|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 12, 2016 11:45:43 GMT
The policy on ward splitting:
The BCE’s view is therefore that wards should continue to be the default building block for constituencies. However, the BCE recognises that in a few cases there may be exceptional and compelling circumstances – having regard to the specific factors identified in Rule 5 – that may make it appropriate to divide a ward. Strong evidence and justification will need to be provided in any constituency scheme that proposes to split a ward, and the number of such ward splits should be kept to an absolute minimum. Examples of circumstances in which the BCE might propose splitting a ward could include: a) where all the possible ‘whole ward’ options in an area would significantly cut across local ties; or b) where splitting a single ward may prevent a significant ‘domino effect’ of otherwise unnecessary change to a chain of constituencies in order to meet the electorate totals requirement. Where the BCE does accept the need to split a ward, it will seek to do so along the boundaries of the polling districts that form part of that ward.
They also state:
However, in the limited circumstances (if any) where the BCE has to consider whether it should divide a ward (as it existed on 7 May 2015) between constituencies in order to meet the statutory electorate range, and if so how it should be divided (which it will seek to do on the component polling district boundaries), the BCE is prepared to take into account as appropriate any new ward boundaries introduced after 7 May 2015.
|
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 12, 2016 12:48:04 GMT
What I did not like about the aborted review was the policy to ignore the London Boroughs.
Other than The City of London and The City of Westminster no London constituency crossed post 1965 borough boundaries between 1974 and 1997.
This was not the case historically, because 1888 - 1965 borough boundaries were very small.
Following the 1950 and 1955 reviews we saw -
A cross border Baron's Court Constituency (Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs). A cross border Bethnal Green Constituency (Hackney and Bethnal Green boroughs). A cross border City of London & Westminster constituency (City of London and City of Westminster). A cross border Chelsea Constituency (Chelsea Borough and the Brompton Ward of Kensington). A cross border Shoreditch & Finsbury Constituency (covering both boroughs). A cross border Holborn & St Pancras South (covering Holborn and part of St Pancras).
As the small boroughs of 1888-1965 were replaced by larger boroughs (except the City of London), there was only the need for 1 cross border constituency.
When the decision was taken create a number of cross border constituencies in London in 1997 only two boroughs would be twinned (although in the case of Westminster, CofL and RBKC there were three).
What I felt that the aborted review should have done is twin groups of three boroughs together for electoral equality but not ignoring borough boundaries altogether.
We ended up with some really odd constituencies, with Westminster in four different constituencies.
I also think that the new review should try to keep Inner London (or the former LCC area together), together with the former Kent (Bromley/ Bexley), Essex (Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering) and Surrey (Croydon, Sutton, RBK, Richmond) together and also the remaining former Middlesex parts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2016 16:14:19 GMT
|
|
baloo
Conservative
Posts: 760
|
Post by baloo on Jul 12, 2016 17:48:25 GMT
Except it would fall foul of the spoilsport clause in the legislation that states every constituency must be contained entirely within England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That would also see off Tweed Banks
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 12, 2016 18:51:00 GMT
What I did not like about the aborted review was the policy to ignore the London Boroughs. Other than The City of London and The City of Westminster no London constituency crossed post 1965 borough boundaries between 1974 and 1997. This was not the case historically, because 1888 - 1965 borough boundaries were very small. Following the 1950 and 1955 reviews we saw - A cross border Baron's Court Constituency (Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs). A cross border Bethnal Green Constituency (Hackney and Bethnal Green boroughs). A cross border City of London & Westminster constituency (City of London and City of Westminster). A cross border Chelsea Constituency (Chelsea Borough and the Brompton Ward of Kensington). A cross border Shoreditch & Finsbury Constituency (covering both boroughs). A cross border Holborn & St Pancras South (covering Holborn and part of St Pancras). As the small boroughs of 1888-1965 were replaced by larger boroughs (except the City of London), there was only the need for 1 cross border constituency. When the decision was taken create a number of cross border constituencies in London in 1997 only two boroughs would be twinned (although in the case of Westminster, CofL and RBKC there were three). What I felt that the aborted review should have done is twin groups of three boroughs together for electoral equality but not ignoring borough boundaries altogether. We ended up with some really odd constituencies, with Westminster in four different constituencies. I also think that the new review should try to keep Inner London (or the former LCC area together), together with the former Kent (Bromley/ Bexley), Essex (Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering) and Surrey (Croydon, Sutton, RBK, Richmond) together and also the remaining former Middlesex parts. That would be a lot easier if the permitted deviation from the electoral quota was 10% instead of 5%; after all,10% is what the LGBCE generally allow when rewarding local authorities. But the 5% quota prevents the last part from being carried out.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Jul 13, 2016 0:32:53 GMT
So, Gibraltar will henceforth have representation in the House of Commons?!?
