2018 review

[piperdave]

Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers would need to know by the time of the summer recess before the canvass at the absolute latest if they are to produce the register on the basis of the new constituencies. More time will always be welcome from their perspective.

[Crimson King]

why? The new register is just a matter of reallocating existing electors, with known addresses, to the new constituencies.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

In some areas where ward boundaries have changed since 2015, EROs will have to arrange polling district boundaries so that they match with the old ward boundaries that have now become Parliamentary constituency boundaries.

[Crimson King]

ok, so it might not be as simple as just reallocating each ward, or even PD, and might take a some time in some places, but it would be a problem independent of the register canvass

[justin124]

It would not actually take long to implement the Boundary Review were Parliament to vote for it. The changes introduced prior to the 1983 election were approved a mere two months earlier. However, it seems unlikely that the Government has the support to push through these proposals.

[greenhert]

Nov 21, 2018 11:30:14 GMT justin124 said:

It would not actually take long to implement the Boundary Review were Parliament to vote for it. The changes introduced prior to the 1983 election were approved a mere two months earlier. However, it seems unlikely that the Government has the support to push through these proposals.

As has been said before, there will be too many Conservative rebels for this Boundary Review to be pushed through, and I know of no non-Conservative MPs who would vote for it either.

The best option in these circumstances, barring introducing proportional representation along the lines of the AMS systems used in elections to the London Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, is to pass Afzal Khan's amendment and start a fresh review with 650 seats instead of 600, to be completed by 2021.

[justin124]

I tend to agree - but am a bit surprised that the Government has not already taken that option. DUP support now appears highly doubtful!

[The Bishop]

Nov 21, 2018 16:35:58 GMT justin124 said:

I tend to agree - but am a bit surprised that the Government has not already taken that option. DUP support now appears highly doubtful!

Stubbornness?

Though I haven't heard May repeating Cameron's truly hideous "cost of politics" soundbite for a while now. Which might or might not be significant.

[Adrian]

Sept 10, 2018 11:24:10 GMT Ron Swanson said:

Sept 10, 2018 11:00:46 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

And that is the parties fault. They fucked about with it and argued the toss.

What time are we expecting to hear the final decision?

FWIW I am advised that the changes are not expected to go through.

I’m not sure.

Hopefully you’re right and they are chucked out.

I can’t see Stuart Andrew or Andrea Jenkyns supporting them. The latter would be toast, if it was Morley & Batley.

Just found this: Batley and Morley Boundary Commission tale from 1885.  batleysmile.tumblr.com/post/150347541668/batley-and-morley

[islington]

Great find by Adrian. It's interesting that no one seems to have been disputing the actual boundary, but the name was apparently all-important.

Actually, it will have been an uphill fight to get 'Batley' in the name because, although the proposed constituency included (among other places) the parish of Batley, the actual town of Batley itself was in the part of the parish that lay within the Parliamentary Borough of Dewsbury. This meant that although Batley town was part of the county division in a formal sense, the great majority of qualifying electors living there would also have qualified for the borough of Dewsbury and would have voted accordingly (since for voters with a dual qualification in respect of the same holding, the borough took priority).

This is why it was customary for the census to give the population of county divisions net of any boroughs within or overlapping their territory - in practice, the great majority of voters living in a Parliamentary borough would have voted in that borough, not in the county division of which they were theoretically also part.

The 1885 review was pretty consistent in not naming county divisions after places that lay within boroughs that overlapped the division (although Chesterton in Cambs was a rare exception). So they would naturally have sought to name it after a place that was within the division but not within any overlapping borough. This approach leaves Morley as the obvious candidate.

I admit I've strayed a little off the topic of the 2018 review, but its predecessor of 1885 is definitely my favourite review and if I get time I'll start a thread about it to explain why.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

There were a lot of disputes about names in the 1885 review - which unlike now had to be resolved by Parliament as the constituencies were described in primary legislation.

[finsobruce]

Nov 22, 2018 15:51:22 GMT islington said:

Great find by Adrian. It's interesting that no one seems to have been disputing the actual boundary, but the name was apparently all-important.

Actually, it will have been an uphill fight to get 'Batley' in the name because, although the proposed constituency included (among other places) the parish of Batley, the actual town of Batley itself was in the part of the parish that lay within the Parliamentary Borough of Dewsbury. This meant that although Batley town was part of the county division in a formal sense, the great majority of qualifying electors living there would also have qualified for the borough of Dewsbury and would have voted accordingly (since for voters with a dual qualification in respect of the same holding, the borough took priority).

This is why it was customary for the census to give the population of county divisions net of any boroughs within or overlapping their territory - in practice, the great majority of voters living in a Parliamentary borough would have voted in that borough, not in the county division of which they were theoretically also part.

The 1885 review was pretty consistent in not naming county divisions after places that lay within boroughs that overlapped the division (although Chesterton in Cambs was a rare exception). So they would naturally have sought to name it after a place that was within the division but not within any overlapping borough. This approach leaves Morley as the obvious candidate.

I admit I've strayed a little off the topic of the 2018 review, but its predecessor of 1885 is definitely my favourite review and if I get time I'll start a thread about it to explain why.

There's a copy on abe books just at the moment for £293 plus £10 postage (includes Irish and Scottish reviews). How the copy got to Leipzig is anyone's guess..... (the only other full copy seems to be about £1300!!!).

David can possibly advise on how reasonable this is.

EDIT: of course you may already have it, which is why it is your favourite but someone else on here might fancy it for christmas.....

