) etc. still remain although inevitably there will always be a few awkward constituencies, and so many even worse constituencies will now exist. Lancaster & Fleetwood Its neighbour Wyre & Preston North seems worthy of a mention as well. I think Tiverton & Minehead is worse than Tiverton & Honiton. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,646 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Aug 19, 2023 22:41:02 GMT
Its neighbour Wyre & Preston North seems worthy of a mention as well. I think Tiverton & Minehead is worse than Tiverton & Honiton. Tiverton and Honiton isn’t great but Tiverton and Minehead is worse. If you started from Tiverton and tried to create the ideal seat for that town I think realistically youd probably go West and North West and take some territory from Central Devon and some from North Devon. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,142
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 20, 2023 4:39:18 GMT
Its neighbour Wyre & Preston North seems worthy of a mention as well. I think Tiverton & Minehead is worse than Tiverton & Honiton. Tiverton and Honiton isn’t great but Tiverton and Minehead is worse. If you started from Tiverton and tried to create the ideal seat for that town I think realistically youd probably go West and North West and take some territory from Central Devon and some from North Devon. For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Once they'd boxed themselves into that corner, a cross-county seat became virtually unavoidable, but even then there were better workarounds, such as the Tiverton & Wellington alternative I mentioned both on these forums and in at least one of my submissions (even if it still wasn't my preferred solution, it's definitely better than Tiverton & Minehead). |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 20, 2023 15:18:07 GMT
Its neighbour Wyre & Preston North seems worthy of a mention as well. I think Tiverton & Minehead is worse than Tiverton & Honiton. Yes, I should have naturally mentioned them. I lived in Lancaster once. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Aug 20, 2023 15:28:42 GMT
Tiverton and Honiton isn’t great but Tiverton and Minehead is worse. If you started from Tiverton and tried to create the ideal seat for that town I think realistically youd probably go West and North West and take some territory from Central Devon and some from North Devon. For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Once they'd boxed themselves into that corner, a cross-county seat became virtually unavoidable, but even then there were better workarounds, such as the Tiverton & Wellington alternative I mentioned both on these forums and in at least one of my submissions (even if it still wasn't my preferred solution, it's definitely better than Tiverton & Minehead). The reason is obvious and it's the misguided lesser change rule. It is a corrupt rule that has nothing to do with good map-making and all to do with simplyfing party managements and help incumbents. Lesser change is a form of gerrymandering and does not belong in a democratic system. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 20, 2023 17:36:37 GMT
Tiverton and Honiton isn’t great but Tiverton and Minehead is worse. If you started from Tiverton and tried to create the ideal seat for that town I think realistically youd probably go West and North West and take some territory from Central Devon and some from North Devon. For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Cannock Chase is another example. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 20, 2023 19:18:12 GMT
For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Once they'd boxed themselves into that corner, a cross-county seat became virtually unavoidable, but even then there were better workarounds, such as the Tiverton & Wellington alternative I mentioned both on these forums and in at least one of my submissions (even if it still wasn't my preferred solution, it's definitely better than Tiverton & Minehead). The reason is obvious and it's the misguided lesser change rule. It is a corrupt rule that has nothing to do with good map-making and all to do with simplyfing party managements and help incumbents. Lesser change is a form of gerrymandering and does not belong in a democratic system. It is a misguided rule but in the case of good seats like North Devon it is at least understandable. Far worse when it is used to keep a bad seat unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Aug 21, 2023 8:51:45 GMT
For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Once they'd boxed themselves into that corner, a cross-county seat became virtually unavoidable, but even then there were better workarounds, such as the Tiverton & Wellington alternative I mentioned both on these forums and in at least one of my submissions (even if it still wasn't my preferred solution, it's definitely better than Tiverton & Minehead). The reason is obvious and it's the misguided lesser change rule. It is a corrupt rule that has nothing to do with good map-making and all to do with simplyfing party managements and help incumbents. Lesser change is a form of gerrymandering and does not belong in a democratic system. It is an entirely valid and good rule when the total number of seats in an area is not changing. Clearly if a city or a county is keeping the existing number of MPs, it is quite right that there should be minimum change to accord with other criteria (primarily electoral equality). But where the number of seats is changing, by definition there is a need for significant redrawing. And in that context, keeping one or two seats unchanged, just because they happen to be the exact right size, but at the expense of poor boundaries or even greater dislocation for other seats, is clearly undesirable. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 21, 2023 10:03:54 GMT
For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. Once they'd boxed themselves into that corner, a cross-county seat became virtually unavoidable, but even then there were better workarounds, such as the Tiverton & Wellington alternative I mentioned both on these forums and in at least one of my submissions (even if it still wasn't my preferred solution, it's definitely better than Tiverton & Minehead). The reason is obvious and it's the misguided lesser change rule. It is a corrupt rule that has nothing to do with good map-making and all to do with simplyfing party managements and help incumbents. Lesser change is a form of gerrymandering and does not belong in a democratic system. It causes problems in some areas, but most of the time it's a perfectly reasonable rule, and your theories about why it exists owe more to your paranoia than they do to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 21, 2023 10:16:34 GMT
Using Lancashire as the area I know best, I think the balance of minimum change vs wholesale changes
was handled quite well. The original "Burnley and Bacup" and "West Pennine Moors" seats were hugely different
from what went before and were suboptimal. Minimum change has created much more cohesive seats.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Aug 21, 2023 11:35:43 GMT
I don’t think “minimum change” is exactly a bad rule, but like most rules it can have bad consequences if it is given too much weight, and the way that the rules (particularly the “local ties” rule, which as written doesn’t encourage the unbreaking of ties which have been broken in the past) are worded can encourage that.
