|
|
Post by catking on Sept 17, 2018 9:57:21 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 From the areas I know quite well, AW is definitely more accurate than EC on Blackpool North or Littleborough & Saddleworth. No way that Blackpool North seat is notionally Tory and no way L&S is that Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 17, 2018 12:44:35 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 very much like the Australian system, where reviews are triggered when one state is entitled to an extra seat and another consequently loses one. If you abolished cross-county seats (bar Rutland and Herefordshire, obviously), you could institute that quite easily. It means you'd have to abandon the 5% rule, but that's no bad thing. Language along the lines as that underpinning local government boundaries (which has 10% as the target, with the possibility to go a little outside but only when there are strong grounds on other criteria) and with a requirement to minimise electorate variances within a given county would solve it fairly easily. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Sept 17, 2018 12:49:54 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 very much like the Australian system, where reviews are triggered when one state is entitled to an extra seat and another consequently loses one. If you abolished cross-county seats (bar Rutland and Herefordshire, obviously), you could institute that quite easily. It means you'd have to abandon the 5% rule, but that's no bad thing. Language along the lines as that underpinning local government boundaries (which has 10% as the target, with the possibility to go a little outside but only when there are strong grounds on other criteria) and with a requirement to minimise electorate variances within a given county would solve it fairly easily.
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 17, 2018 13:08:06 GMT
I very much like the Australian system, where reviews are triggered when one state is entitled to an extra seat and another consequently loses one. If you abolished cross-county seats (bar Rutland and Herefordshire, obviously), you could institute that quite easily. It means you'd have to abandon the 5% rule, but that's no bad thing. Language along the lines as that underpinning local government boundaries (which has 10% as the target, with the possibility to go a little outside but only when there are strong grounds on other criteria) and with a requirement to minimise electorate variances within a given county would solve it fairly easily.
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
Many people in southwest and south Sheffield still wish they lived in Derbyshire, and one of the reasons for the convolutions over Hallam is not being able to cross into the small wards of Derbyshire... |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 17, 2018 15:23:14 GMT
I very much like the Australian system, where reviews are triggered when one state is entitled to an extra seat and another consequently loses one. If you abolished cross-county seats (bar Rutland and Herefordshire, obviously), you could institute that quite easily. It means you'd have to abandon the 5% rule, but that's no bad thing. Language along the lines as that underpinning local government boundaries (which has 10% as the target, with the possibility to go a little outside but only when there are strong grounds on other criteria) and with a requirement to minimise electorate variances within a given county would solve it fairly easily.
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
The legislation could easily state that Wirral should be included with the two Cheshires, Halton and Warrington in a statutory review area.
As far as the silliness or otherwise of county boundaries is concerned, there are various democratic channels available to you if you want a boundary to be moved. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Sept 17, 2018 15:34:31 GMT
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
Many people in southwest and south Sheffield still wish they lived in Derbyshire, and one of the reasons for the convolutions over Hallam is not being able to cross into the small wards of Derbyshire... "Many people"? Would love to see some evidence for that! It would be perfectly sensible to consider Eckington, Killamarsh and even Dronfield for inclusion in Sheffield Parliamentary constituencies, though, as the links are obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 17, 2018 17:31:36 GMT
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
Many people in southwest and south Sheffield still wish they lived in Derbyshire, and one of the reasons for the convolutions over Hallam is not being able to cross into the small wards of Derbyshire... Aren't Cleethorpes and Grimsby in a similar situation? The current boundaries force Cleethorpes to loop round Grimsby and extend as far as Barton. The new ones force Grimsby to be split. In both situations the best solution to my non-local eye would seem to be keeping Grimsby intact and extending it north to make up the numbers. Similarly, extending Cleethorpes south along the coast into Lincolnshire to link with areas which were in the same historic county as it. But.... not allowed as they are in different regions. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Sept 17, 2018 18:02:47 GMT
I very much like the Australian system, where reviews are triggered when one state is entitled to an extra seat and another consequently loses one. If you abolished cross-county seats (bar Rutland and Herefordshire, obviously), you could institute that quite easily. It means you'd have to abandon the 5% rule, but that's no bad thing. Language along the lines as that underpinning local government boundaries (which has 10% as the target, with the possibility to go a little outside but only when there are strong grounds on other criteria) and with a requirement to minimise electorate variances within a given county would solve it fairly easily.
Counties and federal states are very different and it would be a bit silly to treat them the same. And some "county" lines are, as has been discussed, silly. Just in the North West, the Cheshire/Wirral border being crossed makes for better seats. The Merseyside/Lancashire border and Greater Manchester/Lancashire/Cheshire border being crossed makes a lot of sense in a number of places and wouldn't be all that controversial.
