Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,440
|
Post by Crimson King on Mar 1, 2017 23:39:20 GMT
add it to the Western Isles to bring them closer to quota
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 2, 2017 7:40:40 GMT
Someone should point out to this guy that "High Peak" is the name of a hundred. BTW the Lib Dems' "Hunsley, Howdenshire & Axholme" for the seat the Commission want to call Goole is rather in the same spirit.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 2, 2017 14:47:36 GMT
If the quota had been set at 10% (or even 7.5%) in the first place, this particular problem could have been averted easily (as could a whole host of others especially in urban constituencies where ward sizes are larger). Yep. - 5% +/- variation. - Wards with 10000 people in them. - Not splitting wards on principle. - Target electorate of 74,769 in each seat. In isolation, there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with any of these things, but in combination with one another they are positively toxic. Trying to make seats work in areas with large wards is almost impossible. Add a ward and it's over quota; take a ward away and it's under. Zero flexibility and in some cases sensible seats simply cannot be drawn. Increasing the variation to 7.5% would make it a hell of a lot easier. Even 6% would make a difference. Further reducing the number of seats, thereby increasing the size of the target electorate would also make it easier (as 5% either way would be a bigger real number). Changes at local government level to reduce the size of big wards would also make it easier. I don't buy any of the silly 'gerrymandering' arguments, but if there's a conspiracy theory that these criteria were chosen in order to make it as difficult to possible to draw seats... These comments by Greenhert and Sir Benjamin have attracted plenty of likes from esteemed contributors to the site so it is with some trepidation that I venture to disagree. I did the whole country, and on the whole, I'd say I found that having such tight numerical limits added a helpful element of discipline. If the limits were broader, or if more exceptions were allowed, the tendency would be to adopt the most obvious solution and move on; whereas, the narrowness of the permitted band encouraged me to keep trying and retrying various combinations until I found one that was legally compliant and was usually no worse, often actually better, than what I might have settled for if operating without such strict constraint. And the proof of the pudding: I ended up with 600 seats, without a single ward split anywhere in the UK (although I admit that in Scotland this was supererogatory), all compliant in terms of electorate and area, and all of them that I was happy to put forward here. It's true that some of them were less than ideal in some respect or other, such as internal connectivity or conforming to LA boundaries, but this wasn't because of the strict number limits or my reluctance to split wards - generally, it was because of some geographical awkwardness of the area that would have applied in any event. If it were true that 7% tolerance would have led to a significantly better map than was possible with 5%, then I'd expect to have found several cases where getting within the 5% limit obliged me to settle for a relatively unsatisfactory seat compared with a more attractive alternative in the 5-7% range. But I'm really struggling to think of such a case. I can recall a few instances where I was frustrated to find than an obvious and attractive combination was slightly too big or too small, but the only consequence was to force me to keep looking for a satisfactory solution that was compliant: maybe less obvious than my first thought, but not necessarily significantly worse. And I'm definitely of the view that a narrow tolerance, within reason, is better than a broad one. I don't want to go to the extremes practised in the US where seats are drawn to be equal within a handful of residents; but on the other hand, I think it's high time we got away (island seats aside) from the gross variations that have hitherto been accepted in UK boundary reviews. So I'd say that the 5% rule feels about right - flexible enough to allow workable seats to be drawn, but tight enough to ensure reasonable equality of representation. I know the BCE will respond to complaints of awkward seats by blaming the tightness of the 5% rule and calling for it to be eased; but the quality of the plans submitted on this site (and I don't mean just my own) exposes the inadequacy of this excuse for poor boundary-drawing in certain areas (Birmingham, the North East, &c). In any case, any such plea by the BCE really amounts to saying that it has made poor use of the limited amount of flexibility allowed by the 5% limit; but if only it were granted the greater tolerance of 7%, then magically it would make good use of it. Well, excuse me, but I'm not convinced.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 2, 2017 14:56:23 GMT
