YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 26, 2016 6:43:57 GMT
I would accept that MC means that you don't make changes in areas where you don't need to. If we were having a review under the old rules in South Yorkshire, for example, I wouldn't argue too hard for changes to the things that I think the Fifth Review got wrong.
However, where change is needed, I'd prioritise the local ties and local government rules over MC: try to keep areas which belong together together even if it involves a bit more disruption of the existing constituency map. Prioritising MC can make it look like a good thing for an existing constituency which is a little bit too small to simply grab a neighbouring ward which is across a local government boundary and whose local ties are elsewhere, and I don't think that is a good approach in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 26, 2016 7:00:19 GMT
The rules are set out in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, but note that this is not the original Schedule 2; it is a new one that was introduced by section 11 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. It's all on line and well worth a look. Rule 5 (1) states:
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 as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-election day before 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.
This is strictly a permissive provision, i.e. it empowers (rather than requires) a Commission to take these factors into account. But even so, it is a pretty strong steer. The words 'minimum change' do not appear as such, but I think they fairly summarize points (c) - (e); and certainly my interpretation would be that even if a constituency has to be altered, e.g. because it is above or below quota, this should preferably be done in a way that maintains it as far as possible by adding and/or removing the odd ward or two, rather than by jettisoning the existing map altogether. There are, however, other factors to be taken into account: first and foremost, of course, the minimum and maximum sizes that apply to all constituencies (Rule 2) with a handful of exceptions (Rules 4, 6, 7); plus 'special geographical considerations' and 'local government boundaries' (which includes electoral wards). So there are grounds on which you can justify departing from the existing map, even if it's not strictly necessary in terms of the numbers, but I think you have to show a very strong case. In other words, you might be justified in disregarding the 'minimum change' implications of points (c) - (e) if this would allow you to effect a radical improvement in terms of points (a) and/or (b), but a more modest improvement would probably not suffice.
I line up with those in favour of the 'minimum change' requirement (bearing in mind that it can be balanced against other considerations). For instance, on the specific case of Derby, I originally suggested seats of East and West, basically because I couldn't get the numbers to work for North-South. But when someone came up with a workable North-South arrangement, I switched to it immediately, basically because of MC (although I agree that, if we were starting from scratch, East-West is better). It's not just politicians and political parties that object to unnecessary change; all the evidence from successive reviews is that the general public doesn't like it either.
I ought to mention Rule 5 (2), which is a specific power for the English Commission to take account of the electoral regions established for European elections.
It's also interesting to note that something we talk about a lot on this forum, namely 'community ties' (or words to that effect), does not feature in the rules at all.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 26, 2016 7:08:52 GMT
It's also interesting to note that something we talk about a lot on this forum, namely 'community ties' (or words to that effect), does not feature in the rules at all. How else do you interpret (d)? (The only oddity is that it means that only local ties within current constituencies are strictly relevant. Local ties to areas which are currently in different constituencies aren't mentioned.) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 26, 2016 7:15:43 GMT
(and technically, of course, the LCC did not cover the City). I thought the City was part of the LCC (and indeed all London local government bodies going right back to the Metropolitan Board of Works) but the Corporation retained a lot of powers elsewhere exercised at county level. It's the Lord Lieutenancies where the City is a clearly separate entity from the wider London. A Royal Commission in 1894 recommended the amalgamation of the City and County of London (i.e. of the Corporation and the LCC) but this was not implemented and I'm pretty sure that strictly speaking, the LCC never included the old City (although the City was included when 'Greater London' was established in 1965). For the purposes of Parliamentary distribution, however, the City was treated as if were part of the County of London; I presume this rule was introduced when it lost its separate representation as part of the changes that took effect in 1950. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 26, 2016 7:22:16 GMT
It's also interesting to note that something we talk about a lot on this forum, namely 'community ties' (or words to that effect), does not feature in the rules at all. How else do you interpret (d)? (The only oddity is that it means that only local ties within current constituencies are strictly relevant. Local ties to areas which are currently in different constituencies aren't mentioned.) Yes; sorry. My slack wording. I meant that the rules contain no general requirement to have regard to local ties in drawing seats. The actual power is much more specific, and relates only to ties within current seats. Thus, again taking the example of Derby, any ties (however feeble) that exist between parts of the current North or South seats are mentioned as a factor; but any ties (however strong) that exist between parts of the hypothetical East and West seats are not. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598 