That's without even mentioning the fact that there might not be any further European Parliament elections, at least in this country.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,977
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 13, 2016 8:11:43 GMT
What I did not like about the aborted review was the policy to ignore the London Boroughs. Other than The City of London and The City of Westminster no London constituency crossed post 1965 borough boundaries between 1974 and 1997. This was not the case historically, because 1888 - 1965 borough boundaries were very small. Following the 1950 and 1955 reviews we saw - A cross border Baron's Court Constituency (Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs). A cross border Bethnal Green Constituency (Hackney and Bethnal Green boroughs). A cross border City of London & Westminster constituency (City of London and City of Westminster). A cross border Chelsea Constituency (Chelsea Borough and the Brompton Ward of Kensington). A cross border Shoreditch & Finsbury Constituency (covering both boroughs). A cross border Holborn & St Pancras South (covering Holborn and part of St Pancras). As the small boroughs of 1888-1965 were replaced by larger boroughs (except the City of London), there was only the need for 1 cross border constituency. When the decision was taken create a number of cross border constituencies in London in 1997 only two boroughs would be twinned (although in the case of Westminster, CofL and RBKC there were three). What I felt that the aborted review should have done is twin groups of three boroughs together for electoral equality but not ignoring borough boundaries altogether. We ended up with some really odd constituencies, with Westminster in four different constituencies. I also think that the new review should try to keep Inner London (or the former LCC area together), together with the former Kent (Bromley/ Bexley), Essex (Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering) and Surrey (Croydon, Sutton, RBK, Richmond) together and also the remaining former Middlesex parts. That would be a lot easier if the permitted deviation from the electoral quota was 10% instead of 5%; after all,10% is what the LGBCE generally allow when rewarding local authorities. But the 5% quota prevents the last part from being carried out. And rightly so, in my opinion, because such an approach would mean that significant chunks of London would get systematically smaller - or larger - seats than other chunks. Surely this is exactly what the new rules are supposed to get us away from. In fact, I'd argue, perhaps controversially, that on the evidence of contributions to this forum (by myself and others) the Government has been vindicated in its approach of sticking to a rigid and relatively narrow permitted range of +/- 5% from the UK average. Although this appears to be a very restrictive requirement, we have demonstrated between us that it is actually possible to draw seats across the entire UK that are, on the whole, perfectly sensible and workable. It is true that each plan (including mine) includes some seats that are clearly less than satisfactory; but this is inevitable in the nature of the exercise and I'd argue that such seats are no worse, and no more numerous, than in the existing map that was drawn by boundary commissions using rules that allowed much more latitude. (In fact, I'd go further and say that few of the plans submitted here contain anything as bad as the current Lancaster & Fleetwood seat - and this is to say nothing of some of the horrors that came out of the zombie review.) There was some suggestion that, even if the 5% limit was to be retained, the Commissions should be allowed a higher variance (say, +/- 7.5%) in exceptional cases. I had some sympathy with this idea; but in all honestly, having now covered the entire UK, even if such an exception were allowed I'm struggling to see where I'd have invoked it. I'm not saying that the rules are perfect in every detail; but I am saying that the central requirement of a strict +/- 5% tolerance has worked out in practice far better than I dared to hope when I embarked on this exercise.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 13, 2016 8:29:50 GMT
The principle that seats should have electoral equality is a important one, and 5% is a sensible compromise. (There isn't, I don't think, any need to be as literal about electoral equality as the Americans are.) But equality is an illusion if we don't register electors properly.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 13, 2016 11:26:46 GMT
islington, I know of three good cases where higher variance than 5% (up to 10% preferably) should be allowed: 1. To prevent the creation of cross-county seats, especially any cross-Tamar seat. 2. Geographical and transport issues within large rural constituencies (especially in Scotland and Wales). 3. To make sure that no more than two local authorities are crossed by any constituency.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 13, 2016 11:56:30 GMT
Although I believe that boundaries should be respected as far as possible, that can't outweigh the greater principle of one person one (equal) vote. After all, parliament represents people, not fields, buildings or mountains. I don't even agree with the electoral advantage statutorily given to the three island areas.
|
|
Dalek
Conservative
Aldershot and Glasgow Kelvingrove
Posts: 110
|
Post by Dalek on Jul 13, 2016 13:09:55 GMT
I see that Kensington & Chelsea RBC is very close to the new electoral quota.