I have no objection to the 5% tolerance, as seats should be equal in size. However this is subject to accepting split wards and to using an up to date register (or census data)
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,823
|
Post by iain on Mar 2, 2017 16:02:08 GMT
islingtonHow about the monstrosities in Sheffield?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 2, 2017 16:42:26 GMT
I have no objection to the 5% tolerance, as seats should be equal in size. However this is subject to accepting split wards and to using an up to date register (or census data) This review used the most up-to-date register of any review ever. The review started in 2016 using the 2016 register. The previous review started in 2005 using the 2000 register.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 2, 2017 16:46:50 GMT
The previous review did not start in 2005. It started in February 2000.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 2, 2017 17:01:22 GMT
The previous review did not start in 2005. It started in February 2000. Checking, you're right, it got to Yorkshire in 2005-ish. But it stretched over such a long period that when it concluded in 2008-ish the data was 8 years old and when used for elections is was 10 years old. This time the 2016 register will be two years old when the review completes and four years old when used for elections. Something that would be useful is to include electorate projects that local reviews use.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 2, 2017 17:05:49 GMT
Something that would be useful is to include electorate projects that local reviews use. The words "God no, anything but that" spring to mind. Using electorate forecasts for local government reviews makes it very difficult to produce properly worked-through counter-proposals. The forecasts themselves are often way off the mark, and gives rise to suspicion that they can be fiddled by the council for its own (and possibly its controlling group's) convenience.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 2, 2017 17:13:16 GMT
The previous review did not start in 2005. It started in February 2000. Checking, you're right, it got to Yorkshire in 2005-ish. But it stretched over such a long period that when it concluded in 2008-ish the data was 8 years old and when used for elections is was 10 years old. This time the 2016 register will be two years old when the review completes and four years old when used for elections. Something that would be useful is to include electorate projects that local reviews use. If you are having reviews every 5 years, then there is no need to worry about future growth as it will be picked up in the next review anyway.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 2, 2017 18:06:23 GMT
islington How about the monstrosities in Sheffield? Iain, Sheffield's not pretty, I agree - although there are plans upthread proving that it's possible to devise a legal, non-split scheme that is less monstrous than the BCE version. But for the purposes of the present discussion, the key question is whether it would be possible to produce a substantially better Sheffield plan, still without ward splits, if the tolerance were 7% instead of 5%. Assuming we still have 600 seats in all and everything else stays the same, this gives a permitted range of 69536 to 80002. I've just had a very quick go at this and no alternative scheme leapt out at me, but I'm posting from work so I couldn't give it very long and I'm entirely receptive to the idea that there's a better plan available given the extra tolerance. Any offers?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 2, 2017 18:40:31 GMT
islington How about the monstrosities in Sheffield? Iain, Sheffield's not pretty, I agree - although there are plans upthread proving that it's possible to devise a legal, non-split scheme that is less monstrous than the BCE version. Less monstrous does not mean not monstrous. All plans which rely on the short moorland border between Dore & Totley and Fulwood include a monstrosity. Well, I can get five seats entirely within the City that way, excluding Stocksbridge, and none of the seats are as bad as some of the ones proposed. But it is still tricky and some of these are pretty silly. Sheffield Hallam (69,906) Stannington, Fulwood, Ecclesall, Broomhill, Central Sheffield Heeley (79,576) Dore & Totley, Beauchief & Greenhill, Nether Edge, Graves Park, Gleadless Valley, Arbourthorne [proposed in zombie review in exactly this form] Sheffield Woodhouse (77,792) Woodhouse, Manor Castle, Richmond, Beighton, Birley, Mosborough Sheffield Brightside (69,895) Darnall, Burngreave, Shiregreen & Brightside, Firth Park, East Ecclesfield Sheffield Hillsborough (69,932) Crookes, Walkley, Hillsborough, Southey, West Ecclesfield (Splitting Ecclesfield turned out to be the key.)
