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

[Pete Whitehead]

Wtf they got rid of the Boundary Maps? www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/

[islington]

Nov 22, 2023 19:33:31 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Wtf they got rid of the Boundary Maps? www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/

This is outrageous.

They've simply disappeared and there's no explanation anywhere that I can see.

It's a deliberate act, not a technical glitch, because the map-using guidance has been rewritten to refer to 'two general types of map' on the site (Topographical and Land Use) with no acknowledgment that there used to be a third type.

Does anyone have any contacts at VoB?

[parlconst]

Nov 22, 2023 19:49:13 GMT islington said:

Nov 22, 2023 19:33:31 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Wtf they got rid of the Boundary Maps? www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/

This is outrageous.

They've simply disappeared and there's no explanation anywhere that I can see.

It's a deliberate act, not a technical glitch, because the map-using guidance has been rewritten to refer to 'two general types of map' on the site (Topographical and Land Use) with no acknowledgment that there used to be a third type.

Does anyone have any contacts at VoB?

I agree that it is outrageous.


I did have direct contacts at VoB, but since I'm on my travels abroad (yet again) without my laptop, I can't access these at the moment.

There is a general email address on the 'about the site' page, which they used to reply to within a week, so you could try that. That said, I've never found them that receptive to sorting out known boundary issues within their data.

I also see that they've also taken down the downloadble boundary files, most of which required an academic account to be able to access. VoB particularly annoyed me by refusing to discuss how someone like me without the right academic accreditation could do so. That said, I understand from those that did have access that they weren't that accurate anyway.

I wonder if there has been a change of personnel to make a move so crass that would annoy a lot of their regular users? Or maybe they're worried by the server load if the boundary maps were being accessed too frequently (but that is no reason to remove them).

Happy to follow up when I'm back in a week or so, if nobody else has had a response.

(Also, I can't check this forum very often when away, as it blocks access from the VPN that I use when outside the UK.)

[maxque]

Nov 22, 2023 19:49:13 GMT islington said:

Nov 22, 2023 19:33:31 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Wtf they got rid of the Boundary Maps? www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/

This is outrageous.

They've simply disappeared and there's no explanation anywhere that I can see.

It's a deliberate act, not a technical glitch, because the map-using guidance has been rewritten to refer to 'two general types of map' on the site (Topographical and Land Use) with no acknowledgment that there used to be a third type.

Does anyone have any contacts at VoB?

The whole website was down two weeks ago due to their website refusing connections and I contacted them about that and was answred by Dr Paula Aucott they were looking into in (it came back mid of the following week).

I suppose I can propose the following:
maps.nls.uk/os/half-inch-admin/

It doesn't cover 1885 like VoB but it covers 1974 in some areas (which VoB doesn't).

[islington]

Nov 23, 2023 2:03:13 GMT maxque said:

Nov 22, 2023 19:49:13 GMT islington said:

This is outrageous.

They've simply disappeared and there's no explanation anywhere that I can see.

It's a deliberate act, not a technical glitch, because the map-using guidance has been rewritten to refer to 'two general types of map' on the site (Topographical and Land Use) with no acknowledgment that there used to be a third type.

Does anyone have any contacts at VoB?

The whole website was down two weeks ago due to their website refusing connections and I contacted them about that and was answred by Dr Paula Aucott they were looking into in (it came back mid of the following week).

I suppose I can propose the following:
maps.nls.uk/os/half-inch-admin/

It doesn't cover 1885 like VoB but it covers 1974 in some areas (which VoB doesn't).

Well, I assume VoB still lacks the boundary maps. But I can't be sure because currently the whole site is down: an 'unplanned stoppage', it seems.

In more cheerful news, I'm pleased to discover that the NLS site now includes 6" IOS maps of Ireland.

[Sibboleth]

Is this a funding issue or downstream of one? VoB is entirely funded via HE and related routes, I believe...

[robert1]

I remember a while back on a thread someone posting about circles being drawn around a location to create a new constituency.

Could anyone please help either by identifying when/where this happened or the part of this site which identified such locations/maps?

