|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2018 17:44:24 GMT
Bit of a 'chinny reckon?' moment at Business Questions where Andrea Leadsom claimed "the adoption of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations will require an Order in Council that must be approved by both Houses. It will take time to prepare what is an enormous SI, so it will be some time before that can be brought forward for approval."
Actually all you need to do is copy and paste from the reports...
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 13, 2018 18:42:07 GMT
Bit of a 'chinny reckon?' moment at Business Questions where Andrea Leadsom claimed "the adoption of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations will require an Order in Council that must be approved by both Houses. It will take time to prepare what is an enormous SI, so it will be some time before that can be brought forward for approval." Actually all you need to do is copy and paste from the reports... Blimey - that takes me back. haven't heard anyone use that phrase for almost forty years.... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2018 18:45:14 GMT
Bit of a 'chinny reckon?' moment at Business Questions where Andrea Leadsom claimed "the adoption of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations will require an Order in Council that must be approved by both Houses. It will take time to prepare what is an enormous SI, so it will be some time before that can be brought forward for approval." Actually all you need to do is copy and paste from the reports... Blimey - that takes me back. haven't heard anyone use that phrase for almost forty years.... Someone mentioned it on twitter the other day and said it should be brought back.  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 13, 2018 18:55:31 GMT
Blimey - that takes me back. haven't heard anyone use that phrase for almost forty years.... Someone mentioned it on twitter the other day and said it should be brought back. A development IIRC of the more prosaic "Jimmy Hill!" to indicate a modicum of disbelief in a proposition. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 13, 2018 20:50:03 GMT
Someone mentioned it on twitter the other day and said it should be brought back. A development IIRC of the more prosaic "Jimmy Hill!" to indicate a modicum of disbelief in a proposition. Given that MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying in the House, would it be unparliamentary to ostentatiously stroke your chin during announcements of this sort? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2018 21:20:41 GMT
A development IIRC of the more prosaic "Jimmy Hill!" to indicate a modicum of disbelief in a proposition. Given that MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying in the House, would it be unparliamentary to ostentatiously stroke your chin during announcements of this sort? "As a Point of Order, Mr Speaker, I believe that the Secretary of State to have been giving a very chin-stroking speech with a lot to reckon..." |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 13, 2018 21:33:59 GMT
If CLPs and Tory Associations once might have worked that way, they certainly don't now. Another good reason why a final vote by MPs should be removed and the boundary commission's proposals just adopted once the consultation is complete. Would certainly be willing to support a proposal whereby constituency boundary reviews get one every 10-15 years (preferably a set terms) without the final vote. And at a 10% variance Would also go for that, but as I've said before, I'd take a leaf out of the German commission's books and insert a rule for interim reviews if any seat varies by too much from the national average. In the German case, there's a 15% deviation allowed to the commission and then another review is automatically triggered when a seat varies by 25%. In the UK case, could go for 10% deviation permitted, reviews every 15 years, with an interim local review in the case where a seat deviates by more than 20% from the average. Such an interim review would have a minimum change requirement: only tasked with bringing the oversized or undersized seat back within the 10% range, making consequent changes to neighbouring seats if necessary and nothing else. Since 15 years is a long time, that would avoid crazy variations in the time in between. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 14, 2018 7:59:46 GMT
If you look at Edinburgh West, EC have clearly made some big errors. Bits of Inverleith that stay in Edinburgh West have lost most of their Lib Dem votes, as one of several examples. I have emailed them pointing this out... EC tend not to work out anything correctly (....wow, the English language really is grammar fluid), I doubt much will come from your email, but we live in hope and expectation. Well, so far I have received a polite thankyou and a promise to look into it! |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2018 10:14:40 GMT
Would certainly be willing to support a proposal whereby constituency boundary reviews get one every 10-15 years (preferably a set terms) without the final vote. And at a 10% variance Would also go for that, but as I've said before, I'd take a leaf out of the German commission's books and insert a rule for interim reviews if any seat varies by too much from the national average. In the German case, there's a 15% deviation allowed to the commission and then another review is automatically triggered when a seat varies by 25%. In the UK case, could go for 10% deviation permitted, reviews every 15 years, with an interim local review in the case where a seat deviates by more than 20% from the average. Such an interim review would have a minimum change requirement: only tasked with bringing the oversized or undersized seat back within the 10% range, making consequent changes to neighbouring seats if necessary and nothing else. Since 15 years is a long time, that would avoid crazy variations in the time in between. I know that it's been suggested by many commentators that the 5% range is too restrictive but I have to say that I think it's been broadly vindicated by the final outcome of the 2018 Review. My evidence for this is that the harshest criticism on here has focused on the Ribble Valley mess - than which we've all seen far worse, let's face it. 10% is far too broad. If it had applied at this review (with everything else the same) the permitted