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 2, 2017 22:29:36 GMT
I ended up with 600 seats, without a single ward split anywhere in the UK (although I admit that in Scotland this was supererogatory), all compliant in terms of electorate and area, and all of them that I was happy to put forward here. If it were true that 7% tolerance would have led to a significantly better map than was possible with 5%, then I'd expect to have found several cases where getting within the 5% limit obliged me to settle for a relatively unsatisfactory seat compared with a more attractive alternative in the 5-7% range. But I'm really struggling to think of such a case.This is an admirable defence of the new rules, but I'm afraid I still think that bringing them all in at once whilst retaining the requirement to take into account current boundaries was a mistake on the part of the government. As others have pointed out, Sheffield immediately springs to mind and is the chief reason that I simply gave up on the Yorkshire & Humber region. With a wider threshold, the following English local authorities could potentially be considered for a seat on their own where they can't at the moment (depending on neighbouring constituencies, of course): Chesterfield, Kettering, Broxtowe, Fenland, Hertsmere, Great Yarmouth, Hartlepool, South Lakeland, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Wyre, Bracknell Forest, Slough, Chiltern, Eastboure, Lewes, Rother, Gravesham, Spelthorne, Crawley, Exeter, East Dorset, Mendip, East Staffordshire, Worcester and Scarborough. Something that would be useful is to include electorate projects that local reviews use. The words "God no, anything but that" spring to mind. Using electorate forecasts for local government reviews makes it very difficult to produce properly worked-through counter-proposals. The forecasts themselves are often way off the mark, and gives rise to suspicion that they can be fiddled by the council for its own (and possibly its controlling group's) convenience. I agree wholeheartedly. I have already happened across one official response from a primary authority trying to justify seats in the area that are towards the lower end of the quota on the basis of projected population growth: www.bce2018.org.uk/node/21129/view . There may of course be more
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 3, 2017 13:49:42 GMT
Iain, Sheffield's not pretty, I agree - although there are plans upthread proving that it's possible to devise a legal, non-split scheme that is less monstrous than the BCE version. Less monstrous does not mean not monstrous. All plans which rely on the short moorland border between Dore & Totley and Fulwood include a monstrosity. Well, I can get five seats entirely within the City that way, excluding Stocksbridge, and none of the seats are as bad as some of the ones proposed. But it is still tricky and some of these are pretty silly. Sheffield Hallam (69,906) Stannington, Fulwood, Ecclesall, Broomhill, Central Sheffield Heeley (79,576) Dore & Totley, Beauchief & Greenhill, Nether Edge, Graves Park, Gleadless Valley, Arbourthorne [proposed in zombie review in exactly this form] Sheffield Woodhouse (77,792) Woodhouse, Manor Castle, Richmond, Beighton, Birley, Mosborough Sheffield Brightside (69,895) Darnall, Burngreave, Shiregreen & Brightside, Firth Park, East Ecclesfield Sheffield Hillsborough (69,932) Crookes, Walkley, Hillsborough, Southey, West Ecclesfield (Splitting Ecclesfield turned out to be the key.) YL - Well done. I was hoping someone would rise to the challenge. But even so - Is it really that much better than the best possible non-split version? (i.e., not the BCE's version.) It's true it avoids the narrow moorland boundary between Dore and Fulwood, but on the other hand, Ecclesfield is split and, as you say, some of the seats are pretty odd (I presume you had in mind Hillsborough, Hallam and Heeley). And even if it is a better plan overall, is it a sufficient improvement to justify relaxing a rule (the 5% tolerance) that is designed to ensure more equal representation? I know I'm a non-split diehard, but quite frankly, if the Dore-Fulwood issue is thought to be so monstrous as to be unacceptable, rather than relax the 5% rule I'd prefer to resolve the problem by splitting a ward (only one such split is needed). And to be honest, I know others will differ about this but while I agree that the Dore-Fulwood link is far from satisfactory, I don't find it so bad as to be unacceptable. Let me make a few points in its defence: - although it's true that the wards have only a short common boundary, they are easily accessible from each other - travelling from Dore ward into Fulwood ward by car is easy and requires only a brief transit through Ecclesall ward
- the wards seem to me (as a non-Sheffieldite so I'm wide open to correction on this) to have a good deal in common, both being located on the western edges of the city adjoining the Peak District
- I'm guessing (on the basis of zero local knowledge so feel free to shoot me down in flames) that residents of Dore ward, if asked, might well say that they have more in common with Fulwood than with Beauchief, even though their common boundary with the latter is much longer
- judging by submissions to the BCE and by comments here, no one objects to the principle of putting Dore and Fulwood in the same seat (and indeed they are in the same seat already) so really, the objection is not really to the linkage of these two wards - it is to the omission of Ecclesall
- internal connectivity is highly desirable but it is not the absolute deal-breaker that some comments suggest - we do, after all, inhabit a world in which there exists (not for much longer, I hope) a seat named Lancaster and Fleetwood (and there are many other less dramatic examples I could cite).
