jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Sept 14, 2018 16:56:42 GMT
I do agree that allowing a +-10% variance on its own would be too much. It would seem logical to me that there should be a general requirement for seats to be within 5%/7.5% of the quota unless otherwise justified by unworkably large wards (mainly Scotland) and perhaps at a push keeping communities together (eg; a city that would otherwise have an orphan ward). The absolute maximum variance in these cases would be 7.5%/10%. That way you get general electoral equality (particular compared to the status quo) while allowing some more deviation where it proves necessary. I am sympathetic to greater use of polling districts. However, it would likely be too complicated for many people to participate and more broadly I just don't think there's the political + commission will for us to start using polling districts as normal building blocks. There's simply too much attachment to council wards. That said, they would allow greater equality as seen in other countries and would hopefully lead to the acknowledge that wards are often created for electoral equality rather than community purposes. Regardless, now all I can think of is election results broken down by polling district  |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Sept 14, 2018 17:13:48 GMT
The problem I have with such strict tolerances is that it forces the commission to break their own rules with reckless abandon. I disagree that the 5% threshold has meant that most seats haven't turned out too bad, most seats ARE bad their just bad in a way that is totally unavoidable and "could have been worse" so we tut and accept it.
Take an example like Worcester, the present seat neatly matches the local authority, perfect we all cheer, but oh no its a whole 489 electors short of the quota thus the BC has to create another cross authority seat which their own rules explicitly state should be avoided. Thus now the present new seat rather than neatly taking in the whole city now includes the city and a few tacked on villages on the other side of the motorway.
Of course its about finding a balance but I don't see how 5% is balanced. Any less and the whole review would descend into farce and the commission would have to ditch wards entirely and just draw seats freehand. So how is the bare minimum you can get away with deemed "a sensible middle ground" especially when we consider that the 5% rule that the commission had to abide by is the most stringent in the world. The New Zealand, Canadian, German, US etc bodies responsible for drawing boundaries don't have to adhere to such a strict variance.
Indeed isn't the main USP of FPTP that it provides us with our own community champion? What use is that if community links have been disrupted so much in the name of seat equalisation? Wouldn't it be better in that scenario to just ditch the whole system and use a form of PR?
The whole thing just stinks if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 14, 2018 17:38:59 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. There is no doubt that you spent a great deal of time and effort in producing your suggestions, which were generally better than mine (and than the Commission's). However I think you treat this too much as an interesting intellectual puzzle, rather than representing the public. The whole point of a FPTP system is that it allows for the representation of distinct communities. While I favour a more proportional system, I would want to preserve this feature of the existing system, which has considerable value. Like almost everyone here I agree that we should start from wards, but should not be straightjacketed by them. And my point about taking account of the most up to date wards stands. PS: As my submission to the Commission said, there is no objection in principle to crossing the administrative borders of Birmingham, if it produces sensible community boundaries within Greater Birmingham. But we should seek to observe meaningful boundaries to local people where they exist. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 14, 2018 17:59:29 GMT
Of course its about finding a balance but I don't see how 5% is balanced. Any less and the whole review would descend into farce and the commission would have to ditch wards entirely and just draw seats freehand. So how is the bare minimum you can get away with deemed "a sensible middle ground" especially when we consider that the 5% rule that the commission had to abide by is the most stringent in the world. The New Zealand, Canadian, German, US etc bodies responsible for drawing boundaries don't have to adhere to such a strict variance. In the US, Congressional Districts have to be as close as possible to equal, but they do not have to consider factors like community ties. The only strictures they have to follow are those of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees minority communities a district where they are in the majority if there are enough of them in a state. This is what allowed them (up till now) to get away with such blatant gerrymandering. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Sept 14, 2018 18:10:27 GMT
The problem I have with such strict tolerances is that it forces the commission to break their own rules with reckless abandon. I disagree that the 5% threshold has meant that most seats haven't turned out too bad, most seats ARE bad their just bad in a way that is totally unavoidable and "could have been worse" so we tut and accept it. Take an example like Worcester, the present seat neatly matches the local authority, perfect we all cheer, but oh no its a whole 489 electors short of the quota thus the BC has to create another cross authority seat which their own rules explicitly state should be avoided. Thus now the present new seat rather than neatly taking in the whole city now includes the city and a few tacked on villages on the other side of the motorway. Of course its about finding a balance but I don't see how 5% is balanced. Any less and the whole review would descend into farce and the commission would have to ditch wards entirely and just draw seats freehand. So how is the bare minimum you can get away with deemed "a sensible middle ground" especially when we consider that the 5% rule that the commission had to abide by is the most stringent in the world. The New Zealand, Canadian, German, US etc bodies responsible for drawing boundaries don't have to adhere to such a strict variance. Indeed isn't the main USP of FPTP that it provides us with our own community champion? What use is that if community links have been disrupted so much in the name of seat equalisation? Wouldn't it be better in that scenario to just ditch the whole system and use a form of PR? The whole thing just stinks if you ask me. Well said, once we get into a strict numbers game we might as well just move to county based STV. I am a strong supporter of FPTP but the existing legislation butchers it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 18:15:16 GMT
Maybe that's the problem.
