Post by hullenedge on Jul 5, 2014 21:37:23 GMT
'A bill to enable the alteration of parliamentary constituencies under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 to be suspended until the submission of the next general reports of the boundary commissions, but to make provision for the acceleration of those reports, for the immediate redistribution of seats in Greater London and the consequential alteration of adjoining constituencies, and for the division of certain other constituencies now having abnormally large electorates; and for purposes connected therewith'.
The Boundary Commissions had reported by 1969 (2nd periodic report). The consensus amongst commentators was that the review would cost Labour seats. How much advantage the Conservatives would gain was open to debate. The Labour government argued that the review should not be implemented because of the ongoing review of local government reorganisation (Redcliffe-Maud etc) except for the changes in Greater London, where the structure of local government had already been amended (1964). The Conservatives screamed blue murder. It was alleged that the London changes were favourable to Labour.
The government introduced this bill to implement the London proposals (reduction of ten seats) and create five new seats for abnormally large constituencies. Cheadle was to be split into two. The following pairs of 'abnormally large' constituencies to be redrawn to create three seats - Billericay & South-East Essex, Horsham & Arundel and Shoreham, Portsmouth Langstone & Gosport and Fareham and perhaps most controversial a cross-counties pair Hitchen & South Bedfordshire. A new seat was to be created - South-East Hertfordshire from the remnants of Barnet and Enfield West. There would be moderate changes to other 'orbital' seats given the Greater London boundary.
Ill-tempered debates followed in the Commons and Lords. The proposals were eventually dropped. To be fair to the government they did have a point about local govt. reform and constituency boundaries (the constituency map was messy by 1979 and the 3rd report was definitely radical in its proposals) however their arguments would have carried far more weight if they had sought consensus before the English report was published. Furthermore Wales was not affected by Redcliffe-Maud and the Welsh proposals could have been implemented but opinion was that Labour would lose out. There was no suggestion by the government to amalgamate pairs of 'abnormally small' inner-city constituencies in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. That could have cost Labour three seats.
These are some calculations (considering how constituencies voted in 66, 70 & 74) of the 1969 Bill:-
i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u413/Hullenedge/1969001_zps2b614b6d.jpg
i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u413/Hullenedge/1969002_zps242809e0.jpg
I've taken the old seat/new seat alignments from the Feb 1974 Nuffield. The London changes were broadly neutral and the newly-drawn seats would probably all be Conservative (less sure about S Beds/Hitchen) so overall if the Bill had been implemented Labour could have lost five seats to a Tory gain of one.
Links to the debates:-
hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/redistribution?month=1969-6
hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/redistribution?month=1969-7
It is rather difficult not to conclude that the government acted out of partisan interest. Sadly this appears to be the case for all boundary reviews.
The Boundary Commissions had reported by 1969 (2nd periodic report). The consensus amongst commentators was that the review would cost Labour seats. How much advantage the Conservatives would gain was open to debate. The Labour government argued that the review should not be implemented because of the ongoing review of local government reorganisation (Redcliffe-Maud etc) except for the changes in Greater London, where the structure of local government had already been amended (1964). The Conservatives screamed blue murder. It was alleged that the London changes were favourable to Labour.
The government introduced this bill to implement the London proposals (reduction of ten seats) and create five new seats for abnormally large constituencies. Cheadle was to be split into two. The following pairs of 'abnormally large' constituencies to be redrawn to create three seats - Billericay & South-East Essex, Horsham & Arundel and Shoreham, Portsmouth Langstone & Gosport and Fareham and perhaps most controversial a cross-counties pair Hitchen & South Bedfordshire. A new seat was to be created - South-East Hertfordshire from the remnants of Barnet and Enfield West. There would be moderate changes to other 'orbital' seats given the Greater London boundary.
Ill-tempered debates followed in the Commons and Lords. The proposals were eventually dropped. To be fair to the government they did have a point about local govt. reform and constituency boundaries (the constituency map was messy by 1979 and the 3rd report was definitely radical in its proposals) however their arguments would have carried far more weight if they had sought consensus before the English report was published. Furthermore Wales was not affected by Redcliffe-Maud and the Welsh proposals could have been implemented but opinion was that Labour would lose out. There was no suggestion by the government to amalgamate pairs of 'abnormally small' inner-city constituencies in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. That could have cost Labour three seats.
These are some calculations (considering how constituencies voted in 66, 70 & 74) of the 1969 Bill:-
i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u413/Hullenedge/1969001_zps2b614b6d.jpg
i1066.photobucket.com/albums/u413/Hullenedge/1969002_zps242809e0.jpg
I've taken the old seat/new seat alignments from the Feb 1974 Nuffield. The London changes were broadly neutral and the newly-drawn seats would probably all be Conservative (less sure about S Beds/Hitchen) so overall if the Bill had been implemented Labour could have lost five seats to a Tory gain of one.
Links to the debates:-
hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/redistribution?month=1969-6
hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/redistribution?month=1969-7
It is rather difficult not to conclude that the government acted out of partisan interest. Sadly this appears to be the case for all boundary reviews.
