'Old Rules' Boundary Review

[therealriga]

December 2017 parliamentary electorates were released on ONS last week

Old rules review under that (separate quotas for England, Scotland etc based on existing number of seats, special geographical considerations for Cumbria etc.)

Gain one (+12)
Berks
Bucks
Cambs
Gloucs
Kent
Leics/Rutland/Lincs (Rutland paired with Stamford.)
Newham/Tower Hamlets
Oxon
Somerset
Suffolk
Surrey
W.Sussex

Lose one (-6)
Humberside
Lancs
Wirral
Tyne&Wear
Dudley/Sandwell
Wolves/Walsall

For Wales, Cardiff/Vale of Glamorgan get an extra one. It's then a question of whether north-west Wales loses one or keeps it on geographic considerations and Wales goes to 41.

In Scotland, Glasgow loses one with a new one around Livingston-Falkirk-Ochil.

For NI, some tweaks in the south-east to existing seats.

[Deleted]

This is a Charleston we've danced before on this forum. If Lancs loses a seat, I assume it's Wyre and Preston North which would be sacrificed, so giving Fylde, Preston, and Ribble Valley bits to expand into. Minimal changes elsewhere.

[therealriga]

Mar 27, 2018 19:37:29 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

This is a Charleston we've danced before on this forum. If Lancs loses a seat, I assume it's Wyre and Preston North which would be sacrificed, so giving Fylde, Preston, and Ribble Valley bits to expand into. Minimal changes elsewhere.

Preston and the Blackpools are the undersized ones. Basically back to the 1997-2010 situation. 

Preston reunited.
Poulton goes back to Fylde.
Blackpool south gains three wards from its northern neighbour.
Blackpool north and Fleetwood revived.
Lancaster and Wyre revived.

Burnley and Pendle were 11% under, but Ribble Valley could always spare a couple of wards to solve that.

[greenhert]

I am sure Hertfordshire would meet the criteria for an extra seat, just about.

Lancaster & Morecambe (which are closely connected geographically) makes more sense than reviving Lancaster & Wyre.

[therealriga]

Mar 27, 2018 21:32:57 GMT greenhert said:

I am sure Hertfordshire would meet the criteria for an extra seat, just about.

Lancaster & Morecambe (which are closely connected geographically) makes more sense than reviving Lancaster & Wyre.

Herts is just short. 11.41 entitlement, rounds down. Another near miss: North Yorks (8.42.) At the other end, Staffs has only 11.45 English quotas, but under old rules would have probably just about kept its twelfth.

You're right about Lancaster and Morecambe making more sense. If you go that way, you end up with that and a North Lancashire seat (rename as appropriate.) Only thing is, under "old rules" they usually had a bias towards preserving "local ties" i.e. existing constituencies.

[greenhert]

I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them.

[therealriga]

Mar 27, 2018 22:10:26 GMT greenhert said:

I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them.

Done them all, though based on Boundary Assistant figures, which are 2 years out of date. All a mess. Gloucestershire is an ugly "Gloucester East-Cheltenham West" mess. Kent, potentially even worse. It's Ashford and nearby that are oversized. I didn't get any better than a vague "South Kent" seat, lacking any focus.

It's easy to dismiss this as being purely hypothetical, as a return to old rules is highly unlikely. However, 650 seats, UK quota, 4 protected seats is very plausible if they ditch the current review.

In that case, compared to those figures it's

Cumbria -1
Wales -9
Herts +1
IOW +1
Northumberland -1
North Yorks +1
West Mids -1 (instead of -2)
Scotland -1








No change
Humbs

[therealriga]

ONS figures for 2018 out last week. A new "old rules" review on those figures produces some changes from last year.