Workable seats under a form of PR, or unworkable ones under FPtP?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Sept 14, 2018 18:18:00 GMT
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! They messed up by not considering the possibility of putting the Wirral with the then Cheshire County Council area; then when that thing was rejected (quite rightly) they had no choice but to have constituencies on the Wirral with average electorate nowhere near the quota, exacerbated by having 22 wards to divide up into four constituencies (with no split wards) meant two of them would be quite a bit smaller than even the Wirral average. I think 10%, or 5% as standard but with the flexibility to go up to 10% if it makes it significantly easier to follow the other rules, would work well. It would avoid most cross-county constituencies (at a ceremonial county level, Rutland and Herefordshire would still need them, but they might be the only ones; it'd certainly deal with Devonwall) and significantly reduce the need to split wards (perhaps to zero); it should also reduce the numbers of split smaller towns and orphan wards. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 14, 2018 22:32:25 GMT
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! And now an email saying they have fixed it! The software was confused by the split wards apparently
Fortunately for EC, the new Edinburgh West is still notionally SNP, but only by 687 votes. I don't think the Lib Dems will be all that worried by that prediction since they will figure to get somewhat more than 234 votes out of the 7458 transferring in from Edinburgh SW, and rather better than 257 out of the 4133 votes arriving from Edinburgh N and Leith..
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,056
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 14, 2018 22:52:42 GMT
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! They messed up by not considering the possibility of putting the Wirral with the then Cheshire County Council area; then when that thing was rejected (quite rightly) they had no choice but to have constituencies on the Wirral with average electorate nowhere near the quota, exacerbated by having 22 wards to divide up into four constituencies (with no split wards) meant two of them would be quite a bit smaller than even the Wirral average. I think 10%, or 5% as standard but with the flexibility to go up to 10% if it makes it significantly easier to follow the other rules, would work well. It would avoid most cross-county constituencies (at a ceremonial county level, Rutland and Herefordshire would still need them, but they might be the only ones; it'd certainly deal with Devonwall) and significantly reduce the need to split wards (perhaps to zero); it should also reduce the numbers of split smaller towns and orphan wards. Well quite. BCE not considering Merseyside & Cheshire together created a rod for their own backs. FFS the Wirral Peninsula is split between two 'counties' (and it never should have been, Ellesmere Port & Neston being left in 'new' Cheshire was just truly bizarre) and there was a really easy solution for the BCE for the 2010 boundaries but they didn't take it... Perhaps if they'd dealt with it then you wouldn't have Bromborough being split between three seats now... |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 15, 2018 8:54:33 GMT
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! They messed up by not considering the possibility of putting the Wirral with the then Cheshire County Council area; then when that thing was rejected (quite rightly) they had no choice but to have constituencies on the Wirral with average electorate nowhere near the quota, exacerbated by having 22 wards to divide up into four constituencies (with no split wards) meant two of them would be quite a bit smaller than even the Wirral average. I think 10%, or 5% as standard but with the flexibility to go up to 10% if it makes it significantly easier to follow the other rules, would work well. It would avoid most cross-county constituencies (at a ceremonial county level, Rutland and Herefordshire would still need them, but they might be the only ones; it'd certainly deal with Devonwall) and significantly reduce the need to split wards (perhaps to zero); it should also reduce the numbers of split smaller towns and orphan wards. IIRC the biggest problem was that they had completed the Cheshire review and produced final recommendations before they even started to review Merseyside, with the result that they had closed off the option of Wirral + Cheshire (the only halfway sensible solution) due to their own lack of foresight. Again, it was pretty obvious to anyone that any Mersey Tunnels constituency would never work and therefore faced with that, the alternative of 4 undersized seats, and linking it with Cheshire, the latter was the least worst option. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 15, 2018 15:25:25 GMT