In the examples under discussion, I think it’s entirely reasonable for the Commission to think that preserving North Devon or Cannock Chase unchanged is a positive feature of a plan. The problem is when that is given so much weight that it has negative consequences for neighbouring areas, as it (IMO, anyway) has had in both cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 21, 2023 13:34:30 GMT
A lot of the time the actual problem is the Commission making a bad decision, and then using a convenient rule (or sometimes a non-rule that's nevertheless caught their eye) as a justification for refusing to think again.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 22, 2023 0:06:13 GMT
I don’t think “minimum change” is exactly a bad rule, but like most rules it can have bad consequences if it is given too much weight, and the way that the rules (particularly the “local ties” rule, which as written doesn’t encourage the unbreaking of ties which have been broken in the past) are worded can encourage that. In the examples under discussion, I think it’s entirely reasonable for the Commission to think that preserving North Devon or Cannock Chase unchanged is a positive feature of a plan. The problem is when that is given so much weight that it has negative consequences for neighbouring areas, as it (IMO, anyway) has had in both cases. Minimal change often rears its head most prominently in coastal seats (and it is there it is often most justifiable, especially where you have complex coastal geography) because you don't have a 360 degree ability to amend seats either (see also seats on regional boundaries). It's often as simple as that is where the boundary drawers have started their mapping (in the 'corner' so to speak) and then if it fits, use that as your anchor (which I'm sure happened in the case of North Devon which would have ticked so many of their boxes). |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 22, 2023 8:05:56 GMT
Looking at the way the reports are written, it seems like the first element of the Commission's workflow is to work out what seats can remain unchanged, and then as far as possible they work around that. Which makes sense in terms of simplifying their workload, but not necessarily in terms of producing cohesive maps (or even necessarily minimising change overall.)
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyjwells on Aug 23, 2023 19:48:18 GMT
Tiverton and Honiton isn’t great but Tiverton and Minehead is worse. If you started from Tiverton and tried to create the ideal seat for that town I think realistically youd probably go West and North West and take some territory from Central Devon and some from North Devon. For whatever reason, the Commissioned appeared determined to leave North Devon as both one of the few unchanged constituencies in the entire country, and as coterminous with the district. I can understand the attraction of the latter, but it was a needless restriction for Commissioners to impose on themselves given all the required changes nearby. That was the Kent issue. They began with the starting point that it was possible to keep Gravesham unchanged and coterminous with the local authority, and then never gave the slightest consideration to anything that might involve any change to the sacred Gravesham. Hence you got Wilmington taken out of Dartford, and the silliness of Hartley & New Ash Green being shoved into Tonbridge. The Assistant Commissioner's comments just bore no relationship towards the actual comments they'd got in the consultation (e.g. there was widespread support for keeping Gravesham... no mate, you got 5 responses from Gravesham. There were no alternative proposals from Gravesham. Nope, you got three substantial alternative proposals that involved alternative boundaries from Gravesham - mine, Pete Whitehead's, and one from the Maidstone Lib Dems. There was no alternative to moving wards from Dartford to Sevenoaks... yes, there was, you could cross the blessed Gravesham boundary... but oh no!) Thing is, the Dartford/Gravesham local authority boundary isn't even a very sensible one anymore, as it runs through the Ebbsfleet Garden City development. If they'd put Ebbsfleet ward into Gravesham, the numbers would have worked for both the Dartford & Gravesend seats (and it would have made room to put Hartley & New Ash Green into Sevenoaks, avoiding that silliness too. Basically they tore up local ties between Wilmington & Dartford in order to protect an existing boundary that itself no longer reflects the pattern of local development. All that said, as a whole I don't think the BCs did a bad job at all. Just a few bits of daftness where they wedded themselves too religiously to no change. |
|
