Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 19, 2019 12:32:37 GMT
"Onto a totally different subject, and the Queen adds "work will be taken forward to repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act".
No doubt when that gets repealed, the Parliamentary Constituencies Act will be reviewed at the same time
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Dec 19, 2019 13:38:22 GMT
Another reason a new review needs to be started is because of the fact that there were several mergers in local government terms in 2019, including a complete reorganisation of Dorset. Also, there have been extensive boundary changes in many of the larger local government areas e.g. London boroughs. Birmingham would be the biggest mess up if this review were implemented |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Dec 19, 2019 13:50:43 GMT
Despite being slighted when first introduced, I've became weirdly enamored with the current Scottish seats. Fought for five elections too.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 19, 2019 14:09:00 GMT
Despite being slighted when first introduced, I've became weirdly enamored with the current Scottish seats. Fought for five elections too. Obviously you are turning into a conservative....😊 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 29, 2019 12:02:49 GMT
Against that, a 600 seat review in 2020-23 would cause a lot more problems for the Conservative Party than previously. Also there must be a decent chance that the FTPA is replaced by something allowing the PM a free choice of the date of the next election, rather than holding to May 2024. I would remark that one of those problems in particular is that, if I understand the expected review timetable, the results of the review would only be laid before Parliament in autumn 2023, about 7 or 8 months before the due date for the election. Assuming that the new review is carried out under the same rules as the 2018 review, its proposals would seem likely to contain just as many constituencies split between local authorities - and would be very difficult to implement without errors on that short a timescale. This is probably the time at which to repeat something that I previously posted on another thread but relates to this question and is probably far more apposite here: Also, using boundaries from the 2018 review, based on December 2015 registers, for a May 2024 election (if the FTPA is still in place) or thereabouts (even if the FTPA is repealed, I'd still imagine that a PM with a stable majority won't want to go to the country before spring 2024) is likely to lead to some of the problems that the review was meant to be getting rid of. For instance, on the 2015 register, Hendon constituency was below quota and had a ward added to it to bring it within quota. Now, I haven't got its registered electorate for last Thursday's general election to hand, but I gather that, as a result of still-incomplete new development, without the extra ward the electorate was within a thousand of 80,000. Add in the extra ward, and the electorate now would have been a bit over 90,000 - and completion of the development will add a few more thousand to this. My suggestion would be that getting a new ROTP bill through Parliament, preferably with all-party support, should be an immediate priority once the WAB has been debated and passed (as it presumably now will be). The bill should require the Boundaries Commission to report in 2022; incorporate the proposals from Afzal Khan bill (650 MPs, and up to 7% variance on quota, to allow for rather more use of local authority boundaries than the 2018 review); and should be based on the registers from last Thursday's general election (as the review would standardly be using December 2019 registers already, and using the general election registers will include a number of late applicants who were entitled to be registered anyway). I’ve just commented on the ‘Dec 2019 electorates' thread about the implications of switching to 650 seats. Cross-party agreement is hugely valuable on this sort of issue so it would be a big step forward if the Tories and Labour could agree to support the Afzal Khan proposals. I’m frankly uncomfortable with a 7% tolerance (would 6% work?) but it would be a price worth paying to stop every boundary review from turning into a party political football. On the other hand, the Tories clearly want to get boundary changes through and the fact that the 2018 review is oven-ready (so to speak) must be very tempting. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 3, 2020 12:50:53 GMT
Guido is being reported by Matt Singh that the 600 rule is being scrapped in favour of 650 seats and that as a result new legislation will be required for a brand new seat of boundaries without any need for "Devonwall"
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 9, 2020 17:47:09 GMT
Report from London Evening Standard's Joe Murphy: 2018 review ABANDONED, new review to be on 650 seats with equalised electorates
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 9, 2020 17:48:59 GMT
Report from London Evening Standard's Joe Murphy: 2018 review ABANDONED, new review to be on 650 seats with equalised electorates I wonder how much money was spent/wasted on the previous reviews with 600 seats. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 9, 2020 17:54:35 GMT
Report from London Evening Standard's Joe Murphy: 2018 review ABANDONED, new review to be on 650 seats with equalised electorates I wonder how much money was spent/wasted on the previous reviews with 600 seats. I have asked this question to Ben Lake when the 2018 review was finally published, therefore will ask him to ask the question again when the new boundaries bill is placed before Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Jan 10, 2020 9:43:45 GMT
There is also the question of a very large number of wards being split due to both local government reorganisation but also extensive rewarding across the country which would see a very large number of wards split between constituencies if implemented(though the final report does include the splitting ward in some areas). I also suspect that Boris Johnson would also be very worried about the 2018 review as it makes his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat highly marginal with the inclusion of Northolt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 10, 2020 10:16:49 GMT
There is also the question of a very large number of wards being split due to both local government reorganisation but also extensive rewarding across the country which would see a very large number of wards split between constituencies if implemented(though the final report does include the splitting ward in some areas). I also suspect that Boris Johnson would also be very worried about the 2018 review as it makes his Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat highly marginal with the inclusion of Northolt. Actually that would give him the perfect cover to remove to another, safer seat which he would maybe want to do anyway given his seat is far from safe even on current boundaries and may be very vulnerable following another 4-5 years of adverse demographic change |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 26, 2020 16:15:33 GMT
So much water has gone under the bridge in the last two or three years, with two general elections and all of the Brexit kerfuffles, that my brain has completely lost track of what or where the latest proposals are. I can't even remember if the proposals for Croydon include a Croydon Central and a Croydon South, or a Croydon South West and a Croydon South East. I guess that there is a ready to go, oven ready, set of boundary proposals which have not yet been approved.
