|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jun 30, 2013 20:38:16 GMT
If Labour win the next election, I presume they will they amend the law on boundaries to change them to what the rules were pre-2010.
If so I presume work will need doing for the periodic review for the 2020 election based on the 2011 census. If so based on the 2010 electorates, the UK electorate at 45,844,691 makes for a 650 seat Parliament at 70,530.
Looking at for example, Greater Manchester, electorate of 1,958,010, the county gains an extra constituency as it averages at 27.76; so 28. Obvious one which is big is Manchester Central (89,519) but other big ones include Heywood and Middleton (79,636) whilst Stockport & Hazel Grove looking quite small at 62-63k.
Any thoughts on possible seats? What would be created, what would go?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 30, 2013 21:46:09 GMT
An interesting exercise.
If we try and retrofit the 5th Periodical rules onto the 2010 electorates, England has an electorate of 38443481 and 533 seats, giving a quota of 72127.
Greater Manchester borough entitlements are then: Bolton 2.72 Bury 1.98 Manchester 4.77 Oldham 2.22 Rochdale 2.18 Salford 2.30 Stockport 3.02 Tameside 2.33 Trafford 2.30 Wigan 3.32 Total 27.15 (currently 27)
Tameside and Trafford need pairing (average constituency size in the borough if treated alone over 10000 away from quota).
The current groupings of boroughs are: Bolton and Wigan 6.04 (currently 6) Bury 1.98 (currently 2) Manchester, Salford and Trafford 9.36 (currently 9) Oldham, Stockport and Tameside 7.58 (currently 8) Rochdale 2.18 (currently 2)
On that basis I would suggest in broad terms: (1) No changes in Bolton, Bury and Wigan. Bolton North East (quota - 7.6%) and Bury North (Q-6.5%) are on the small size, but the knockon effects of trying to iron this out probably aren't justified. (2) Minimal changes in Manchester, Salford and Trafford to reduce the size of Manchester Central (Q+18.6%). All the other seats in this group are quite close to quota so this could be a challenge. (EDIT: Having played around with this in Boundary Assistant, I could see the BCE transferring Moston ward to Blackley and Broughton and leaving it at that: that would put Blackley and Broughton at 79909 and Manchester Central at 78616.) (3) In the four eastern boroughs, either group all four together (9.76) and allocate ten constituencies, or review Stockport (3.03) on its own and allocate three constituencies to Stockport and seven to the other three boroughs (6.74). There are some wide disparities here: Ashton-under-Lyne Q-6.2%, Denton and Reddish Q-10.1%, Hazel Grove Q-13.1%, Heywood and Middleton Q+9.6%, Rochdale Q+7.4%, Stockport Q-12.7%.
EDIT: Arithmetic reworked using December 2010 not December 2009 electorates.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jun 30, 2013 22:02:21 GMT
Think looking at it you need to treat Stockport on its own. Both Stockport and Hazel Grove are v undersized. Move Manor into Hazel Grove and the two Reddish wards into Stockport.
You'd need to pair Rochdale with Oldham and Tameside then. Given none of the Manchester seats differ from quota much than Manchester Central, would it be easier to pair it with Manchester. Perhaps move Hulme and Moss Side into Manchester Gorton, and move Gorton N & Gorton S into what's left of Denton & Reddish - rename them Manchester Ardwick and Gorton and Denton?