|
Post by cibwr on Apr 26, 2016 10:34:50 GMT
One rule I find highly problematic is the Minimum Change (MC) rule. Now, if we are really going to have 5-yearly reviews, MC is important most of the time to avoid regular upheavals. But MC has serious negative consequences over time. Firstly, it has typically meant that smaller seats have stayed small and larger seats have stayed large, but the 5% rule has largely put paid to this problem. Secondly, it continues to mean that the composition of seats largely stays the same from decade to decade, thereby meaning that marginals stay marginals and safe seats stay safe. It means that certain places have disproportionately many wasted votes, and Labour/Tory/LD voters who never have a Labour/Tory/LD MP, and so on. Therefore voters deserve a fundamental redrawing of the boundaries - ignoring MC - every 15 years or so, eschewing sentiment and ignoring party convenience. Democracy is not about sentimentality or convenience. Indeed, and minimum change is not really possible in many areas given the current parameters the Boundary Commission has to operate with for the Sixth Review:
1. The Cornish constituency map will have to be completely redrawn, with one Cornish constituency crossing the Tamar  /quote] My understanding is that you can just squeeze 5 large Cornish constituencies into Cornwall without having to cross the Tamar and still be in quota. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 26, 2016 10:35:38 GMT
How else do you interpret (d)? (The only oddity is that it means that only local ties within current constituencies are strictly relevant. Local ties to areas which are currently in different constituencies aren't mentioned.) Yes; sorry. My slack wording. I meant that the rules contain no general requirement to have regard to local ties in drawing seats. The actual power is much more specific, and relates only to ties within current seats. Thus, again taking the example of Derby, any ties (however feeble) that exist between parts of the current North or South seats are mentioned as a factor; but any ties (however strong) that exist between parts of the hypothetical East and West seats are not. Though, of course, the reports talk about the local ties that bind their newly created seats together all the time where that is the case. After all, what other basis are you going to decide which parts of abolished seat A should go into preserved, enlarged seat B and which into shifted & enlarged seat C than their ties to their new seats? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 26, 2016 10:39:25 GMT
Indeed, and minimum change is not really possible in many areas given the current parameters the Boundary Commission has to operate with for the Sixth Review:
1. The Cornish constituency map will have to be completely redrawn, with one Cornish constituency crossing the Tamar My understanding is that you can just squeeze 5 large Cornish constituencies into Cornwall without having to cross the Tamar and still be in quota. Into Cornwall, theoretically yes. Into Cornwall and Scilly, no. (Also, that would still mean completely redrawing the Cornish constituency map.) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 29, 2016 14:26:27 GMT
On the dividing of towns
I promised some general thoughts on this subject, which has exercised us on several of the regional threads.
First of all, a health warning and a definition.
Health warning: Although I hope that this approach is consistent with the rules governing the Boundary Commission, I am not claiming that it is the only possible approach. It reflects my own ideas, and it is clear from our discussions that others have different views which may well be equally compliant.
Definition: By ‘town’, I mean any reasonably recognizable settlement. Its formal status may be that of a city or village rather than a town, or it may indeed be a clearly distinguishable suburb within a larger town or city (thus, a ‘town’ in my sense may contain a number of smaller ‘towns’).
I’d also suggest, perhaps more controversially, that a ‘town’ must always be confined within a single local authority. I appreciate that some LA boundaries are unsatisfactory in one way or another: e.g. towns like Reading or Norwich have clearly overspilt their boundaries, and there’s no end of other authorities where the boundary makes little sense in the ground (I offer Watford as an example but there are countless others). Nevertheless, I don’t think a Parliamentary review is the place to address the shortcomings of the LA map, so I’m taking LA boundaries as I find them. This means that the ‘towns’ of, e.g., Liverpool and Manchester should be treated as defined by their borough boundaries. It also means that it it’s not helpful, for this purpose, to treat London itself as a ‘town’ so it should be regarded as sui generis (but this does not stop it from containing many ‘towns’).
I suggested in the North West thread that dividing a town may be either
a) fine and dandy;
b) undesirable in itself but acceptable in the context of a satisfactory overall plan; or
c) to be avoided at (virtually) any cost.
Fine and dandy
Several bigger towns across the country are too big to form a single constituency so clearly they must be divided between two or more. This is uncontroversial provided it’s done in a sensible way. Where a town is big enough to be the dominant factor in two or more constituencies, it’s perfectly in order (if the ward boundaries and numbers mean that this creates the best map) to put the boundary right through the centre. The names of the seats will include the name of the divided town as their main or sole element, e.g. Bradford East, Sheffield Brightside. Where one or more of the seats includes elements from outside the town, this may be (but need not always be) reflected in the name, e.g. Manchester Blackley and Prestwich, but in this case the main town element should come first so that the seats are next to each other on alphabetical lists (so it ought to be ‘Southend East and Rochford’, not as at present).