range would have been 67293 to 82245. In other words, a seat could have been drawn, perfectly legally, with nearly 15000 voters more than the one next door. And this would have had to be accepted as a perfectly normal and acceptable outcome because, remember, the only obligation is to get within the range; there's no obligation, in fact it would be an incorrect application of the rules, to aim for, or show preference for, outcomes near the middle of the range. Surely such a wide variation is too much to be acceptable. The main lesson I'd draw from the review, and this has the advantage of not requiring a change in the rules, would be for the BCE to develop better-considered initial proposals so that the whole process starts from a higher base. When I get time, and unless anyone would like to beat me to it (be my guest), I'm thinking of starting a separate 'lessons learned' thread. (Actually, perhaps it should be two threads. (a) How could things be done better if the next review takes place under the exact same rules? (b) How could the rules be improved?) |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 14, 2018 11:34:49 GMT
I agree that five percent has been vindicated. Ten would be far too much. My impression is that the Commission are a bunch of amateurs who have learned the job as they go along. In the north east the final proposals are quite sensible, apart from Northumberland/Blaydon. Also, I would not have split a ward.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 14, 2018 12:01:12 GMT
They seemed to have a bit of a thing for "Ferry cross the Mersey" constituencies. The fifth review had a "that's never going to survive a local enquiry" Wallasey and Kirkdale proposal which also bruised my lower jaw, due to it dropping so much at how awful the idea was. They say the Internet never forgets but finding any graphical evidence of the (in)famous "Wallasey and Kirkdale" is proving difficult. HOWEVER, on this very forum in 2016, Davıd Boothroyd posted this: In the initial proposals in the 2007 review was this abomination which is not altogether different to your proposal: (It went down like a cup of cold sick that time as well) So using that information, may I present to you, a 2018 reconstruction.  Here you go (see attachment). That was a bad plan, but all the seats in Merseyside were in the range 66452-75032. In the revised proposals the range was 56085-79099, and that was considered acceptable!
Attachments:
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633
|
Post by ricmk on Sept 14, 2018 12:03:12 GMT
I agree that five percent has been vindicated. Ten would be far too much. My impression is that the Commission are a bunch of amateurs who have learned the job as they go along. In the north east the final proposals are quite sensible, apart from Northumberland/Blaydon. Also, I would not have split a ward. I'm surprised there has been less comeback on that City of Durham and Easington seat that looks a real mess to me. I'm not local but it seems a contender for worst seat of the review to me- am I missing something about why it's not as bad as it seems? I'd also be cautious about vindicating the 5% rule. In places where it is hated locally (Cornwall / Devon border and indeed Milton Keynes / Buckingham) the anger has been tempered because the rules of the game are known and there is no point arguing against the rules at proposals stage. It's not a vindication of the concept. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 14, 2018 12:16:24 GMT
Would also go for that, but as I've said before, I'd take a leaf out of the German commission's books and insert a rule for interim reviews if any seat varies by too much from the national average. In the German case, there's a 15% deviation allowed to the commission and then another review is automatically triggered when a seat varies by 25%. In the UK case, could go for 10% deviation permitted, reviews every 15 years, with an interim local review in the case where a seat deviates by more than 20% from the average. Such an interim review would have a minimum change requirement: only tasked with bringing the oversized or undersized seat back within the 10% range, making consequent changes to neighbouring seats if necessary and nothing else. Since 15 years is a long time, that would avoid crazy variations in the time in between. I know that it's been suggested by many commentators that the 5% range is too restrictive but I have to say that I think it's been broadly vindicated by the final outcome of the 2018 Review. My evidence for this is that the harshest criticism on here has focused on the Ribble Valley mess - than which we've all seen far worse, let's face it. 10% is far too broad. If it had applied at this review (with everything else the same) the permitted range would have been 67293 to 82245. In other words, a seat could have been drawn, perfectly legally, with nearly 15000 voters more than the one next door. And this would have had to be accepted as a perfectly normal and acceptable outcome because, remember, the only obligation is to get within the range; there's no obligation, in fact it would be an incorrect application of the rules, to aim for, or show preference for, outcomes near the middle of the range. Surely such a wide variation is too much to be acceptable. The main lesson I'd draw from the review, and this has the advantage of not requiring a change in the rules, would be for the BCE to develop better-considered initial proposals so that the whole process starts from a higher base. When I get time, and unless anyone would like to beat me to it (be my guest), I'm thinking of starting a separate 'lessons learned' thread. (Actually, perhaps it should be two threads. (a) How could things be done better if the next review takes place under the exact same rules? (b) How could the rules be improved?) I absolutely agree with equalising electorates. (I don't even think there should be any exceptions eg. Western Isles, Isle of Wight.) I disagree that it can be done satisfactorily without splitting wards. Priority should be given to not splitting communities between seats, and to not crossing county boundaries. The current review has resulted in too many bad seats, which adds to the drive among many MPs to vote the review down. If, for whatever reason, it's felt that wards should not be split, we need to have a +/-10% range, at least in areas with large wards. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Sept 14, 2018 12:16:44 GMT
