Boundary-drawing policy issues

[Wisconsin]

Jul 19, 2021 15:53:13 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

OK - but is there a rule or not?

The Act:

5 (1) A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit—

(a) special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency
(b) local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective, on the review date;
(c) boundaries of existing constituencies;
(d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies;
(e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes.

(2) The Boundary Commission for England may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit, boundaries of the English regions specified in sub-paragraph (2A) as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review date.



BCE stated policy:

Wards are well-defined and well-understood units, which are generally indicative of areas which have a broad community of interest. Any division of a ward between constituencies would therefore risk breaking local ties, as well as adding complexity to both the task of Returning Officers in administering a Parliamentary election in the area, and the ‘grass roots’ co-ordination of political party activism. The BCE’s view is therefore that wards should continue to be the default building block for constituencies.

However, the BCE recognises that there may be circumstances where the splitting of a ward may be necessary to achieve a scheme of constituencies locally that better meets the ‘Rule 5’ statutory criteria overall (see paragraph 26 above). In limited circumstances, we would therefore consider the splitting of a ward between constituencies. Those circumstances are:
-Where splitting a ward would significantly enhance the ability of the BCE to adhere to existing or prospective local authority boundaries (i.e. avoid constituencies crossing local authorities), maintain existing constituencies unchanged, and/or preserve local ties, without causing consequential significant problems for surrounding constituencies.
-Where the division of a ward would avoid the alternative of a significant ‘domino effect’ of change to a wide area if wards were to be kept whole. This is likely to be an issue in metropolitan areas, where wards often have large electorates: an example from a previous Review was the BCE’s recommendation to split three wards in the West Midlands metropolitan area, which minimised the need to cross local council boundaries, and prevented an otherwise radical ‘domino effect’ of change across the whole metropolitan area and beyond.
-Where the division of a ward would avoid otherwise unacceptable outcomes forced by local geographical factors: an example from a previous Review was the BCE’s acceptance of the need to split a rural ward near Tewkesbury to avoid a proposed Forest of Dean constituency otherwise having to take in an urban area of Gloucester.

Additionally, where the splitting of wards is proposed, BCE would wish to adhere to the following policies:
-The number of such ward splits should be the smallest number possible, commensurate with achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 31 above.
-The split of a ward should generally be done on the basis of the boundaries of the component polling districts that form part of that ward, as polling districts are an existing recognised unit of electoral administration (but see paragraph 40 below).
-Wherever possible, the splitting of a ward should be done such that the separated parts of the ward will nonetheless remain in constituencies where the returning officer for each of the constituencies is likely to be the same individual (i.e. ward splits should where possible be contained within a single local authority area): this is consistent with our policy in relation to ‘orphan wards’ below

[islington]

Jul 19, 2021 23:11:15 GMT Wisconsin said:

Jul 19, 2021 15:53:13 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

OK - but is there a rule or not?

The Act:

5 (1) A Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit—

(a) special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency
(b) local government boundaries which exist, or are prospective, on the review date;
(c) boundaries of existing constituencies;
(d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies;
(e) the inconveniences attendant on such changes.

(2) The Boundary Commission for England may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit, boundaries of the English regions specified in sub-paragraph (2A) as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-election day before the review date.



BCE stated policy:

Wards are well-defined and well-understood units, which are generally indicative of areas which have a broad community of interest. Any division of a ward between constituencies would therefore risk breaking local ties, as well as adding complexity to both the task of Returning Officers in administering a Parliamentary election in the area, and the ‘grass roots’ co-ordination of political party activism. The BCE’s view is therefore that wards should continue to be the default building block for constituencies.

However, the BCE recognises that there may be circumstances where the splitting of a ward may be necessary to achieve a scheme of constituencies locally that better meets the ‘Rule 5’ statutory criteria overall (see paragraph 26 above). In limited circumstances, we would therefore consider the splitting of a ward between constituencies. Those circumstances are:
-Where splitting a ward would significantly enhance the ability of the BCE to adhere to existing or prospective local authority boundaries (i.e. avoid constituencies crossing local authorities), maintain existing constituencies unchanged, and/or preserve local ties, without causing consequential significant problems for surrounding constituencies.
-Where the division of a ward would avoid the alternative of a significant ‘domino effect’ of change to a wide area if wards were to be kept whole. This is likely to be an issue in metropolitan areas, where wards often have large electorates: an example from a previous Review was the BCE’s recommendation to split three wards in the West Midlands metropolitan area, which minimised the need to cross local council boundaries, and prevented an otherwise radical ‘domino effect’ of change across the whole metropolitan area and beyond.
-Where the division of a ward would avoid otherwise unacceptable outcomes forced by local geographical factors: an example from a previous Review was the BCE’s acceptance of the need to split a rural ward near Tewkesbury to avoid a proposed Forest of Dean constituency otherwise having to take in an urban area of Gloucester.

Additionally, where the splitting of wards is proposed, BCE would wish to adhere to the following policies:
-The number of such ward splits should be the smallest number possible, commensurate with achieving the objectives set out in paragraph 31 above.
-The split of a ward should generally be done on the basis of the boundaries of the component polling districts that form part of that ward, as polling districts are an existing recognised unit of electoral administration (but see paragraph 40 below).
-Wherever possible, the splitting of a ward should be done such that the separated parts of the ward will nonetheless remain in constituencies where the returning officer for each of the constituencies is likely to be the same individual (i.e. ward splits should where possible be contained within a single local authority area): this is consistent with our policy in relation to ‘orphan wards’ below

Thanks to Wisconsin for a really helpful and informative post.

So the answer to the question raised by Pete Whitehead is that there is no actual rule on this point, but there's nothing in BCE's published policy to suggest that it would consider splitting a ward for any other reason than numbers.

Personally, I'd support the BCE's approach. I'm sure there are countless wards throughout the country that conjoin mutually incompatible areas or artificially divide natural communities. And plenty of authority boundaries are open to criticism as well. But those are matters for the LGBCE, not the BCE; for the purpose of the present exercise, we should, in my view, take local government boundaries (including wards) as they are rather than as we think they ought to be.

There was some recent discussion in the South East thread to the effect that the boundaries of Reading are absurdly tightly drawn. I agree: I'd favour a much wider boundary reflecting the true extent of the town. But I don't agree that we should try to draw Parliamentary boundaries as if such an extension were already in place. The same comments go for Gloucester, Leicester, Norwich, Nottingham and various other towns that are hemmed in by boundaries that they have long since outgrown. 

[Wisconsin]

As I’ve said before, if you are convinced that a ward-splitting solution better fulfils the criteria in the amended Act, I think you need to explain why very carefully and in a very detailed and rigorous manner.

The BCE’s guidance is not law, and if you need to expressly violate their principles/policies, I’ve flagged a few instances from the parliamentary debates where you can demonstrate that Parliament was made acutely aware of the increased need for ward splits throughout the passage of the latest Act. I would be inclined to include Hansard quotes.

(Fortunately the area I care most about doesn’t need ward splits and I agree wholly with the initial proposals, so I won’t need to do this in my brief response).

[Pete Whitehead]

Thanks for the responses. Sounds like a non-starter then but as (obviously) the numbers don't depend upon it I will proceed with my proposals without it. As mentioned it is fundamentally a LGBCE problem