For a couple of reasons, I like the idea of keeping review areas manageable. One is the potential for rolling reviews mentioned by East Anglian Lefty; the other is that it makes it easier to engage in the review process if your plans for Carlisle don't potentially have knock-on effects in Crewe. (OK, that may seem a silly example, but the initial proposals this time did have effects as far away as Great Ayton in northern North Yorkshire from their decisions in Sheffield.) Counties are IMO mostly around the right size and have the advantage that people are reasonably familiar with them. I take your point about Greater Manchester and Merseyside, but except in the case of Wirral/Cheshire I think that, while some constituencies crossing the borders might be workable and not too controversial, if you have a little more flexibility than the current rules allow, it should be possible to draw reasonable boundaries in the North-West without crossing them. Similarly with the Sheffield/Derbyshire example, I (as a Sheffielder) would be fairly relaxed about including Killamarsh, Eckington, Dronfield or Hathersage in a Sheffield constituency (though, as I say, I'm a Sheffielder -- I suspect pitchforks might be wielded in the places mentioned themselves) but I don't see it as particularly helpful if there's a bit of flexibility in the rules. I do think that if there's a 5% rule and ward splitting is forbidden it would more sense putting bits of Derbyshire in Hallam than reaching across to Penistone East, but I don't support banning ward splitting in the context of a 5% rule... Wirral MB is a genuine exception and if an arrangement like this were to be adopted I would say it should be treated as part of Cheshire. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Sept 17, 2018 18:05:20 GMT
Aren't Cleethorpes and Grimsby in a similar situation? The current boundaries force Cleethorpes to loop round Grimsby and extend as far as Barton. The new ones force Grimsby to be split. In both situations the best solution to my non-local eye would seem to be keeping Grimsby intact and extending it north to make up the numbers. Similarly, extending Cleethorpes south along the coast into Lincolnshire to link with areas which were in the same historic county as it. But.... not allowed as they are in different regions. I agree. I'd treat those two unitaries on the south side of the Humber as part of Lincolnshire; the regional boundary is not helpful. I suppose we can be thankful that the BCE have never suggested a Humber Banks constituency combining Grimsby with part of Holderness. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069
|
Post by jamie on Sept 17, 2018 19:02:54 GMT
I suppose we can be thankful that the BCE have never suggested a Humber Banks constituency combining Grimsby with part of Holderness. We all know Humber Banks would be Goole and Waltham. |
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Sept 17, 2018 19:37:39 GMT
Under the old rules the Boundary Commission conducted interim reviews in many cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 17, 2018 21:08:07 GMT
Under the old rules the Boundary Commission conducted interim reviews in many cases. True, but with the exception of Milton Keynes pre-1992 election, none of them amounted to anything significant. In 1982 I believe the electorates ranged from around 18,000 in Newcastle UT central to 132,000 in South Antrim. What I was suggesting further up the thread and which E.Anglian also suggested were more substantive interim reviews triggered by set criteria. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Sept 19, 2018 10:55:51 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. Prof. Thrasher responded that to me, too. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 20, 2018 16:48:33 GMT
Proposed London constituency names that are different to the current ones, (which isn't necessarily useful information, but I'll post it anyway): Barking & Beckton Battersea & Clapham Bexley & Sidcup Brixton & Vauxhall Camden & St Pancras Chingford & Woodford Croydon South East Croydon South West Dulwich & Sydenham Ealing & Acton Eltham & Welling Enfield Erith & Crayford Feltham & Hounslow Finchley & Enfield Southgate Finsbury Park & Stoke Newington Greenford & Sudbury Greenwich & Deptford Hackney Central Hammersmith & Fulham Hampstead Harrow North Harrow South & Kenton Hillingdon & Uxbridge Ilford North & Wanstead Isleworth, Brentford & Chiswick Islington Kensington & Chelsea Kilburn Lewisham & Catford Leyton & Stratford Mitcham & Norbury Norwood & Thornton Heath Poplar & Canning Town Shoreditch & Bethnal Green Southall & Heston Stepney & Bow Streatham & Brixton South Wandsworth & Putney Wembley Willesden & Shepherd's Bush Woolwich No-one else seems to have commented that "Camden and St Pancras" is a daft name. I'd vote the Review down on that basis alone. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 20, 2018 16:58:57 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.Yes, of course we should. Getting sight of a new set of notional majorities is obviously the most important factor in deciding whether or not to adopt these new boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 21, 2018 8:30:29 GMT
Under the old rules the Boundary Commission conducted interim reviews in many cases. True, but with the exception of Milton Keynes pre-1992 election, none of them amounted to anything significant. In 1982 I believe the electorates ranged from around 18,000 in Newcastle UT central to 132,000 in South Antrim. What I was suggesting further up the thread and which E.Anglian also suggested were more substantive interim reviews triggered by set criteria. How on earth did South Antrim get so big? |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 21, 2018 8:49:14 GMT
Antrim South through history:
1950: 77,499
1951: 79,533
1955: 84,939
1959: 93,634
1964: 105,304
1966: 113,645
1970: 143,274
Boundary changes
Feb 1974: 118,483
Oct 1974: 117,834
1979: 126,444
Boundary changes
1983: 59,233
1987: 61,649
1992: 67,192
1997: 69,512
2001: 70,651
2005: 66,580
Boundary changes
2010: 63,054
2015: 67,425
2017: 68,244
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,917
|
Post by YL on Sept 21, 2018 9:29:22 GMT
True, but with the exception of Milton Keynes pre-1992 election, none of them amounted to anything significant. In 1982 I believe the electorates ranged from around 18,000 in Newcastle UT central to 132,000 in South Antrim. What I was suggesting further up the thread and which E.Anglian also suggested were more substantive interim reviews triggered by set criteria. How on earth did South Antrim get so big? Northern Ireland was deliberately under-represented during the existence of the original Stormont parliament: it only had 12 seats from 1950 until 1983. I presume that then combined with suburban expansion in the constituency to give the very large electorate. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 21, 2018 9:39:51 GMT
True, but with the exception of Milton Keynes pre-1992 election, none of them amounted to anything significant. In 1982 I believe the electorates ranged from around 18,000 in Newcastle UT central to 132,000 in South Antrim. What I was suggesting further up the thread and which E.Anglian also suggested were more substantive interim reviews triggered by set criteria. How on earth did South Antrim get so big? Until 1983, Northern Ireland only had 12 seats and was deliberately underrepresented. So the NI seats would have been large anyway compared with the rest of the country. In the case of South Antrim specifically, I think it was similar to Milton Keynes, there was lots of house building in the Newtownabbey area which caused the electorate to rise so quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 29, 2018 13:14:03 GMT
In an idle moment I tried to find how to get printed versions of the 2018 reports but they don't appear to have been sent for printing yet.
|
|