With Rochdale I guess move Lakeside and Milnrow & Newhey back into Oldham E and Saddleworth like pre-2010? I think it could make a quite big Ashton-under-Lyne though.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 30, 2013 22:58:40 GMT
The Stockport changes, do, as you say, almost select themselves. I tried to find a solution within Oldham+Rochdale+Tameside and ended up with something rather radical: Heywood and Middleton: 71968 Rochdale: 70465 Chadderton and Castleton: 71368 Oldham: 63621 Saddleworth and Stalybridge: 67063 Denton and Hyde: 70425 Ashton-under-Lyne: 71115 Stockport: 73193 Hazel Grove: 72882 Cheadle: 71797 I must admit to doing the arithmetic wrong above; I was using the December 2009 electorates rather than the December 2010 ones. This gives an English quota of 72127 (38443481/533). The change isn't significant enough to throw anything out significantly in Greater Manchester.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 30, 2013 23:04:43 GMT
I think Labour will also be giving consideration to overall population, not just numbers of electors. London MP's in particular have huge amounts of casework from people who aren't actually electors. Poorer constituencies or those with high numbers of young people and large families can often produce a ridiculously heavy workload as well. Pre 1958 rural seats had smaller populations than urban ones for reasons of transport accessibility so there is a precedent for other factors to be taken into account
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 30, 2013 23:12:38 GMT
Yes I'm sure Labour would like to give extra representation to poorer constituencies adn those with large families (ie those with large number of ethnic minorities) but given how they've been throwing around accusations of gerrymandering when this government had the temerity to advocate equal electorates they'd be pushed to go for that without opening themselves up to charges of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 30, 2013 23:37:53 GMT
The change from population to electorate was only made in 1944, and only because it was believed that the electoral register was substantially complete. It certainly isn't substantially complete now, and it's about to get a whole lot worse when individual registration comes in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 23:43:03 GMT
The 2011 legislation will probably be amended, but not repealed entirely. There was a broad consensus around a few points, in particular that reviews should not take so long and that there should be a stronger emphasis on equalising constituency size (albeit to a slightly looser and more flexible limit than 5%). I suspect the Boundary Commission will also be given the power to determine the size of the Commons. However if IER results in a drop in registration a Labour government would probably suspend any review until a mechanism is found to correct it (or it corrects itself naturally).
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 1, 2013 0:04:07 GMT
If Labour win the next election, I presume they will they amend the law on boundaries to change them to what the rules were pre-2010. If so I presume work will need doing for the periodic review for the 2020 election based on the 2011 census. The reviews are never done on the Census, they are done on the electoral register. The Census has no information on who and how many people are electors, and electoral reviews equalise electorates. Previously the reviews were every 15 years or so, why would the next one be so early? Going directly back to the previous rules would mean a review around about 2020, reporting about 2022/23 with the new boundaries used in 2025 (assuming fixed-term Parliaments remain).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jul 1, 2013 7:51:40 GMT
If Labour win the next election, I presume they will they amend the law on boundaries to change them to what the rules were pre-2010. If so I presume work will need doing for the periodic review for the 2020 election based on the 2011 census. The reviews are never done on the Census, they are done on the electoral register. The Census has no information on who and how many people are electors, and electoral reviews equalise electorates. Previously the reviews were every 15 years or so, why would the next one be so early? Going directly back to the previous rules would mean a review around about 2020, reporting about 2022/23 with the new boundaries used in 2025 (assuming fixed-term Parliaments remain). Quickly looking at the wikipedia entry for the Fifth Review (I know thats not always accurate) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies, it states its every 8-12 years, given it started in 2000-07, then I'd have thought they would at least begin. In addition, as the 2011 legislation is currently in place, I'd have thought that Labour would have amended it to every ten years rather than that legislations five than a complete reversal; if anything because some of the seats which are now most 'out' are city centre seats which are mostly Labour due to the growth of city centres populations over the last 10-15 years, which doesn't looks like stopping anytime soon.