LOSE ONE (theoretical entitlement) = -11
Durham (6.15)
Cleveland (5.40)
Tyne & Wear (10.60)
Lancashire (14.65)
Merseyside (13.65)
Humberside (9.28)
South Yorks (13.31)
Derbyshire (10.42)
Staffordshire (11.16)
Walsall (2.64) & Wolverhampton (2.36)
Dudley (3.20) & Sandwell (2.94)

GAIN ONE = +15
Leicestershire (10.65)
Cambridgeshire (8.14)
Suffolk (7.49)
Bucks (7.89)
Berks (8.61)
Kent (17.58)
Oxon (6.56)
W Sussex (8.61)
Somerset (5.57)
Hackney (2.31) & Haringey (2.29)
Newham (2.73) & Tower Hamlets (2.50)
Brent (3.07) & Camden (1.91) unpairing
Southwark (2.98) & Lambeth (2.86) unpairing
Hounslow (2.50) & Richmond (1.87) & Kingston (1.53)
Croydon (3.55)

Then there are the special geographic cases.
Northumberland (3.20) probably now too small to justify 4.
Cumbria (5.18) same
IO Wight (1.45) way above the harmonic mean of 1.33.

South Wales on a 40-seat Welsh quota deserves one more, but it depends whether they take that from north Wales or leave N.Wales on geographic grounds and go to 41.

[bjornhattan]

Mar 26, 2019 17:38:42 GMT therealriga said:

Northumberland (3.20) probably now too small to justify 4.

Depending on the exact figures in Tyne and Wear, then it would probably make sense to consider some Northumberland wards as part of Tyne and Wear. I know this would never happen to avoid county splitting, but I'd much rather Prudhoe were put in with Gateshead if it means avoiding Tyne Bridge.

Alternatively, Northumberland + Tyne and Wear would be close to 14 seats. Given the new mayoral system, there is some precedent for cross-border elections, and being open to the prospect of (for example) a Blyth-Whitley Bay or Tynedale-Blaydon seat could make some borders more sensible in the area, and prevent Northumberland having 4 seats for the price of 3.2.

Geographical considerations are probably only an issue if you force Northumberland to be fully separate, which just seems a bit dogmatic.

[therealriga]

Mar 30, 2019 1:22:08 GMT bjornhattan said:

Mar 26, 2019 17:38:42 GMT therealriga said:

Northumberland (3.20) probably now too small to justify 4.

Depending on the exact figures in Tyne and Wear, then it would probably make sense to consider some Northumberland wards as part of Tyne and Wear. I know this would never happen to avoid county splitting, but I'd much rather Prudhoe were put in with Gateshead if it means avoiding Tyne Bridge.

Alternatively, Northumberland + Tyne and Wear would be close to 14 seats. Given the new mayoral system, there is some precedent for cross-border elections, and being open to the prospect of (for example) a Blyth-Whitley Bay or Tynedale-Blaydon seat could make some borders more sensible in the area, and prevent Northumberland having 4 seats for the price of 3.2.

Geographical considerations are probably only an issue if you force Northumberland to be fully separate, which just seems a bit dogmatic.

I agree with you, but if we're doing it "old rules" then they did take a dogmatic approach to avoiding crossing county boundaries, even though the bits north of the river were traditionally in Northumberland.

Besides, the issue isn't south of the Tyne, but north of it. The figures are 
North Tyneside 2.04
Newcastle 2.39

For 4.43, with 6.17 quotas south of the Tyne. So you only have 2 options, abolish Gateshead and Newcastle central and revive Tyne Bridge or have a cross border seat in the north with Northumberland.

If you go that way, the cross border seat is a "Cramlington and Whitley Bay" constituency.
Hexham only gains 1 ward from Berwick to leave it a bit small, but it's old rules and you can get away with that.
Berwick gains Morpeth.
Blyth and Ashington get combined into a constituency of that name.
Tynemouth then extends to Wallsend.
You have a seat with the 5 wards in the north of North Tyneside constituency with northern wards of Newcastle ("Gosforth and Benton" ?)
The rest of Newcastle is split into east and west constituencies.

[Foggy]

Mar 30, 2019 21:27:37 GMT therealriga said:

Mar 30, 2019 1:22:08 GMT bjornhattan said:

If you go that way, the cross border seat is a "Cramlington and Whitley Bay" constituency.
Hexham only gains 1 ward from Berwick to leave it a bit small, but it's old rules and you can get away with that.
Berwick gains Morpeth.
Blyth and Ashington get combined into a constituency of that name.
Tynemouth then extends to Wallsend.
You have a seat with the 5 wards in the north of North Tyneside constituency with northern wards of Newcastle ("Gosforth and Benton" ?)
The rest of Newcastle is split into east and west constituencies.

