Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Apr 3, 2024 15:29:54 GMT
I am rather suprised that they have not announced a plan to generate a new set of boundaries (given these estimates of a Blairesque type majority) to address those concerns.
Using the census returns as opposed to the electoral register, the UK's population at the time of the next election (2029) is estimated to be 70 million, which in a 650 seat house would mean each constituency having an average electorate of 107,692, with the allocation by region being thus:
Scotland: 51 seats
Northern Ireland: 18 seats
Wales: 30 seats
England: 551 seats
However, even this allocation does not seem completely fair, as there are huge parts of Scotland (Highland, the Islands), Wales (Denbighshire, Powys, Carmarthenshire, Gwynedd) and Northern Ireland, that are completely empty of people, therefore is the a way of keeping the constituency link but making sure that depopulated areas feel represented at Westminster without having to succumb to ultra large constituencies?
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Apr 3, 2024 18:24:25 GMT
that average electorate isn't right. You've confused electorate with population, the latter is much higher than the former
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Apr 3, 2024 19:36:47 GMT
that average electorate isn't right. You've confused electorate with population, the latter is much higher than the former And that is the precise point Labour were making, the population of a constituency is higher, therefore either we need even larger sized constituencies or a larger House of Commons, but so far Labour have produced nothing to answer that question. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 3, 2024 21:04:53 GMT
that average electorate isn't right. You've confused electorate with population, the latter is much higher than the former And that is the precise point Labour were making, the population of a constituency is higher, therefore either we need even larger sized constituencies or a larger House of Commons, but so far Labour have produced nothing to answer that question. But if you divvy up by population, you get a XXX sqkm Highlands constituency, if you divvy up by the electorate you get the same XXX sqkm Highlands constituency. The variance of electorate/population does not vary enough across the UK to change constituency geography more than marginally at the margins. You either have 100sqkm with 75,000 electors or the same 100sqkm with 100,000 people. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 3, 2024 22:34:35 GMT
The original post in this thread seems to be badly edited, or is missing something to which it refers. But if I have understood what you’re referring to, I think you may have missed the point. If the constituency boundaries were drawn to equalise populations rather than electorates, there would be substantially more constituencies in the inner cities (especially inner London), and correspondingly fewer constituencies in the affluent suburbs and rural areas. If you count the full number of children, younger people, people who are not registered on the electoral register despite being eligible, and foreigners (of various types (EU or not, Commonwealth or not)), then there are some constituencies which have far more than the average population of c.103,000. Some of the inner London constituencies have maybe 140,000 or even 160,000. Some well-off rural constituencies with older populations and few foreigners might only have 90,000. I don’t know what the detailed statistics are, but I know that (for example) Davıd Boothroyd has long advocated equal-population constituencies rather than equal-electorate ones, and he would probably be able to give more details about the statistics involved. i guess that there would be a net transfer of about 10 or 20 constituencies from the rural parts of the country to the inner cities (i.e.not just a “few” “marginally at the edges”). |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 4, 2024 7:43:52 GMT
This is clearly the Forum all-comers record daft title for a thread and by quite a margin. It gives no idea at all about the content and purpose. And what is the content and purpose? If a committee had been convened to create the most contrived and inchoate thread possible they could not beat this!