I agree that five percent has been vindicated. Ten would be far too much. My impression is that the Commission are a bunch of amateurs who have learned the job as they go along. In the north east the final proposals are quite sensible, apart from Northumberland/Blaydon. Also, I would not have split a ward. I'm surprised there has been less comeback on that City of Durham and Easington seat that looks a real mess to me. I'm not local but it seems a contender for worst seat of the review to me- am I missing something about why it's not as bad as it seems? I'd also be cautious about vindicating the 5% rule. In places where it is hated locally (Cornwall / Devon border and indeed Milton Keynes / Buckingham) the anger has been tempered because the rules of the game are known and there is no point arguing against the rules at proposals stage. It's not a vindication of the concept. Had we had a 650 seat review without quota rules I'm sure we would have seen a 3 seat Milton Keynes. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Sept 14, 2018 12:17:52 GMT
I know that it's been suggested by many commentators that the 5% range is too restrictive but I have to say that I think it's been broadly vindicated by the final outcome of the 2018 Review. My evidence for this is that the harshest criticism on here has focused on the Ribble Valley mess - than which we've all seen far worse, let's face it. 10% is far too broad. If it had applied at this review (with everything else the same) the permitted range would have been 67293 to 82245. In other words, a seat could have been drawn, perfectly legally, with nearly 15000 voters more than the one next door. And this would have had to be accepted as a perfectly normal and acceptable outcome because, remember, the only obligation is to get within the range; there's no obligation, in fact it would be an incorrect application of the rules, to aim for, or show preference for, outcomes near the middle of the range. Surely such a wide variation is too much to be acceptable. The main lesson I'd draw from the review, and this has the advantage of not requiring a change in the rules, would be for the BCE to develop better-considered initial proposals so that the whole process starts from a higher base. When I get time, and unless anyone would like to beat me to it (be my guest), I'm thinking of starting a separate 'lessons learned' thread. (Actually, perhaps it should be two threads. (a) How could things be done better if the next review takes place under the exact same rules? (b) How could the rules be improved?) I absolutely agree with equalising electorates. (I don't even think there should be any exceptions eg. Western Isles, Isle of Wight.) I disagree that it can be done satisfactorily without splitting wards. Priority should be given to not splitting communities between seats, and to not crossing county boundaries. The current review has resulted in too many bad seats, which adds to the drive among many MPs to vote the review down. If, for whatever reason, it's felt that wards should not be split, we need to go back to the +/-10% range, at least in areas with large wards. We never had a 10% range, it used to be up to the commission. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 14, 2018 13:01:31 GMT
Would also go for that, but as I've said before, I'd take a leaf out of the German commission's books and insert a rule for interim reviews if any seat varies by too much from the national average. In the German case, there's a 15% deviation allowed to the commission and then another review is automatically triggered when a seat varies by 25%. In the UK case, could go for 10% deviation permitted, reviews every 15 years, with an interim local review in the case where a seat deviates by more than 20% from the average. Such an interim review would have a minimum change requirement: only tasked with bringing the oversized or undersized seat back within the 10% range, making consequent changes to neighbouring seats if necessary and nothing else. Since 15 years is a long time, that would avoid crazy variations in the time in between. I know that it's been suggested by many commentators that the 5% range is too restrictive but I have to say that I think it's been broadly vindicated by the final outcome of the 2018 Review. My evidence for this is that the harshest criticism on here has focused on the Ribble Valley mess - than which we've all seen far worse, let's face it. 10% is far too broad. If it had applied at this review (with everything else the same) the permitted range would have been 67293 to 82245. In other words, a seat could have been drawn, perfectly legally, with nearly 15000 voters more than the one next door. And this would have had to be accepted as a perfectly normal and acceptable outcome because, remember, the only obligation is to get within the range; there's no obligation, in fact it would be an incorrect application of the rules, to aim for, or show preference for, outcomes near the middle of the range. Surely such a wide variation is too much to be acceptable. The main lesson I'd draw from the review, and this has the advantage of not requiring a change in the rules, would be for the BCE to develop better-considered initial proposals so that the whole process starts from a higher base. When I get time, and unless anyone would like to beat me to it (be my guest), I'm thinking of starting a separate 'lessons learned' thread. (Actually, perhaps it should be two threads. (a) How could things be done better if the next review takes place under the exact same rules? (b) How could the rules be improved?) As a Birmingham resident I not surprisingly disagree. The Select Committee on looking at this suggested a tolerance of 7.5%, which I would agree with. Equality in size of seats is important. But in order to achieve it other considerations should not be thrown away. I have suggested before that the Boundary Commission should specifically recognise that where the average ward size is more than 1.33 times the tolerance, they would look positively at ward splits. My other recommendation is that they take account of rewarding since the operative date, as otherwise all the arguments they put forward about the convenience of electoral registration officers and political parties fall. This is all within their remit, unlike the operative date, the electorate used, the number of seats, and the statutory rules.