This solution does not appear to cross any county boundaries, and is therefore preferable. 

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 30, 2019 21:27:37 GMT therealriga said:

I agree with you, but if we're doing it "old rules" then they did take a dogmatic approach to avoiding crossing county boundaries, even though the bits north of the river were traditionally in Northumberland.

Besides, the issue isn't south of the Tyne, but north of it. The figures are 
North Tyneside 2.04
Newcastle 2.39

For 4.43, with 6.17 quotas south of the Tyne. So you only have 2 options, abolish Gateshead and Newcastle central and revive Tyne Bridge or have a cross border seat in the north with Northumberland.

The Northumberland/Durham boundary initially follows the Tyne, but then doglegs along the Derwent. Would the numbers work to follow the Tyne further, putting the Hexhamshire area in a Durham seat?

[mattb]

Mar 30, 2019 21:27:37 GMT therealriga said:

If you go that way, the cross border seat is a "Cramlington and Whitley Bay" constituency.

Surely 'Cramlington & Gosforth' would make more sense, leaving N.Tyneside with 2 whole seats?

[andrewteale]

Mar 30, 2019 21:27:37 GMT therealriga said:

Mar 30, 2019 1:22:08 GMT bjornhattan said:

Depending on the exact figures in Tyne and Wear, then it would probably make sense to consider some Northumberland wards as part of Tyne and Wear. I know this would never happen to avoid county splitting, but I'd much rather Prudhoe were put in with Gateshead if it means avoiding Tyne Bridge.

Alternatively, Northumberland + Tyne and Wear would be close to 14 seats. Given the new mayoral system, there is some precedent for cross-border elections, and being open to the prospect of (for example) a Blyth-Whitley Bay or Tynedale-Blaydon seat could make some borders more sensible in the area, and prevent Northumberland having 4 seats for the price of 3.2.

Geographical considerations are probably only an issue if you force Northumberland to be fully separate, which just seems a bit dogmatic.

I agree with you, but if we're doing it "old rules" then they did take a dogmatic approach to avoiding crossing county boundaries, even though the bits north of the river were traditionally in Northumberland.

Besides, the issue isn't south of the Tyne, but north of it. The figures are 
North Tyneside 2.04
Newcastle 2.39

For 4.43, with 6.17 quotas south of the Tyne. So you only have 2 options, abolish Gateshead and Newcastle central and revive Tyne Bridge or have a cross border seat in the north with Northumberland.

If you go that way, the cross border seat is a "Cramlington and Whitley Bay" constituency.
Hexham only gains 1 ward from Berwick to leave it a bit small, but it's old rules and you can get away with that.
Berwick gains Morpeth.
Blyth and Ashington get combined into a constituency of that name.
Tynemouth then extends to Wallsend.
You have a seat with the 5 wards in the north of North Tyneside constituency with northern wards of Newcastle ("Gosforth and Benton" ?)
The rest of Newcastle is split into east and west constituencies.

In this scenario, if the two North Tyneside constituencies are both close to quota (and they probably are) then I suspect that the BCE would leave them well alone because of the minimum change rule. Cramlington and Newcastle North would seem a more likely cross-border seat, or Newcastle West and Ponteland (not that I've checked whether that's viable).

[greenhert]

Mar 26, 2019 17:38:42 GMT therealriga said:

ONS figures for 2018 out last week. A new "old rules" review on those figures produces some changes from last year.