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Apr 4, 2024 8:11:50 GMT
The original post in this thread seems to be badly edited, or is missing something to which it refers. But if I have understood what you’re referring to, I think you may have missed the point. If the constituency boundaries were drawn to equalise populations rather than electorates, there would be substantially more constituencies in the inner cities (especially inner London), and correspondingly fewer constituencies in the affluent suburbs and rural areas. If you count the full number of children, younger people, people who are not registered on the electoral register despite being eligible, and foreigners (of various types (EU or not, Commonwealth or not)), then there are some constituencies which have far more than the average population of c.103,000. Some of the inner London constituencies have maybe 140,000 or even 160,000. Some well-off rural constituencies with older populations and few foreigners might only have 90,000. I don’t know what the detailed statistics are, but I know that (for example) Davıd Boothroyd has long advocated equal-population constituencies rather than equal-electorate ones, and he would probably be able to give more details about the statistics involved. i guess that there would be a net transfer of about 10 or 20 constituencies from the rural parts of the country to the inner cities (i.e.not just a “few” “marginally at the edges”). This is precisely what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 4, 2024 8:21:37 GMT
The original post in this thread seems to be badly edited, or is missing something to which it refers. But if I have understood what you’re referring to, I think you may have missed the point. If the constituency boundaries were drawn to equalise populations rather than electorates, there would be substantially more constituencies in the inner cities (especially inner London), and correspondingly fewer constituencies in the affluent suburbs and rural areas. If you count the full number of children, younger people, people who are not registered on the electoral register despite being eligible, and foreigners (of various types (EU or not, Commonwealth or not)), then there are some constituencies which have far more than the average population of c.103,000. Some of the inner London constituencies have maybe 140,000 or even 160,000. Some well-off rural constituencies with older populations and few foreigners might only have 90,000. I don’t know what the detailed statistics are, but I know that (for example) Davıd Boothroyd has long advocated equal-population constituencies rather than equal-electorate ones, and he would probably be able to give more details about the statistics involved. i guess that there would be a net transfer of about 10 or 20 constituencies from the rural parts of the country to the inner cities (i.e.not just a “few” “marginally at the edges”). This is precisely what I meant. Then, by Odin's Breath, why didn't you say so? And style the thread 'Labour Thoughts on Constituency Sizes Comparing Electorates to Total Population'? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 4, 2024 10:07:38 GMT
This is precisely what I meant. Then, by Odin's Breath, why didn't you say so? And style the thread 'Labour Thoughts on Constituency Sizes Comparing Electorates to Total Population'? Because he’s a blithering nincompoop |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Apr 4, 2024 13:04:46 GMT
This is precisely what I meant. Then, by Odin's Breath, why didn't you say so? And style the thread 'Labour Thoughts on Constituency Sizes Comparing Electorates to Total Population'? Because by giving it this title he got eght replies in a day? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 4, 2024 13:20:16 GMT
Then, by Odin's Breath, why didn't you say so? And style the thread 'Labour Thoughts on Constituency Sizes Comparing Electorates to Total Population'? Because by giving it this title he got eght replies in a day? I suppose that is Gaelic for excellent? It is no excuse at all. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Apr 4, 2024 13:48:11 GMT
I'm starting to grumble about this thread concerning my party allegedly grumbling.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 4, 2024 18:23:12 GMT
I don’t think there is any chance of constituency boundaries being decided on the basis of census data or total population estimates, it’s just not practical for electoral purposes and would cause issues on so many levels.
It is possible that a Labour government may amend the Franchise, in which case the electorate will grow, the extent to which this will disproportionately affect individual constituencies will vary depending on the extent of the changes.
Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds is likely to increase Parliamentary electorates most in outer suburban areas and commuter dormitory towns where there are more families with teenage children. The potential impact can be judged by looking at the number of attainers, i.e. 16 and 17 years who are already recorded on the Electoral Register in individual constituencies in anticipation of them being able to vote when they reach 18. Any boundary review would result in the allocation of more seats to those areas and result in fewer seats being allocated to other areas if the current size of the Commons is maintained.