Thank you.

[ntyuk1707]

I would want:
1) A consistent naming policy which priorities concise names while recognising distinct geographic communities and preferencing the use of historical constituency names. Compass-points should come before rural areas but after towns/cities. (For example, North Cornwall / Edinburgh South).
2) A policy of keeping settlements within a single constituency whenever possible. 
3) A policy of using polling districts as the base unit for creating constituencies in Scotland, as Scottish wards are too large to meaningfully reflect local community ties.
4) A revising of the plus or minus 5% rule to plus or minus 10%.

These policies would have avoided many issues in Scotland, for example the atrocities committed by the Commission in Renfrewshire and objectively bad constituency names such as 'Lothian East' and 'Aberdeenshire North & Moray East'

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 21, 2023 15:26:08 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

2) A policy of keeping settlements within a single constituency whenever possible. 
3) A policy of using polling districts as the base unit for creating constituencies in Scotland, as Scottish wards are too large to meaningfully reflect local community ties.

2 and 3 are often mutually incompatible. Electoral districts are drawn strictly to numbers, polling districts are arbitary collections of housesholds convenient for where-ever this year's polling station happens to be. They very often both slice communities up and join up unconnected communities. "Firshill" polling district in Sheffield:Burngreave would be a ridiculous unit to form a constituency from, and the polling district boundary along Crookes High Street in Sheffield:Crookes&Crosspool would also be ridiculous - so ridiculous that all participants in the 2004 ward review worked hard to emilinate it as a ward boundary. And just look at the Wybourn polling district!

[ntyuk1707]

Dec 21, 2023 15:41:49 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Dec 21, 2023 15:26:08 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

2) A policy of keeping settlements within a single constituency whenever possible. 
3) A policy of using polling districts as the base unit for creating constituencies in Scotland, as Scottish wards are too large to meaningfully reflect local community ties.

2 and 3 are often mutually incompatible. Electoral districts are drawn strictly to numbers, polling districts are arbitary collections of housesholds convenient for where-ever this year's polling station happens to be. They very often both slice communities up and join up unconnected communities. "Firshill" polling district in Sheffield:Burngreave would be a ridiculous unit to form a constituency from, and the polling district boundary along Crookes High Street in Sheffield:Crookes&Crosspool would also be ridiculous - so ridiculous that all participants in the 2004 ward review worked hard to emilinate it as a ward boundary. And just look at the Wybourn polling district!

Wards are so large in Scotland it is mandatory to split them just to create constituencies in many places. 

Would be better if Scotland reverted back to FPTP wards.

[bjornhattan]

Dec 21, 2023 15:52:22 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

Dec 21, 2023 15:41:49 GMT J.G.Harston said:

2 and 3 are often mutually incompatible. Electoral districts are drawn strictly to numbers, polling districts are arbitary collections of housesholds convenient for where-ever this year's polling station happens to be. They very often both slice communities up and join up unconnected communities. "Firshill" polling district in Sheffield:Burngreave would be a ridiculous unit to form a constituency from, and the polling district boundary along Crookes High Street in Sheffield:Crookes&Crosspool would also be ridiculous - so ridiculous that all participants in the 2004 ward review worked hard to emilinate it as a ward boundary. And just look at the Wybourn polling district!

Wards are so large in Scotland it is mandatory to split them just to create constituencies in many places. 

Would be better if Scotland reverted back to FPTP wards.

Scotland does have community councils - which in my view could work well as building blocks because they generally reflect actual community identities. There are a few (such as Arbroath or Leith) which are perhaps too large and many small rural communities which would have to be grouped together, but for the most part they are a reasonable size for building constituencies.

[edgbaston]

Dec 21, 2023 15:26:08 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

I would want:
1) A consistent naming policy which priorities concise names while recognising distinct geographic communities and preferencing the use of historical constituency names. Compass-points should come before rural areas but after towns/cities. (For example, North Cornwall / Edinburgh South).
2) A policy of keeping settlements within a single constituency whenever possible. 
3) A policy of using polling districts as the base unit for creating constituencies in Scotland, as Scottish wards are too large to meaningfully reflect local community ties.
4) A revising of the plus or minus 5% rule to plus or minus 10%.