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 9:33:12 GMT
Here's my first pass at Greater Manchester - I've tried to stick with a 10% quota, but had to sneek our a couple of times... Altrincham & Sale South 71379 (Q+1.16%) Ashton & Droylsden 71058 (Q+0.71%) Bolton East 68315 (Q-3.18%) Bolton North 68718 (Q-2.61%) Bolton South West 70109 (Q-0.64%) Bury 74831 (Q+6.05%) Cheadle 72826 (Q+3.21%) Cities of Manchester & Salford 69472 (Q-1.54%) Daveyhulme 70674 (Q+0.16%) Denton & Hyde 70482 (Q-0.11%) Eccles & Salford West 66181 (Q-6.21%) Hazel Grove 72129 (Q+2.22%) Heywood & Middleton 64163 (Q-9.07%) Leigh 77001 (Q+9.13%) Littleborough, Saddleworth & Staleybridge 73903 (Q+4.74%) Makerfield 74856 (Q+6.09%) Manchester Blackley 72848 (Q+3.24%) Manchester Gorton 64834 (Q-8.12%) Manchester Withington 63138 (Q-10.52%) Manchester Wythenshawe 63164 (Q-10.48%) Oldham Central & Royton 65616 (Q-7.01%) Oldham South 70830 (Q+0.38%) Radcliffe & Ramsbottom 68220 (Q-3.32%) Rochdale 69973 (Q-0.83%) Stockport 72917 (Q+3.34%) Stretford & Fallowfield 66205 (Q-6.17%) Swinton & Worsley 67369 (Q-4.52%) Wigan 76779 (Q+8.81%)
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 10:56:01 GMT
Less happy with this - controversially I've crossed the Mersey - tried a version where I didn't, but it leaves Wirral either over or under represented. Bootle & Fazakerley 74377 (Q+5.41%) Crosby & Maghull 76750 (Q+8.77%) Knowsley 68287 (Q-3.22%) Liverpool Mossley Hill 73890 (Q+4.72%) Liverpool Norris Green 70304 (Q-0.36%) Liverpool Old Swan 71959 (Q+1.98%) Southport 77555 (Q+9.91%) St Helens North 75688 (Q+7.27%) St Helens South & Whiston 73054 (Q+3.53%) Three Graces & Birkenhead 76076 (Q+7.82%) Wallasey 66658 (Q-5.53%) Wirral South 65173 (Q-7.63%) Wirral West 65577 (Q-7.06%) Woolton & Halewood 75474 (Q+6.96%)
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 11:33:42 GMT
...And Lancashire... Accrington & Blackburn East 74588 (Q+5.71%) Blackburn West & Darwen 72501 (Q+2.75%) Blackpool 69609 (Q-1.35%) Burnley 67003 (Q-5.04%) Chorley 68074 (Q-3.52%) Fleetwood 70911 (Q+0.50%) Fylde & Preston North 73357 (Q+3.96%) Lancaster & Wyre 66434 (Q-5.85%) Lytham St Annes 68276 (Q-3.24%) Morcambe & Lunesdale 72905 (Q+3.32%) Pendle 66735 (Q-5.42%) Preston South & Penwortham 67373 (Q-4.52%) Ribble Valley 74062 (Q+4.96%) Rossendale & Oswaldtwistle 68083 (Q-3.51%) Skelmersdale & Ormskirk 65973 (Q-6.50%) West Lancashire 65908 (Q-6.59%)
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 13:21:05 GMT
...Cheshire - made all the harder by having to use the old County Divisions... Chester 71962 (Q+1.99%) Congleton 73820 (Q+4.62%) Crewe 67540 (Q-4.28%) Eddisbury 72937 (Q+3.37%) Ellesmere Port & Neston 72935 (Q+3.37%) Halton 67224 (Q-4.73%) Macclesfield 71647 (Q+1.54%) Northwich 76373 (Q+8.24%) Tatton 68424 (Q-3.03%) Warrington North 71836 (Q+1.81%) Warrington South 67347 (Q-4.55%)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 13:26:04 GMT
...And Lancashire... View AttachmentAccrington & Blackburn East 74588 (Q+5.71%) Blackburn West & Darwen 72501 (Q+2.75%) Blackpool 69609 (Q-1.35%) Burnley 67003 (Q-5.04%) Chorley 68074 (Q-3.52%) Fleetwood 70911 (Q+0.50%) Fylde & Preston North 73357 (Q+3.96%) Lancaster & Wyre 66434 (Q-5.85%) Lytham St Annes 68276 (Q-3.24%) Morcambe & Lunesdale 72905 (Q+3.32%) Pendle 66735 (Q-5.42%) Preston South & Penwortham 67373 (Q-4.52%) Ribble Valley 74062 (Q+4.96%) Rossendale & Oswaldtwistle 68083 (Q-3.51%) Skelmersdale & Ormskirk 65973 (Q-6.50%) West Lancashire 65908 (Q-6.59%) Pretty sensible creations. There's a few niggles here and there (the South Ribble/West Lancs border needs to be tided up a bit), but otherwise those would do very nicely indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 13:26:52 GMT
Less happy with this - controversially I've crossed the Mersey - tried a version where I didn't, but it leaves Wirral either over or under represented. View AttachmentBootle & Fazakerley 74377 (Q+5.41%) Crosby & Maghull 76750 (Q+8.77%) Knowsley 68287 (Q-3.22%) Liverpool Mossley Hill 73890 (Q+4.72%) Liverpool Norris Green 70304 (Q-0.36%) Liverpool Old Swan 71959 (Q+1.98%) Southport 77555 (Q+9.91%) St Helens North 75688 (Q+7.27%) St Helens South & Whiston 73054 (Q+3.53%) Three Graces & Birkenhead 76076 (Q+7.82%) Wallasey 66658 (Q-5.53%) Wirral South 65173 (Q-7.63%) Wirral West 65577 (Q-7.06%) Woolton & Halewood 75474 (Q+6.96%) With a name like "Three Graces & Birkenhead", you and I are going to get on very well indeed.