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 3, 2017 14:03:26 GMT
If it were true that 7% tolerance would have led to a significantly better map than was possible with 5%, then I'd expect to have found several cases where getting within the 5% limit obliged me to settle for a relatively unsatisfactory seat compared with a more attractive alternative in the 5-7% range. But I'm really struggling to think of such a case.This is an admirable defence of the new rules, but I'm afraid I still think that bringing them all in at once whilst retaining the requirement to take into account current boundaries was a mistake on the part of the government. As others have pointed out, Sheffield immediately springs to mind and is the chief reason that I simply gave up on the Yorkshire & Humber region. With a wider threshold, the following English local authorities could potentially be considered for a seat on their own where they can't at the moment (depending on neighbouring constituencies, of course): Chesterfield, Kettering, Broxtowe, Fenland, Hertsmere, Great Yarmouth, Hartlepool, South Lakeland, Chorley, South Ribble, West Lancashire, Wyre, Bracknell Forest, Slough, Chiltern, Eastboure, Lewes, Rother, Gravesham, Spelthorne, Crawley, Exeter, East Dorset, Mendip, East Staffordshire, Worcester and Scarborough. "This is an admirable defence of the new rules" Thanks. On the authorities that could be treated alone if the tolerance were 7%: I'm sure you're right but the trouble with this argument is that if the tolerance were increased, say to 7%, it would then be possible to compile a further list of authorities that could be treated alone if only the tolerance were relaxed to 10% or whatever. Where would it end? Assuming we want a hard limit (and I do), you will inevitably find that at whatever level you set it, there will some logical and attractive seats that lie just outside. This being the case, I prefer to err on the side of a relatively narrow limit that supports the principle of electoral equality. Do I then favour a narrower limit? No, not at present, with ward sizes as they are. But if major cities like Sheffield switched to 1- or 2-member wards, as Birmingham has done, then it might be worth looking at narrowing the tolerance to 4% or 3.5%.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 3, 2017 14:13:57 GMT
Checking, you're right, it got to Yorkshire in 2005-ish. But it stretched over such a long period that when it concluded in 2008-ish the data was 8 years old and when used for elections is was 10 years old. This time the 2016 register will be two years old when the review completes and four years old when used for elections. Something that would be useful is to include electorate projects that local reviews use. If you are having reviews every 5 years, then there is no need to worry about future growth as it will be picked up in the next review anyway. Yes, I made the point at the hearings that if the seats are reviewed every fiveyears, then there's no problem with using the old wards that have just been abolished as the new wards will be picked up at the next review, only leaving us with a few years of misaligned boundaries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 15:14:11 GMT
If you are having reviews every 5 years, then there is no need to worry about future growth as it will be picked up in the next review anyway. Yes, I made the point at the hearings that if the seats are reviewed every fiveyears, then there's no problem with using the old wards that have just been abolished as the new wards will be picked up at the next review, only leaving us with a few years of misaligned boundaries. One of the best things about the new system is the reduction in years where boundaries are misaligned. Greater coordination between the different Commissions is no bad thing.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 3, 2017 19:22:40 GMT
I agree that increasing the tolerance to 7% isn't the way of solving the problem in places with big wards like Sheffield. As that plan demonstrates (though it's possible there's a better one) it still forces you to come up with seats which you'd never even think of proposing (like that Hillsborough) if it weren't for them being one of the few combinations of wards actually in the window. It eases the situation a bit, and at least you don't seem to be forced to grab random Barnsley and Rotherham wards to make the numbers work, but it's still not working very well. I'm still of the view that the way to make for better boundaries in big ward areas is to accept limited ward splitting.
However, I am in favour of increasing the tolerance where it allows the Commission to reduce the number of cross-county constituencies and to allow most counties to stand on their own. (I'm basically talking ceremonial counties here; I'm not bothered about keeping Telford & Wrekin separate from Shropshire UA or anything like that.) Most cross-county constituencies are, in my view, not very satisfactory, and furthermore doing this would make for much more manageable review areas for the consultation. I don't think people in Hertfordshire should have to worry about what's been proposed in Norfolk if they're going to make a suggestion for their home area. (OK, that particular boundary crossing was unnecessary even under the current rules, but there are other examples, and the change I'm suggesting would discourage the Commission from doing it.) And it would satisfy the Cornish without actually turning Cornwall into another special case.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 4, 2017 6:10:47 GMT
If that is a semi-serious suggestion, it should be Devon West & Torridge or Weston-super-Mare as they already have Lundy and Steepholm respectively. If that was meant to be deliberately absurd, you could've gone for Swindon South as the seat to be combined with the Scillies. Forest of Dean. Makes things easier around Gloucester. ;-) Being able to combine the Forest with bits of Herefordshire, or even Monmouthshire, would make the rest of Gloucestershire much easier to deal with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 8:25:20 GMT
Forest of Dean. Makes things easier around Gloucester. ;-) Being able to combine the Forest with bits of Herefordshire, or even Monmouthshire, would make the rest of Gloucestershire much easier to deal with.
|
|