If Kensington & Chelsea RBC has exactly the quota, should it be regarded as sacrosanct and the other constituencies formed around outside its boundaries?
Or could this result in the creation of really odd surrounding constituencies, giving justification for it to be divided up.
My view is that constituencies around the peripheries are less prone to boundary changes than those in the centre.
Consider Hampshire, Aldershot is certain to be retained (only moving inwards) while Meon Valley is certain to be abolished.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,977
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 13, 2016 13:14:49 GMT
I'm with Adrian on (reasonably) equal votes, and in my secret heart I agree as well about the protected areas. But I am thankful that for the first time ever (assuming these changes actually get voted through this time) we shall have (a) properly equal constituencies almost everywhere, and (b) a mechanism for making sure they stay that way. This is such an advance over previous arrangements that I'm willing to overlook the tiny number of protected seats.
As far as cross-county seats are concerned, how many are there really? And what is a 'county' for this purpose? For instance, I have an Ellesmere Port seat that is mostly in Cheshire but incorporates a ward from Wirral. That ward is part of Merseyside, but historically it was part of Cheshire - is that a cross-county seat or not?
If 'county' means the upper-tier authority in a two-tier area, then the need for cross-county seats is very limited. Using my own scheme as an example, I have only four seats that involve parts of two counties, namely -
King’s Lynn and Wisbech Melton and Bingham Tamworth Tonbridge and Crowborough
In addition, I have a small number of seats where part of a two-tier county is linked with an ‘unassociated’ UA -
Launceston and Bideford Malvern North East Somerset Rutland and Higham Ferrers Staines Thornbury and Yate
And I'm marking myself harshly here, because some of the UAs involved are 'unassociated' only in a technical sense (e.g. B&NES UA is strictly part of Avon, but surely its more meaningful links are with Somerset).
So the number of cross-county seats in my scheme - and, I suspect, most others submitted here - is actually very small indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2016 14:21:13 GMT
I see that Kensington & Chelsea RBC is very close to the new electoral quota. If Kensington & Chelsea RBC has exactly the quota, should it be regarded as sacrosanct and the other constituencies formed around outside its boundaries? The entire borough of RBKC has an electorate which could make it a single constituency. Given the Electoral Commission has to pay regard to London borough boundaries, it might well be considering making the borough a single constituency, but it doesn't have to. If the borough does make better seats when split, I would say the split from 1997-2010 was a more logical one than that since 2010, although I obviously have something of a biased perspective.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,279
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 13, 2016 18:04:04 GMT
And I'm marking myself harshly here, because some of the UAs involved are 'unassociated' only in a technical sense (e.g. B&NES UA is strictly part of Avon, but surely its more meaningful links are with Somerset). Not so. As far as administrative counties go, Bath and North East Somerset is a county in its own right and has been since Avon County Council was abolished in 1996; as far as ceremonial counties go, it's part of Somerset. Personally, I would use ceremonial counties to judge whether a seat is cross-county, as I can't really think of most of the 1990s unitaries as counties in their own right even if they legally are. By that standard, there will be a few more in your proposals, e.g. crossing the Cheshire/Greater Manchester and Northumberland/Tyne & Wear boundaries. There's also the oddity, which I wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring, that the boundary between the ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire splits Stockton on Tees district along the river.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 13, 2016 19:21:51 GMT
I think the problem with different seat sizes, to the extent that it is a problem, is when they're closely tied to particular demographic factors. The over-representation of Wales is solved by the UK-wide quota, but cross-county seats don't accomplish much otherwise. The Cambridgeshire seats will still be oversized by the time the next review comes round and the northern rust belt seats will still be below the quota. There's a much simpler fix than that, which is to do the same thing we do for local boundary reviews and take account of projected growth in the next five years.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 13, 2016 20:16:01 GMT
It's a perfectly sensible boundary, given that it hews pretty closely to the M25.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,379
Member is Online
|
Post by Crimson King on Jul 13, 2016 22:59:34 GMT
I see that Kensington & Chelsea RBC is very close to the new electoral quota. If Kensington & Chelsea RBC has exactly the quota, should it be regarded as sacrosanct and the other constituencies formed around outside its boundaries? Or could this result in the creation of really odd surrounding constituencies, giving justification for it to be divided up. My view is that constituencies around the peripheries are less prone to boundary changes than those in the centre. Consider Hampshire, Aldershot is certain to be retained (only moving inwards) while Meon Valley is certain to be abolished. The electoral Commission document is that a seat within the limits would nOT be considered sacrosanct, precisely because of the possibility of it having consequent effects, making other seats worse than they needed to be
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 13, 2016 23:48:12 GMT
I think the biggest problem is amorphous blobbism. It should be possible to cross the rather silly Greater London boundary between Havering and Thurrock. Hey, if you're going to use my slogans, use them properly! ;-) Crossing that boundary would be a good example of amorphous blobbism. (Having said that, I'm not against the crossing of any boundary if a reasonable case can be made. In the case of Grays you've got quite a high threshold of reasonableness to meet, since a cross-border seat is unnecessary and the MP would have to deal both with the GLA and with Havering and Thurrock councils.)