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 13:51:34 GMT
Finally, Cumbria... Workington & Whitehaven 64734 (Q-8.26%) Barrow in Furness 63203 (Q-10.43%) Allerdale & Copeland 64773 (Q-8.20%) Carlisle 66322 (Q-6.01%) Cumbria East 64036 (Q-9.25%) Kendle & Ulverston 64524 (Q-8.55%)
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 13:54:18 GMT
...And Lancashire... Accrington & Blackburn East 74588 (Q+5.71%) Blackburn West & Darwen 72501 (Q+2.75%) Blackpool 69609 (Q-1.35%) Burnley 67003 (Q-5.04%) Chorley 68074 (Q-3.52%) Fleetwood 70911 (Q+0.50%) Fylde & Preston North 73357 (Q+3.96%) Lancaster & Wyre 66434 (Q-5.85%) Lytham St Annes 68276 (Q-3.24%) Morcambe & Lunesdale 72905 (Q+3.32%) Pendle 66735 (Q-5.42%) Preston South & Penwortham 67373 (Q-4.52%) Ribble Valley 74062 (Q+4.96%) Rossendale & Oswaldtwistle 68083 (Q-3.51%) Skelmersdale & Ormskirk 65973 (Q-6.50%) West Lancashire 65908 (Q-6.59%) Pretty sensible creations. There's a few niggles here and there (the South Ribble/West Lancs border needs to be tided up a bit), but otherwise those would do very nicely indeed. Yeah - I'd agree with with the West Lancs/ S Ribble issue - to be honest, I just paineted myself into a corner
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 13:55:18 GMT
Less happy with this - controversially I've crossed the Mersey - tried a version where I didn't, but it leaves Wirral either over or under represented. Bootle & Fazakerley 74377 (Q+5.41%) Crosby & Maghull 76750 (Q+8.77%) Knowsley 68287 (Q-3.22%) Liverpool Mossley Hill 73890 (Q+4.72%) Liverpool Norris Green 70304 (Q-0.36%) Liverpool Old Swan 71959 (Q+1.98%) Southport 77555 (Q+9.91%) St Helens North 75688 (Q+7.27%) St Helens South & Whiston 73054 (Q+3.53%) Three Graces & Birkenhead 76076 (Q+7.82%) Wallasey 66658 (Q-5.53%) Wirral South 65173 (Q-7.63%) Wirral West 65577 (Q-7.06%) Woolton & Halewood 75474 (Q+6.96%) With a name like "Three Graces & Birkenhead", you and I are going to get on very well indeed. Lol - well, I thought if I was going to try and get away with the seat, I may as well try to get away with the name, too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 14:24:13 GMT
With a name like "Three Graces & Birkenhead", you and I are going to get on very well indeed. Lol - well, I thought if I was going to try and get away with the seat, I may as well try to get away with the name, too I'm responsible for (attempting to) sell "Valleys of Ribble and Lune", in front of the current MP for Ribble Valley at one point, so names like that are fine by me. Can I interest you in "Fleetwood and the Golden Mile" ?
|
|