LOSE ONE (theoretical entitlement) = -11
Durham (6.15)
Cleveland (5.40)
Tyne & Wear (10.60)
Lancashire (14.65)
Merseyside (13.65)
Humberside (9.28)
South Yorks (13.31)
Derbyshire (10.42)
Staffordshire (11.16)
Walsall (2.64) & Wolverhampton (2.36)
Dudley (3.20) & Sandwell (2.94)

GAIN ONE = +15
Leicestershire (10.65)
Cambridgeshire (8.14)
Suffolk (7.49)
Bucks (7.89)
Berks (8.61)
Kent (17.58)
Oxon (6.56)
W Sussex (8.61)
Somerset (5.57)
Hackney (2.31) & Haringey (2.29)
Newham (2.73) & Tower Hamlets (2.50)
Brent (3.07) & Camden (1.91) unpairing
Southwark (2.98) & Lambeth (2.86) unpairing
Hounslow (2.50) & Richmond (1.87) & Kingston (1.53)
Croydon (3.55)

Then there are the special geographic cases.
Northumberland (3.20) probably now too small to justify 4.
Cumbria (5.18) same
IO Wight (1.45) way above the harmonic mean of 1.33.

South Wales on a 40-seat Welsh quota deserves one more, but it depends whether they take that from north Wales or leave N.Wales on geographic grounds and go to 41.

In a considerable number of cases this would just result in the restoration of old seats (e.g. unpairing Brent and Camden restores the 1983-2010 arrangements of Brent North/East/South and Hampstead & Highgate/Holborn & St Pancras)

Under these rules would it be possible to separate North Lincolnshire from East Yorkshire for the purposes of reviewing constituency boundaries and stop treating Humberside as a review area? Avon should not be treated as a review area either since the county in question no longer exists; an additional seat can easily be created by combining the Bristol area with Gloucestershire. (As for Cleveland, this is almost coterminous with Teesside 1965-74 was so this should be left as a review area)

[therealriga]

Mar 31, 2019 6:35:44 GMT andrewteale said:

Mar 30, 2019 21:27:37 GMT therealriga said:

I agree with you, but if we're doing it "old rules" then they did take a dogmatic approach to avoiding crossing county boundaries, even though the bits north of the river were traditionally in Northumberland.

Besides, the issue isn't south of the Tyne, but north of it. The figures are 
North Tyneside 2.04
Newcastle 2.39

For 4.43, with 6.17 quotas south of the Tyne. So you only have 2 options, abolish Gateshead and Newcastle central and revive Tyne Bridge or have a cross border seat in the north with Northumberland.

If you go that way, the cross border seat is a "Cramlington and Whitley Bay" constituency.
Hexham only gains 1 ward from Berwick to leave it a bit small, but it's old rules and you can get away with that.
Berwick gains Morpeth.
Blyth and Ashington get combined into a constituency of that name.
Tynemouth then extends to Wallsend.
You have a seat with the 5 wards in the north of North Tyneside constituency with northern wards of Newcastle ("Gosforth and Benton" ?)
The rest of Newcastle is split into east and west constituencies.

In this scenario, if the two North Tyneside constituencies are both close to quota (and they probably are) then I suspect that the BCE would leave them well alone because of the minimum change rule. Cramlington and Newcastle North would seem a more likely cross-border seat, or Newcastle West and Ponteland (not that I've checked whether that's viable).

Sounds better in theory, doesn't work in reality. The two North Tyneside are at quota, but the problem is that Cramlington is separated from Newcastle by North Tyneside: it doesn't have a border with Newcastle. So, to create any such Cramlington and Newcastle north you have a huge horseshoe shaped constituency with a big North Tyneside salient and you also have to add Ponteland east to keep it contiguous. That splits Ponteland, which they were never keen on doing. If you add all of Ponteland, Hexham becomes too small.

Given all that, and the probable opposition to splitting North Tyneside, I reckon the Tyne Bridge revival option would be the one most likely. 

[therealriga]

Mar 31, 2019 13:18:50 GMT greenhert said:

Under these rules would it be possible to separate North Lincolnshire from East Yorkshire for the purposes of reviewing constituency boundaries and stop treating Humberside as a review area? Avon should not be treated as a review area either since the county in question no longer exists; an additional seat can easily be created by combining the Bristol area with Gloucestershire. (As for Cleveland, this is almost coterminous with Teesside 1965-74 was so this should be left as a review area)

The Gloucestershire one doesn't really work because you have 

N.Somerset 2.17
Bath &NE Somerset 1.78
Bristol 4.31
S.Glos 2.77

That's perfect for 11 seats and just a question of if they do any pairings involving the former two or the latter two. Gloucestershire itself is 6.42, not there yet for 7 and in later old rules reviews it's clear that they were trying to limit the number of seats.