Has there been any indication from either Martin Baxter or Professors Thrasher and Rallings of a publication of their data in spreadsheet form?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Sept 15, 2018 16:13:13 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. Also: Blackpool North & Fleetwood: EC Con maj 1165, AW Lab maj 493 Littleborough & Saddleworth: EC Lab maj 3513, AW Con maj 896 Milton Keynes South: EC Con maj 1200, AW Lab maj 984 Stroud: EC Lab maj 104, AW Con maj 1107 I've also seen a couple where they have the same winner but one a lot closer than the other: Bradford South East & Spen: EC Lab maj 5239, AW Lab maj 506 Falmouth, Camborne & Redruth: EC Lab maj 3, AW Lab maj 4977 |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 16, 2018 13:35:00 GMT
Has there been any indication from either Martin Baxter or Professors Thrasher and Rallings of a publication of their data in spreadsheet form? I wrote to both sources, R&T haven't responded (so far), Mr.Baxter intends to sell his data (out of reach for me). |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 16, 2018 13:39:00 GMT
For the final proposals of the English BoundaryCommission i cannot find maps of the regions (only those of the single seats). Has anyone succeeded?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 16, 2018 17:25:28 GMT
For the final proposals of the English BoundaryCommission i cannot find maps of the regions (only those of the single seats). Has anyone succeeded? Not of regions as such, but a BCE map covering the whole of England can be accessed here (type in any random region or postcode to get started and then you can scroll far and wide)
and likewise on the Baxter site here (where you can scroll even farther and wider because it covers the whole UK - the text introducing it says it's the initial proposals but in fact it's been updated to show the final proposals)
Hope these help.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 16, 2018 19:32:51 GMT
Has there been any indication from either Martin Baxter or Professors Thrasher and Rallings of a publication of their data in spreadsheet form? I wrote to both sources, R&T haven't responded (so far), Mr.Baxter intends to sell his data (out of reach for me). Damn! Next time I find an error on his site I will email saying "leave £100 behind the hot water pipes at Waterloo Station and I will tell you where the error on your website is" |
|
|
|
Post by jed on Sept 16, 2018 22:49:22 GMT
EDINBURGH SOUTH - EC Lab maj 4568, AW Con maj 1863 EDINBURGH WEST - EC SNP maj 1698, AW LD maj 244 FIFE SOUTH - EC Lab maj 127, AW SNP maj 175 IPSWICH - EC Lab maj 282, AW Con maj 63 PERTH AND NORTH PERTHSHIRE - EC SNP maj 12, AW Con maj 336 UXBRIDGE AND NORTHOLT - EC Lab maj 489, AW Con maj 133 With the exception of Edinburgh South, most of these differences are fairly marginal - they are basically too close to call. Also Anthony Wells has counted Buckingham as "Other", while Electoral Calculus and R&T count it as Conservative. Also: Blackpool North & Fleetwood: EC Con maj 1165, AW Lab maj 493 Littleborough & Saddleworth: EC Lab maj 3513, AW Con maj 896 Milton Keynes South: EC Con maj 1200, AW Lab maj 984 Stroud: EC Lab maj 104, AW Con maj 1107 I've also seen a couple where they have the same winner but one a lot closer than the other: Bradford South East & Spen: EC Lab maj 5239, AW Lab maj 506 Falmouth, Camborne & Redruth: EC Lab maj 3, AW Lab maj 4977 Also Darlington: EC (LAB - 826), AW (CON - 2,436) Using ward results posted on here by David Boothroyd, just one new constituency has fully accurate numbers. Feltham & Hounslow: LAB - 29,004 | CON - 17,724. (Maj 11,280). |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 16, 2018 23:20:56 GMT
Also Darlington: EC (LAB - 826), AW (CON - 2,436) The Conservatives would need to have got ~80% of the vote in the Darlington council section of the current Sedgefield constituency to get AW's majority. Even on 2015 council they would need to get all non-Labour votes, never mind that the Labour vote increased at the 2017 GE and not all of the non-big 2 votes go Conservative nationally. EC definitely underestimate them a bit, but not enough to change the seat never mind get AW's 2436 majority. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 17, 2018 6:00:18 GMT
I am beginning to form the opinion that the only accurate numbers published (or at least that we suspect) are those produced by Professors Thrasher and Rallings and, if I understand what he told me earlier is correct, they will only be published once Parliament approves the boundary changes, therefore we should now lobby Parliament to accept the changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 17, 2018 7:05:08 GMT
Electoral Calculus is crap. Anthony Wells uses the same method as Rallings & Thrasher (as does our own Pete Whitehead ) but makes less adjustments for the absence of relevant local government results. Even Rallings & Thrasher will make mistakes where the persistent distribution of minor party votes at local elections does not correspond to their distribution at general elections - not uncommon for the Liberal Democrats, and can seriously distort notionals where a Liberal "local" ward changes constituencies (this applied for example to Birmingham Hall Green & Selly Oak at the last redistribution).
Nonetheless Rallings & Thrasher is the best there is, but Anthony Wells figures, available via UK Polling Report, are good enough for most purposes. |
|