These policies would have avoided many issues in Scotland, for example the atrocities committed by the Commission in Renfrewshire and objectively bad constituency names such as 'Lothian East' and 'Aberdeenshire North & Moray East'

This and no splitting of Lieutenancy Areas (where an area is below 75% of the average constituency electorate it may be wholly combined with part or all of other areas). The 10% either side is a core guide but where proven to be impossible is exempted.

[islington]

Dec 21, 2023 14:49:35 GMT robert1 said:

I remember a while back on a thread someone posting about circles being drawn around a location to create a new constituency.

Could anyone please help either by identifying when/where this happened or the part of this site which identified such locations/maps?

Thank you.

I am aware of two UK constituencies that were perfect circles.

Rochdale was drawn as such when first created in 1832 and retained that form until 1868, when it was substantially enlarged and its new, wider limits followed existing administrative boundaries and physical features.

Sligo (the town, not the county) was also defined with a circular boundary in 1832. It had existed as a UK constituency since Ireland acceded to the UK in 1801 and I'm not sure of its pre-1832 boundary (but I don't think it was circular). Sligo retained its circular shape until it was abolished for corruption in 1870.

When Galway City became an urban district, which I think was probably in 1898, its boundary was drawn as a perfect arc broken only where it intercepted the waters of Galway Bay. When Irish Parliamentary boundaries were redrawn in 1918, part of this arc was used as the boundary between Connemara and South Galway. Prior to 1918, Galway City had been a separate constituency but its boundary was that of the old county corporate, which was bigger than the urban district and was not defined by an arc. 

I could have illustrated this post with a nice map of the circular version of Rochdale had not Vision of Britain, as a service to users, withdrawn without warning or explanation its boundary maps.

[YL]

Dec 21, 2023 17:20:19 GMT islington said:

I could have illustrated this post with a nice map of the circular version of Rochdale had not Vision of Britain, as a service to users, withdrawn without warning or explanation its boundary maps.

It is shown on the Town Plans on the NLS site, e.g. maps.nls.uk/view/231281043

Curiously there is another circular boundary also shown on these, referred to as being defined in an Act for "Improving the Town of Rochdale". These two circles are not concentric and they cross; it appears that the municipal boundary was defined as whichever the outer one was (on this sheet the parliamentary one is the inner one and the other is marked as the municipal boundary).

[islington]

Dec 21, 2023 17:45:54 GMT YL said:

Dec 21, 2023 17:20:19 GMT islington said:

I could have illustrated this post with a nice map of the circular version of Rochdale had not Vision of Britain, as a service to users, withdrawn without warning or explanation its boundary maps.

It is shown on the Town Plans on the NLS site, e.g. maps.nls.uk/view/231281043

Curiously there is another circular boundary also shown on these, referred to as being defined in an Act for "Improving the Town of Rochdale". These two circles are not concentric and they cross; it appears that the municipal boundary was defined as whichever the outer one was (on this sheet the parliamentary one is the inner one and the other is marked as the municipal boundary).

How very interesting.

And to go a bit farther down this rabbit-hole, if you look at the central part of Rochdale in the same set of maps, you will see in the Old Market Place the mysterious letters 'A' and 'B'.

And not far off, these are glossed.

So this means that for Parliamentary purposes Rochdale was defined in 1832 as an exact circle of a three-quarter mile radius from a certain point ('A') in the Old Market Place; whereas for the purpose of the Improvement Act, passed in the early years of Queen Victoria, the town was also defined by an exact circle with a three-quarter-mile radius but with its centre at a slightly different point ('B') a few yards to the south.

Well, that's got to take the award for the most bizarrely useless piece of information to have come to my attention today.

[islington]

I hesitate to post this because I'm not sure how well it will come out, but it's from the georeferenced assembly on the NLS site of all these Rochdale maps and I think it is just about possible, if you squint, to make out the full circuit of both boundaries.