Extending the franchise to EU citizens who are not otherwise qualified to vote through dual UK/Irish/Commonwealth nationality would boost the Parliamentary electorate most in the big cities especially London. The potential impact can be reasonably judged by comparing the number of Parliamentary and local government electorates in individual constituencies, as most EU citizens living in the UK (i.e. those resident before Brexit) are eligible to vote in local government elections. Any boundary review would result in the allocation of more seats to those areas and result in fewer seats being allocated to other areas if the current size of the Commons is maintained. This would almost certainly disproportionately benefit Labour. In London it would immediately add circa 10,000 voters to the electorates of many constituencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Apr 4, 2024 18:49:09 GMT
I've long been in favour of using the census as the basis for seat distribution, and have argued for it on this site more than once. There are many different ways of doing this, depending on who you want to enfranchise, and the view you take on who, if anyone, to count who doesn't have a vote. It's not a binary issue. The census is done every 10 years, which is how often you want to review constituencies. And it also has the advantage that it doesn't count second home occupiers twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 4, 2024 19:32:12 GMT
I've long been in favour of using the census as the basis for seat distribution, and have argued for it on this site more than once. There are many different ways of doing this, depending on who you want to enfranchise, and the view you take on who, if anyone, to count who doesn't have a vote. It's not a binary issue. The census is done every 10 years, which is how often you want to review constituencies. And it also has the advantage that it doesn't count second home occupiers twice. It also doesn't count students twice, and since the census is often taken during the Easter break, that might not have the effect its Labour proponents hope for. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 4, 2024 20:21:13 GMT
I've long been in favour of using the census as the basis for seat distribution, and have argued for it on this site more than once. There are many different ways of doing this, depending on who you want to enfranchise, and the view you take on who, if anyone, to count who doesn't have a vote. It's not a binary issue. The census is done every 10 years, which is how often you want to review constituencies. And it also has the advantage that it doesn't count second home occupiers twice. It also doesn't count students twice, and since the census is often taken during the Easter break, that might not have the effect its Labour proponents hope for. There are two things here: - Firstly, whether or not you use the census, rather than the electoral register for the purposes of allocating seats to regions i.e ensuring electoral equality between regions. If the census is used then double counting would be eliminated both for second home owners and students as they can only be at one property on census night. But you also add in other variables at the same time, for example taking account for the first time of the under 18s, the unregistered adult population, prisoners etc. I would imagine that the overall effect would still be in Labour’s favour given that under registration is greatest in inner cities. Under such a proposal you would break the link between electoral equality and the number of voters actually on the electoral register. You would have to accept that one constituency could have an electorate that was say 30% higher than another. The votes of those in the constituency with the larger electorate would count for less. - Secondly, whether or not you follow that up with an amendment to the Franchise so that you can only register to vote at one address. It would be a lottery as to where students living away from home and second home owners would choose to register and if they were living there on polling day or when their postal vote arrived. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 4, 2024 20:36:26 GMT
Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year oldsnon-adults non-citizens Come on, why not just admit it and extend the vote to all 8 billion human beings with a pulse? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 4, 2024 20:43:10 GMT
I've long been in favour of using the census as the basis for seat distribution, and have argued for it on this site more than once. There are many different ways of doing this, depending on who you want to enfranchise, and the view you take on who, if anyone, to count who doesn't have a vote. It's not a binary issue. The census is done every 10 years, which is how often you want to review constituencies. And it also has the advantage that it doesn't count second home occupiers twice. I've tracked down a study I did comparing electorate with population here, and in the main there would be little effect. (It took me ages to track down as I thought I'd saved it with one of the Parliamentary reviews, but it ws for local review.) I've been tracking down the data to do a similar nation-wide study of contituencies now the 2021 census population data is available. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 4, 2024 21:33:08 GMT
Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year oldsnon-adults non-citizens Come on, why not just admit it and extend the vote to all 8 billion human beings with a pulse? I don’t necessarily have a view either way, but these are likely options for a future Labour government. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 4, 2024 22:00:52 GMT
It also doesn't count students twice, and since the census is often taken during the Easter break, that might not have the effect its Labour proponents hope for. There are two things here: - Firstly, whether or not you use the census, rather than the electoral register for the purposes of allocating seats to regions i.e ensuring electoral equality between regions. If the census is used then double counting would be eliminated both for second home owners and students as they can only be at one property on census night. But you also add in other variables at the same time, for example taking account for the first time of the under 18s, the unregistered adult population, prisoners etc. I would imagine that the overall effect would still be in Labour’s favour given that under registration is greatest in inner cities. Under such a proposal you would break the link between electoral equality and the number of voters actually on the electoral register. You would have to accept that one constituency could have an electorate that was say 30% higher than another. The votes of those in the constituency with the larger electorate would count for less. - Secondly, whether or not you follow that up with an amendment to the Franchise so that you can only register to vote at one address. It would be a lottery as to where students living away from home and second home owners would choose to register and if they were living there on polling day or when their postal vote arrived. One more possible effect of using the census, the census captures where you are on a particular night. So a major sporting event somewhere, or a big pop concert, with tens of thousands of people staying over in hotels could seriously skew the results. |
|
