|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 7, 2019 17:56:31 GMT
I would have it fixed at
England 600
NI 25
Wales 45
Scotland 80
Keep the 4 reserved constituencies from the last review + Anglesey.
Allocate the seats using the last census to ceremonial counties within England (put Rutland in with Lincs or Leices), preserved counties in Wales and the old regional council areas in Scotland.
Lines to be drawn by civil servants from local authorities within the subdivisions mentioned above.
Lines drawn on basis of population with 15% local quota.
If existing constituencies are within quota no change will be made
Boundary commission slimmed down into a skeleton organisation.
Automatic review every 10 years. Approval by House of Lords needed only.
Westminster constituencies to be used for electing members of the Scottish, Welsh and NI devolved bodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 7, 2019 18:04:20 GMT
I would have it fixed at England 600 NI 25 Wales 45 Scotland 80 Why would England be so under-represented compared to those regions which have devolved assemblies? (given that on those numbers, England should have about 750 seats) - just blatant gerrymandering or some other rationale? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,841 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 7, 2019 18:43:06 GMT
If existing constituencies are within quota no change will be made Not possible. If you have a sausage-shaped area that is 75%, 100%, 125% the 100% *MUST* be changed to fix the others. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 8, 2019 1:14:40 GMT
I would have it fixed at England 600 NI 25 Wales 45 Scotland 80 Why would England be so under-represented compared to those regions which have devolved assemblies? (given that on those numbers, England should have about 750 seats) - just blatant gerrymandering or some other rationale? I wish it were gerrymandering, but Labour would only really net an extra 5 or seats from this over apportionment. The main reason for it is to bolster the parliamentary voices of these nations so that they are more important in the election and in the HoC - a Cameron 2015 situation, for example, is made harder (1 Scottish seat but an overall majority) |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 8, 2019 1:17:14 GMT
If existing constituencies are within quota no change will be made Not possible. If you have a sausage-shaped area that is 75%, 100%, 125% the 100% *MUST* be changed to fix the others. You misunderstand me. I refer to 'constituencies' as in all the seats within the areas I mentioned as needing to be in quota. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 8, 2019 3:21:45 GMT
I think the only change needed is to leave the total at 650. The five percent actually worked out OK. The real reason Labour opposed it was because they think they are better at exploiting flexibility during the consultation process. (Of course, I also think the whole FPTP system is corrupt and self-serving.) I do agree, although my ideal electoral system would still involve more than half of members being elected in single-member constituencies by FPTP, so boundary reviews would remain an occasional necessity. Possibly not as frequent as every 10 years, unless they were not (unlike at present) carried out in all nations and regions simultaneously. On the size of the Commons: 650 is fine for now. Would only support a reduction if accompanied by a proper and comprehensive programme of decentralisation. On the figures used: no qualms with using population figures. If we're using the electorate, then I'd rather have automatic registration. If that's not forthcoming, then more recent statistics are obviously preferable to older ones. On the building blocks of constituencies: does it really have to be wards? Using polling districts would be more fiddly and take ages, I suppose. Plus in a lot of areas it simply isn't necessary to go into that much detail in order to build coherent seats within a quota. I thought I'd throw the question back out there. Speaking of quotas... ... I think 5% hasn't caused too much trouble, although there are areas in which a tolerance of up to 7.5% could've achieved better outcomes. On prioritising current/historic names and boundaries: this should not be a consideration at a review that introduces multiple new rules at once. At subsequent reviews under the same criteria, on the other hand, there ought to be a return to prioritising minimal change wherever possible. On a mechanism for bringing in new boundaries automatically: I'm in favour, but there could still be a further counter-mechanism whereby one chamber could vote the proposals down if a member brings forward a motion to object to them, which then passes with at least a three-fifths majority. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 8:34:48 GMT
Why would England be so under-represented compared to those regions which have devolved assemblies? (given that on those numbers, England should have about 750 seats) - just blatant gerrymandering or some other rationale? I wish it were gerrymandering, but Labour would only really net an extra 5 or seats from this over apportionment. The main reason for it is to bolster the parliamentary voices of these nations so that they are more important in the election and in the HoC - a Cameron 2015 situation, for example, is made harder (1 Scottish seat but an overall majority) I didn't say it was a pro-Labour gerrymander, though it certainly benefits Labour relative to the Conservatives. It is very clearly an anti-Conservative gerrymander though. You might as well give some special status to London in order to justify giving that region more seats too and remove any pretence about what you're trying to achieve. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jun 8, 2019 9:18:51 GMT
I would have it fixed at England 600 NI 25 Wales 45 Scotland 80 Why would England be so under-represented compared to those regions which have devolved assemblies? (given that on those numbers, England should have about 750 seats) - just blatant gerrymandering or some other rationale? You are right that England is underrepresented, but on those numbers it should actually have 629 seats out of 750. It only has ~84% of electors. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 9:28:33 GMT
Why would England be so under-represented compared to those regions which have devolved assemblies? (given that on those numbers, England should have about 750 seats) - just blatant gerrymandering or some other rationale? You are right that England is underrepresented, but on those numbers it should actually have 629 seats out of 750. It only has ~84% of electors. I wasn't suggesting England should have 750 seats out of 750 (tempting as it may be) - the 750 figure was based on the quota being the same as for the other nations (which equated to a quote of around 48-49k) |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 8, 2019 16:16:41 GMT
I wish it were gerrymandering, but Labour would only really net an extra 5 or seats from this over apportionment. The main reason for it is to bolster the parliamentary voices of these nations so that they are more important in the election and in the HoC - a Cameron 2015 situation, for example, is made harder (1 Scottish seat but an overall majority) I didn't say it was a pro-Labour gerrymander, though it certainly benefits Labour relative to the Conservatives. It is very clearly an anti-Conservative gerrymander though. You might as well give some special status to London in order to justify giving that region more seats too and remove any pretence about what you're trying to achieve. As you know the conservatives are a ‘thing’ again in Scotland and the DUP support the Tories |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,841
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 8, 2019 18:31:18 GMT
If existing constituencies are within quota no change will be made Not possible. If you have a sausage-shaped area that is 75%, 100%, 125% the 100% *MUST* be changed to fix the others. You misunderstand me. I refer to 'constituencies' as in all the seats within the areas I mentioned as needing to be in quota. I guess I'm still a cuppa short of understanding, but can't reconcile your two statements. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 8, 2019 20:32:32 GMT
Let's get back to basics. The UK's electorate on December 1st 2018 was (as recorded by the ONS) 45,775,800 divided up as follows: England 38,371,400 (83.82% of UK), Wales 2,230,100 (4.87% of UK), Scotland 3,925,800 (8.57% of UK) and Northern Ireland 1,248,400 (2.73% of UK).
