Could these be a one term set of boundaries?

[Harry Hayfield]

Labour's manifesto yesterday had a pledge to extend the franchise to 16 year olds (in line with Wales at the last Senedd election) which saw the Welsh electorate increase from 2,245,937 to 2,348,576, therefore could it be possible that Labour calls for another set of boundary changes post that law being passed for the next election, on a different set of rules (say +/- 10% of the electoral quota)?

[tonyhil]

Very unlikely. Obviously there will be some variation between constituencies in the proportion of children between the ages of 16 and 18, but it is hardly likely to be of such a scale as to significantly disbalance electorates.

[nyx]

Changing from boundary drawing by electorate to by population would be more likely to have the effect of a redraw being needed.

[The Bishop]

Jun 14, 2024 6:02:45 GMT tonyhil said:

Very unlikely. Obviously there will be some variation between constituencies in the proportion of children between the ages of 16 and 18, but it is hardly likely to be of such a scale as to significantly disbalance electorates.

Its quite possible a Labour government could rejig the rules to allow a greater seat variance in electors than the current 5% - this could well deal with any effects from enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds in the short term anyway.

[tonyhil]

In any case, by the time the necessary legislation is passed to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote, and I rather doubt it will be a top priority of an incoming Labour government, there wouldn't be time to set up a new Boundary Commission and have it report before the 2029 election.

[ilerda]

Labour would have to change the primary legislation in order to force a boundary review outside of the regular timetable. It’s entirely within the rules for the electorate of a constituency to subsequently be outside the quota between reviews provided it was within it at the time the review took place. I can’t see them doing that when there’s one scheduled for a few years later anyway.

[doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️]

I suspect they'll get HoL reform and votes for 16 through before any boundary change legislation.

[Harry Hayfield]

When applications closed last night, an extra 2.9 million electors had been added to the electoral register of the United Kingdom, that, by the Conservative's own rules is an extra 40 constituencies of electors.

[iainbhx]

Jun 19, 2024 4:40:51 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

When applications closed last night, an extra 2.9 million electors had been added to the electoral register of the United Kingdom, that, by the Conservative's own rules is an extra 40 constituencies of electors.

No, an extra 2.9 million applications had been made, going by previous years, many of those people will already be registered.

Also, the rules don't work like that, if the electorate went up by 2.9 million, then the quota would go up. The rules work at a designated point in time - the enumeration date. If the electorate had been 2.9 million higher on the enumeration date, then the seat quota would have been increased by about 4,500 rather than increase the number of seats.

[doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️]

Jun 19, 2024 6:26:49 GMT iainbhx said:

Jun 19, 2024 4:40:51 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

When applications closed last night, an extra 2.9 million electors had been added to the electoral register of the United Kingdom, that, by the Conservative's own rules is an extra 40 constituencies of electors.

No, an extra 2.9 million applications had been made, going by previous years, many of those people will already be registered.

Also, the rules don't work like that, if the electorate went up by 2.9 million, then the quota would go up. The rules work at a designated point in time - the enumeration date. If the electorate had been 2.9 million higher on the enumeration date, then the seat quota would have been increased by about 4,500 rather than increase the number of seats.

4,500 not even being half a ward in many places!

[iainbhx]

Jun 19, 2024 9:43:48 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Jun 19, 2024 6:26:49 GMT iainbhx said:

No, an extra 2.9 million applications had been made, going by previous years, many of those people will already be registered.

Also, the rules don't work like that, if the electorate went up by 2.9 million, then the quota would go up. The rules work at a designated point in time - the enumeration date. If the electorate had been 2.9 million higher on the enumeration date, then the seat quota would have been increased by about 4,500 rather than increase the number of seats.

4,500 not even being half a ward in many places!

Of course, it won't be, it will be very lumpy indeed, I'd say looking at the last three times this happened, 70%+ of the new voters will be in city seats which are safe Labour normally.

[tonyhil]

A significant proportion of the 2.9 million is likely to be students who will not longer be resident at their term-time address by polling day, so as pointed out above this is not an addition of that many people to the electorate.

[Foggy]

Jun 19, 2024 4:40:51 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

When applications closed last night, an extra 2.9 million electors had been added to the electoral register of the United Kingdom, that, by the Conservative's own rules is an extra 40 constituencies of electors.

So your understanding of the current rules (which do not just belong to a single Tory as your apostrophe suggests) is that if the electorate in December 2020 had been as high as it is now, the subsequent Review would have proposed a 690-seat House of Commons? 

Colour me unsurprised. 

[evergreenadam]

Are there any seats that are already oversized, assuming 5% tolerance retained? Milton Keynes Central is 81k and must be one of them.

[The Bishop]

Assuming the next boundary review is at least started by a Labour government, could we expect any changes on the current rules?

(indeed, have they given any previous indications on this)

[Davıd Boothroyd]

There was a late campaign indication that automatic voter registration would be brought in, which will (if it works) have a major impact on under-registered constituencies which are mostly safe Labour inner city seats. The argument for redistribution by population goes on, though.

[carolus]

Jul 7, 2024 10:33:22 GMT The Bishop said:

Assuming the next boundary review is at least started by a Labour government, could we expect any changes on the current rules?

(indeed, have they given any previous indications on this)

IIRC they pushed for a 10% tolerance when the rules were being set. But that was a few years ago now, so whether they'd do so again, I don't know.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Note the next review is due by October 2031 in any respect, so at most these boundaries will last two Parliaments.

[Harry Hayfield]

They could be after all (Source: The Guardian)

"There have also been internal discussions about the prospect of carrying out a population-based boundary review. This would redraw constituencies’ boundaries according to the size of their populations – including children and immigrants – instead of the number of registered voters. Some have argued the existing system results in unbalanced constituencies, with inner-city MPs having to represent much larger populations. Downing Street declined to comment on the contents of the speech"

[Crimson King]

I’ll go out on a limb and say this will come to nothing