I would support the idea that they call for proposals, as per the LGBCE (I know nothing about other parts of the UK), before generating their initial map. The consultation process generally works well in shooting down nonsense, and producing a better map, although it is swamped both by local campaigns, and petty objections that don't take account of knock-on effects. I sympathise with the Boundary Commission in having to wade through this stuff, and respond to some of it. Then there is the continuity issue. Recruiting a new set of workers each time leads to naivety and incompetence. The parliamentary commission should be merged with the local government commission to preserve and build expertise.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 14, 2018 14:58:47 GMT
I agree that five percent has been vindicated. Ten would be far too much. My impression is that the Commission are a bunch of amateurs who have learned the job as they go along. In the north east the final proposals are quite sensible, apart from Northumberland/Blaydon. Also, I would not have split a ward. I'm surprised there has been less comeback on that City of Durham and Easington seat that looks a real mess to me. I'm not local but it seems a contender for worst seat of the review to me- am I missing something about why it's not as bad as it seems? I'd also be cautious about vindicating the 5% rule. In places where it is hated locally (Cornwall / Devon border and indeed Milton Keynes / Buckingham) the anger has been tempered because the rules of the game are known and there is no point arguing against the rules at proposals stage. It's not a vindication of the concept. I and others did suggest better arrangements in Durham. But in my opinion it's not as daft as the proposed Blaydon; or the splitting of Bedlington/Choppington. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 14, 2018 15:26:33 GMT
It's just that in Durham, as in swathes of London and Wales, we're all operating on lowered expectations because we've tried and we know it's hard and it could have been so much worse. In other words, it's the 5% rule's fault and not the commission's. This is less clear (though there's more than a touch of it) in Lancashire, and not at all the case in Halifax and Bradford (still with multiple very-much-Bradford areas chopped off in different directions, even if only one is *completely* random, and essentially having a seat stolen), where reliance on wards is what is the main problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 14, 2018 15:39:48 GMT
I'm surprised there has been less comeback on that City of Durham and Easington seat that looks a real mess to me. I'm not local but it seems a contender for worst seat of the review to me- am I missing something about why it's not as bad as it seems? I'd also be cautious about vindicating the 5% rule. In places where it is hated locally (Cornwall / Devon border and indeed Milton Keynes / Buckingham) the anger has been tempered because the rules of the game are known and there is no point arguing against the rules at proposals stage. It's not a vindication of the concept. I and others did suggest better arrangements in Durham. But in my opinion it's not as daft as the proposed Blaydon; or the splitting of Bedlington/Choppington. I don't think Durham was that difficult. I rather liked my Washington & Chester-le-street seat which solved a lot of problems. Although, not using Boundary Assistant, I didn't post it here, so it was untested. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2018 16:22:32 GMT
On the 5% -
I think we'd all agree that it's a question of balance. If the tolerance is too tight, seats will tend to become artificial, wards will be split in profusion, and the whole process will become inaccessible to the general public because effective participation will require access to mapping and electorate numbers at a granular level available only to the Commissions and (maybe) political parties. But if the tolerance is very slack, we can give much more respect to factors such as LA boundaries and communities of interest but at a price of wide variations in electorate.
Incidentally, to see what the BCE is might do if relieved of the 5% tolerance, look at the Isle of Wight. The normal rules don't apply here, and the BCE, having started with initial proposals that divided the electorate more of less equally, has finished up with a scheme in which one seat is 42% larger than the other. And if you look at the reports, this is all justified by 'communities of interest'. Maybe the final version does indeed better reflect these communities; but does that really justify such an outrageous disparity?
5% seems to me a reasonable compromise. It ensures equality of representation throughout the UK (protected islands aside), whilst offering enough flexibility to allow workable seats to be created everywhere with little if any splitting of wards. In working up proposals, which I eventually did for the whole UK (not that I submitted all of them), I did not find at any point that the 5% rule stopped me from producing a plan that was, if not ideal, at least workable. The effect of the 5% was to add some discipline, rigour and consistency to the process and to make me work rather harder than would otherwise have been necessary to find a practical solution. But these things aren't bugs; they're features.
Edited to add: Oh, and if Birmingham's current system of 1- and 2-member wards had been in place in 2015 it's highly likely that, even with a 5% tolerance, we'd have ended up with final recommendations for nine whole seats entirely within the City boundary with no ward splits and John Chanin would be a happy man.
|
|