My questions are: what is the date of the qualifying electorates on which they are based? Where can I find a suitable straightforward map? My preference is that the whole process should be started from scratch, with 650 constituencies instead of 600, and with a slightly bigger variation allowed (perhaps 7% instead of 5%) in order to accommodate the large wards in London. I am guessing that whatever is already oven ready is substantially out of date anyway.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 27, 2020 9:15:51 GMT
So much water has gone under the bridge in the last two or three years, with two general elections and all of the Brexit kerfuffles, that my brain has completely lost track of what or where the latest proposals are. I can't even remember if the proposals for Croydon include a Croydon Central and a Croydon South, or a Croydon South West and a Croydon South East. I guess that there is a ready to go, oven ready, set of boundary proposals which have not yet been approved. My questions are: what is the date of the qualifying electorates on which they are based? Where can I find a suitable straightforward map? My preference is that the whole process should be started from scratch, with 650 constituencies instead of 600, and with a slightly bigger variation allowed (perhaps 7% instead of 5%) in order to accommodate the large wards in London. I am guessing that whatever is already oven ready is substantially out of date anyway. My understanding is that all previous reviews are to be scrapped and a brand new review with 650 equalised electorate constituencies will be started soon (perhaps as soon as next week), therefore the qualifying electorates will be as of February 1st 2020, but we do not know the rules that the Boundary Commissioners will be asked to work on. It is possible, from how the article in the Standard is worded, that all will change is the dates meaning that the 5% rule is back in play. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 27, 2020 10:11:06 GMT
Note that primary legislation will be needed to have a 650-seat review (although it will be a pretty simple and uncontroversial Bill).
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jan 27, 2020 10:20:18 GMT
So much water has gone under the bridge in the last two or three years, with two general elections and all of the Brexit kerfuffles, that my brain has completely lost track of what or where the latest proposals are. 1) I can't even remember if the proposals for Croydon include a Croydon Central and a Croydon South, or a Croydon South West and a Croydon South East. 2) I guess that there is a ready to go, oven ready, set of boundary proposals which have not yet been approved. My questions are: 3) what is the date of the qualifying electorates on which they are based? 4) Where can I find a suitable straightforward map? My preference is that the whole process should be started from scratch, with 650 constituencies instead of 600, and with a slightly bigger variation allowed (perhaps 7% instead of 5%) in order to accommodate the large wards in London. I am guessing that whatever is already oven ready is substantially out of date anyway. 1) SE and SW. 2) Yes. (Unlikely to ever be.) 3) december 1st 2015. The main reason it's badly out of date is that it basically doesn't count most students due to coming hot on the heels of a rules change. 4) The Boundary Commission's website only has a pdf mapbook, with maps for every constituency, or else shapefiles. I know they had regional pdf maps once, but can't find them online rn. You're probably thinking of a blanco all-UK map to color in anyways; never seen one. Can't find anything better than this |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 27, 2020 14:08:30 GMT
Note that primary legislation will be needed to have a 650-seat review (although it will be a pretty simple and uncontroversial Bill). And the Government's majority is big enough that even if it were complicated and controversial, they could use a timetable motion anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by samdwebber on Feb 19, 2020 23:56:38 GMT
This article about boundary changes by Lord Rennard might be of interest to readers of this forum and worth retweeting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 4, 2020 13:27:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 5, 2020 8:58:19 GMT
Is there a link to the full judgement? What was the issue, that the Commission took a decision to relax the 5% criteria after the point when the opportunity for any further public consultation had closed? If so I would be as annoyed as the claimant in this case. I see parallels with the LGBCE final recommendations stage when a ward boundary is suddenly changed in response to a (sometimes singular) consultation comment received at draft recommendations stage with no opportunity for anyone else to have reviewed or appraised the merits of the proposed change. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 5, 2020 11:44:15 GMT
Is there a link to the full judgement? What was the issue, that the Commission took a decision to relax the 5% criteria after the point when the opportunity for any further public consultation had closed? If so I would be as annoyed as the claimant in this case. I see parallels with the LGBCE final recommendations stage when a ward boundary is suddenly changed in response to a (sometimes singular) consultation comment received at draft recommendations stage with no opportunity for anyone else to have reviewed or appraised the merits of the proposed change. The real issue was that the provisional proposals were very good for Sinn Féin. Belfast North gained parts of the Lower Falls: territory where they often poll around 80%, and thus would greatly improve their chances in North. Upper Bann lost Unionist parts of West Down but expanded to gain Dungannon and Coalisland, giving Sinn Féin a good chance of a gain. Accordingly, they shrugged at the proposals, said "Good stuff" and didn't engage with the Commission. The problem is that if no one says they like the proposals, the Commission assumes that no one does. The final proposals were much worse for Sinn Féin, keeping Upper Bann Unionist and Belfast North marginal. As a result, they found a shill to start a court case on their behalf, all in the interests of democracy, of course. |
|