[edgbaston]

Nov 22, 2018 14:56:17 GMT Adrian said:

Sept 10, 2018 11:24:10 GMT Ron Swanson said:

I’m not sure.

Hopefully you’re right and they are chucked out.

I can’t see Stuart Andrew or Andrea Jenkyns supporting them. The latter would be toast, if it was Morley & Batley.

Just found this: Batley and Morley Boundary Commission tale from 1885.  batleysmile.tumblr.com/post/150347541668/batley-and-morley

"They suggested a title for the new constituency made up of three letters from each of the contending townships: the first three from Morley and the last three from Batley would have been perfectly suitable, they thought.
"

A bit of fantastic dry Yorkshire wit there.

[islington]

I believe a similar idea was suggested when Greater London was established and among the reorganized boroughs was a merger of Fulham and Hammersmith.

Fulham Council proposed that the name of the merged authority should be formed by taking the first three letters of 'Fulham' and the first three of 'Hammersmith'.

Boringly it got called 'Hammersmith and Fulham' instead.

[islington]

Thank you Mr Marder.

I stand corrected.

[yellowperil]

Nov 22, 2018 20:14:36 GMT islington said:

I believe a similar idea was suggested when Greater London was established and among the reorganized boroughs was a merger of Fulham and Hammersmith.

Fulham Council proposed that the name of the merged authority should be formed by taking the first three letters of 'Fulham' and the first three of 'Hammersmith'.

Boringly it got called 'Hammersmith and Fulham' instead.

I don't see why It couldn't have been  the first three letters of Hammersmith and the last three of Fulham

[finsobruce]

Nov 22, 2018 23:35:57 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 22, 2018 20:14:36 GMT islington said:

I believe a similar idea was suggested when Greater London was established and among the reorganized boroughs was a merger of Fulham and Hammersmith.

Fulham Council proposed that the name of the merged authority should be formed by taking the first three letters of 'Fulham' and the first three of 'Hammersmith'.

Boringly it got called 'Hammersmith and Fulham' instead.

I don't see why It couldn't have been  the first three letters of Hammersmith and the last three of Fulham

There you go, hamming it up again....

[Peter Wilkinson]

Nov 21, 2018 11:30:14 GMT justin124 said:

It would not actually take long to implement the Boundary Review were Parliament to vote for it. The changes introduced prior to the 1983 election were approved a mere two months earlier.

In principle, boundary changes probably could still be introduced that quickly - but in practice, doing so these days would be likely to run into some logistical difficulties that either didn't exist or were on a noticeably smaller scale then than now.

For instance, in 1983, it was unusual to have general and local elections on the same day. And Thatcher preferred it that way - the local elections in 1983 were held on 5 May and Thatcher waited for their results before calling the general election on 9 June. In 2022, the local elections will again be on 5 May - and under the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, unless another early general election is engineered meanwhile, the general election will also be on 5 May.

Also, the 1983 boundary changes gave far more priority to aligning parliamentary constituencies with local government boundaries than to trying to give them as nearly as possible electorates of the same size. Later boundary reviews gave electoral equality a rather higher priority and now, again since the Fixed Terms Parliament Act, this has become the primary consideration. The effects are very noticeable. For instance, in 1983, so far as I can see after a quick check, the only London constituency (out of 84) that crossed a local authority boundary was City of London and Westminster South. Under the current proposals, 31 London constituencies out of 68 cross local authority boundaries, involving every London borough except for Kensington and Chelsea and Bromley.

A further problem, which admittedly applied in 1983 as well as 2022, is that in a number of areas, the new constituency boundaries have been based on ward boundaries which will have been revised meanwhile.

Now, suppose that you are the electoral officer of a London borough in May 2022. You have both a general and a local election on the same day. Both are using new boundaries. However, the boundaries for your five new constituencies (one entirely within the borough, the other four each shared with a different neighbouring borough) have been based on the boundaries of your old wards (and the old wards of your neighbours, who have also had recent ward boundary reviews). Because the two elections are being held on the same day, your polling districts absolutely have to be revised so that they comply with both sets of boundaries at the same time, with polling stations to match. And each of the cross-borough parliamentary elections has to be coordinated with the relevant neighbouring borough - while not letting them get confused with your own borough election.

This should not be an impossible set of problems to solve, given a bit of time, effort and careful thought - but they require enough coordination that they are definitely going to be more difficult to sort out in a couple of months without serious risk of something going badly wrong than they would be if there was a year available.

[mrpastelito]

Nov 22, 2018 23:38:02 GMT finsobruce said:

Nov 22, 2018 23:35:57 GMT yellowperil said:

I don't see why It couldn't have been  the first three letters of Hammersmith and the last three of Fulham

There you go, hamming it up again....

Indeed, when the obvious solution would've been a merger creating the Borough of Fulhammersmith.

[froome]

Nov 22, 2018 23:35:57 GMT yellowperil said:

Nov 22, 2018 20:14:36 GMT islington said:

I believe a similar idea was suggested when Greater London was established and among the reorganized boroughs was a merger of Fulham and Hammersmith.

Fulham Council proposed that the name of the merged authority should be formed by taking the first three letters of 'Fulham' and the first three of 'Hammersmith'.

Boringly it got called 'Hammersmith and Fulham' instead.

I don't see why It couldn't have been  the first three letters of Hammersmith and the last three of Fulham

Given the multiple derivations of 'ham' in place names, having a name Hamham would have been quite possible. There is a Wick Wick just outside of Bristol.