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,977
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 14, 2016 15:20:12 GMT
And I'm marking myself harshly here, because some of the UAs involved are 'unassociated' only in a technical sense (e.g. B&NES UA is strictly part of Avon, but surely its more meaningful links are with Somerset). Not so. As far as administrative counties go, Bath and North East Somerset is a county in its own right and has been since Avon County Council was abolished in 1996; as far as ceremonial counties go, it's part of Somerset. Personally, I would use ceremonial counties to judge whether a seat is cross-county, as I can't really think of most of the 1990s unitaries as counties in their own right even if they legally are. By that standard, there will be a few more in your proposals, e.g. crossing the Cheshire/Greater Manchester and Northumberland/Tyne & Wear boundaries. There's also the oddity, which I wouldn't blame anyone for ignoring, that the boundary between the ceremonial counties of Durham and North Yorkshire splits Stockton on Tees district along the river. YL, thanks for the gen re B&NES. It tends to reinforce the view that, in many places, 'county' has become a somewhat nebulous concept. It might mean, at different times and in various contexts: traditional counties, postal counties, registration counties, post-1974 counties, ceremonial counties, or counties in the strict sense in which (if I've understood it correctly, most (or is it all?) UAs are technically counties although very similar authorities such as metro boroughs are not. So a list of cross-county seats would vary substantially depending which definition is used. I'd have to concede Staines (Spelthorne district (Surrey) plus one ward of Slough UA) and Launceston & Bideford (Devon / Cornwall) but I could make a defence of Malvern (wholly within in the Herefs & Worcs post-74 county), NE Somerset (all in trad Somerset) and Thornbury & Yate (ditto Glos) and at a pinch even the Rutland & Higham seat on the grounds that a 'county' too small for a seat to itself doesn't really count. And the seats crossing Cheshire / Gtr Manchester boundary are all trad Cheshire, while similar arguments apply to seats crossing the Tyne & Wear boundary. To sum up, I'd argue that 'counties', however defined, despite their historical and cultural significance, are of very marginal relevance for the purposes of the present exercise in most of the country. The only place they really matter is where two-tier local government still applies. I have only four seats that link two two-tier counties, which I think is an acceptable number and not enough to justify an exception to the usual electorate limits.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,977
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Jul 14, 2016 15:36:07 GMT
I see that Kensington & Chelsea RBC is very close to the new electoral quota. If Kensington & Chelsea RBC has exactly the quota, should it be regarded as sacrosanct and the other constituencies formed around outside its boundaries? Or could this result in the creation of really odd surrounding constituencies, giving justification for it to be divided up. My view is that constituencies around the peripheries are less prone to boundary changes than those in the centre. Consider Hampshire, Aldershot is certain to be retained (only moving inwards) while Meon Valley is certain to be abolished. The electoral Commission document is that a seat within the limits would not be considered sacrosanct, precisely because of the possibility of it having consequent effects, making other seats worse than they needed to be I agree it's not sacrosanct, but I'd also argue that a local authority that falls within the range for a single seat ought normally to receive exactly that unless this would get in the way of a sensible map elsewhere. For instance, a single seat for K&C does not prevent the drawing of workable boundaries in London, whereas a seat for Denbighshire (likewise within range) would make a mess of the rest of north Wales.
|
|