North Lincs, however, is a possible. North of the Humber it's Hull 2.43 and E.Riding 3.53, meaning they're paired for 6.

You then have various possible combinations due to

N. Lincs 1.76
NE. Lincs 1.56
Lincs 7.40
Rutland 0.39
Leics 6.99
Leicester 3.26

You can combine the first three for 11. Combine Lincs and Rutland for 8 or have 7 for Lincs, 3 for South Humberside and an extra one for Leics.

[greenhert]

Mar 31, 2019 14:10:56 GMT therealriga said:

Mar 31, 2019 13:18:50 GMT greenhert said:

Under these rules would it be possible to separate North Lincolnshire from East Yorkshire for the purposes of reviewing constituency boundaries and stop treating Humberside as a review area? Avon should not be treated as a review area either since the county in question no longer exists; an additional seat can easily be created by combining the Bristol area with Gloucestershire. (As for Cleveland, this is almost coterminous with Teesside 1965-74 was so this should be left as a review area)

The Gloucestershire one doesn't really work because you have 

N.Somerset 2.17
Bath &NE Somerset 1.78
Bristol 4.31
S.Glos 2.77

That's perfect for 11 seats and just a question of if they do any pairings involving the former two or the latter two. Gloucestershire itself is 6.42, not there yet for 7 and in later old rules reviews it's clear that they were trying to limit the number of seats.

North Lincs, however, is a possible. North of the Humber it's Hull 2.43 and E.Riding 3.53, meaning they're paired for 6.

You then have various possible combinations due to

N. Lincs 1.76
NE. Lincs 1.56
Lincs 7.40
Rutland 0.39
Leics 6.99
Leicester 3.26

You can combine the first three for 11. Combine Lincs and Rutland for 8 or have 7 for Lincs, 3 for South Humberside and an extra one for Leics.

Given that (south) Lincolnshire's population is growing faster than Leicestershire's, restoring the 1918-83 constituency of Rutland & Stamford is a better idea.

[Foggy]

Mar 31, 2019 14:10:56 GMT therealriga said:

Mar 31, 2019 13:18:50 GMT greenhert said:

Under these rules would it be possible to separate North Lincolnshire from East Yorkshire for the purposes of reviewing constituency boundaries and stop treating Humberside as a review area? Avon should not be treated as a review area either since the county in question no longer exists; an additional seat can easily be created by combining the Bristol area with Gloucestershire. 

The Gloucestershire one doesn't really work because you have 

N.Somerset 2.17
Bath &NE Somerset 1.78
Bristol 4.31
S.Glos 2.77

That's perfect for 11 seats and just a question of if they do any pairings involving the former two or the latter two. Gloucestershire itself is 6.42, not there yet for 7 and in later old rules reviews it's clear that they were trying to limit the number of seats.

Surely 6.42+2.77 = 9.19 for ceremonial Gloucestershire, which would work fairly neatly for 9 seats as a combination of top-tier authorities? Then it would just be a question of whether Bristol and ceremonial Somerset could be paired just as tidily. 

I agree there are two distinct sets of acceptable options for the Lincs/Leics/Rutland area, though.

[clyde1998]

Mar 27, 2018 22:10:26 GMT greenhert said:

I see. In terms of actually assigning the extra seats, Berkshire, Gloucestershire, and Kent will likely become a real mess in constituency terms amongst counties in assigning that extra seat to them.

Berkshire's horrible under nine seats.

The only way I could really do it was to have Reading covering three seats - a 'Reading Central' constituency taking up most of Reading, with a 'South and West' constituency making up most of the rest. Splitting West Berkshire into, effectively, two seats is tricky too with the geographical size of the wards. Western Reading is grouped with most of eastern West Berkshire, with the Downlands (western most light blue) ward being in there to ensure an even population split.

Slough would lose southern Langley to Windsor; Windsor also loses a ward to Bracknell (yellow's northern most ward). Maidenhead is reduced in size - losing wards to Wokingham and 'Reading S&W'.