Therefore in a House of Commons of 650 members, England should have 545 seats (70,406 quota), Wales 32 seats (69,690 quota), Scotland 56 seats (70,104) and Northern Ireland 18 seats (69,356) compared to a UK wide quota of 70,424.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 8, 2019 21:43:06 GMT
If existing constituencies are within quota no change will be made Not possible. If you have a sausage-shaped area that is 75%, 100%, 125% the 100% *MUST* be changed to fix the others. You misunderstand me. I refer to 'constituencies' as in all the seats within the areas I mentioned as needing to be in quota. I guess I'm still a cuppa short of understanding, but can't reconcile your two statements. If you have a (eg) county with six constituencies which are all within quota, then there is no change. If two of the six are outside the quoate then the whole county needs redrawing. you can'tr just redraw the two seats which are outside quote as it will have knock-on changes on the others. An example is provided by the six Hertfordshire CC dvisoins covering Three Rivers. Four of the six were fine - one was seriously undersized (south Oxhey) and one sertiously oversized (Abbots Langlkgey). The problem was that these were at opposite ends of the district therefore you cpould not just transfer voters from one to the other - the neceessary changes affetced every otehr division in the distirtc resulting in some seriously silly divions (yes Three Rivers Rural I mean you - yes Rickmansworth East & Oxxhey Park you too) |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,841
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 8, 2019 22:35:20 GMT
I guess I'm still a cuppa short of understanding, but can't reconcile your two statements. If you have a (eg) county with six constituencies which are all within quota, then there is no change. If two of the six are outside the quoate then the whole county needs redrawing. you can'tr just redraw the two seats which are outside quote as it will have knock-on changes on the others.... Ta, that makes sense. So it's: If all existing constituencies in a review area are within quota no change will be made. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 9, 2019 8:12:24 GMT
resulting in some seriously silly divions (yes Three Rivers Rural I mean you - yes Rickmansworth East & Oxxhey Park you too) To be fair that is more to do with the silly external boundary of Three Rivers and the convention that district boundaries are not crossed; reviewing Three Rivers and Watford as a unit could give you 12 perfectly sensible county divisions. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 9, 2019 11:25:45 GMT
Maybe you should annexe Oxhey and Woodside
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 9, 2019 11:27:29 GMT
I wish it were gerrymandering, but Labour would only really net an extra 5 or seats from this over apportionment. The main reason for it is to bolster the parliamentary voices of these nations so that they are more important in the election and in the HoC - a Cameron 2015 situation, for example, is made harder (1 Scottish seat but an overall majority) I didn't say it was a pro-Labour gerrymander, though it certainly benefits Labour relative to the Conservatives. It is very clearly an anti-Conservative gerrymander though. You might as well give some special status to London in order to justify giving that region more seats too and remove any pretence about what you're trying to achieve. Looking at some of the new hypothetical seats in Scotland that may well be unfair on the Tories given their new-found strength there. 6 notional seats in Aberdeenshire, 2 in Angus, 1.5 in Moray. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 13:04:31 GMT
I didn't say it was a pro-Labour gerrymander, though it certainly benefits Labour relative to the Conservatives. It is very clearly an anti-Conservative gerrymander though. You might as well give some special status to London in order to justify giving that region more seats too and remove any pretence about what you're trying to achieve. Looking at some of the new hypothetical seats in Scotland that may well be unfair on the Tories given their new-found strength there. 6 notional seats in Aberdeenshire, 2 in Angus, 1.5 in Moray. But your proposals would also create eleven seats in Glasgow... |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 9, 2019 15:30:54 GMT
Looking at some of the new hypothetical seats in Scotland that may well be unfair on the Tories given their new-found strength there. 6 notional seats in Aberdeenshire, 2 in Angus, 1.5 in Moray. But your proposals would also create eleven seats in Glasgow... A city I have never been to and hope to explore later this year. Apparently it has its own underground network. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 9, 2019 15:55:52 GMT
But your proposals would also create eleven seats in Glasgow... A city I have never been to and hope to explore later this year. Apparently it has its own underground network. Well, in the sense that a single circular route can be described as a "network". But at least - unlike London - it is entirely underground. But a fabulous city. (Or at least was when I was last there, which is a while ago now.) |
|