(I’d make a special exception for ‘City of London and Westminster South’ because of the tradition (no longer a legal requirement) that the City of London receives unique primacy. And because I like symmetry, this means I’m calling the other Westminster seat ‘St Pancras and Westminster North’.)
Where a town is big enough to get two or more seats, peripheral wards may be be hived off if necessary for numbers but its central area should be contained within one or more seats that consist mainly or wholly of the town. This may seem obvious; but it’s why I’m so anxious to avoid seats like ‘Tyne Bridge’ or ‘Cities of Salford and Manchester’. If this kind of mash-up is really necessary, it should consist of peripheral areas, not the centres of big towns.
For towns where the electorate is too big for one seat but too small for two, it’s usual to draw two seats, both mainly or solely named after the town, with one or both of the seats eked out with adjacent territory (e.g. Norwich, Reading). But where the town is not too much oversize for a seat, another option is to hive off a ward or two. In this case, the wards removed should be peripheral to the town, so that the seat contains the bulk of the town including the central area (e.g. Exeter, Gloucester, Huddersfield).
Undesirable but sometimes acceptable
The great majority of towns, however, are small enough to fall within a single seat – occasionally on their own (e.g. Cambridge) but usually in association with other towns or rural areas.
Sometimes, however, it is necessary to divide such a town in order to achieve a satisfactory fit elsewhere. If the town is big enough to form the dominant element in two seats, it may be acceptable to divide it (roughly) in half. An example in my proposals is Solihull. The town itself (I mean the town, not the whole borough) would just about fit in a single seat, as at present; and this would have been my preferred outcome, but I couldn’t make it work in the context of my overall scheme for the West Midlands met area. But I found that putting a boundary right through the town centre meant that everything fell into place, and Solihull is a big enough place that the seats could be called ‘Solihull North’ and ‘Solihull South’ without incongruity.
I’d be much less happy with taking a similar approach with a smaller town, which is why I so much dislike the current division of Sale. This is too big a town to ignore in constituency names, but not really big enough to form the lead component (‘Sale East and Wythenshawe’, ‘Sale West and Altrincham’).
Another occasional problem arises when the overall seat pattern clearly dictates that a given town must be included in a particular seat, but the numbers won’t allow it. If the seat pattern is clearly the best and if other solutions, such as the shuffling around of rural wards, won’t resolve the problem, it may be possible to rescue the plan by giving the town a trim: i.e. removing the odd peripheral ward, even if it’s definitely part of the town, but keeping the bulk of the town, including its central area, in the ‘right’ seat. I am not claiming this is a pretty solution and I’d go to some lengths to avoid it, but sometimes it’s the least bad option. I had to do it, for instance, to get my ‘Rugby and Kenilworth’ seat to work; and for a real-world example, the BCE did this with the current Lancaster and Fleetwood seat, which carves off part of Lancaster town.
A much more common problem occurs when a ward contains part of a town that mainly lies in one or more other wards. I have to say that I have much less compunction about dividing a town in these circumstances: I might try to avoid it, but probably not very hard if the seat pattern otherwise works well. But for me to feel (reasonably) comfortable about it, the ward in question must be mainly ‘something else’, i.e. the bulk of its electors should live in rural areas or other towns so that these are the main focus of the ward. Examples are Ossett in Yorkshire and Tiptree in Essex, where I was challenged over my readiness to draw a boundary separating the bulk of a town (including its centre) from some of its more peripheral areas in another ward.
Avoid at (almost) any cost
I am particularly unhappy about dividing a town when
- it is relatively small
- the division goes right through the middle
Unfortunately, some of these just can’t be helped but I’m willing to go to considerable lengths to try to avoid them (short of ward-splitting). For instance, I realized that my original proposals in Newcastle upon Tyne involved perpetuating an existing split in Gosforth – the boundary runs right down the High Street. I was able to fix it, and I was willing to accept a longer, more awkward boundary and some unwelcome knock-on consequences for an adjoining seat.
On the other hand, there are many cases (too embarrassing to list) where I’ve allowed a town split in this sort of situation, simply because the alternatives seem so much worse. But it’s definitely one of the main things I watch out for in evaluating my own ideas and those put forward by others.
Clean line v dirty line
This is a footnote really, but it’s a response to Minion’s expressed preference for a ‘clean’ line (typically a railway or a motorway) as opposed to a ‘dirty’ line (something meandering its way through a housing estate following the line of a stream that used to flow through the area before it was developed).
I agree with the preference, but for me it’s a fairly marginal issue: I’m more worried about getting the map right in broad terms, and I expect there will always be oddities and anomalies at a more granular level.
And on railways specifically, I’d make the point that although a railway boundary will almost always look very nice on the map, and will often work well on the ground, there are occasions when it’s actually a very poor choice. This will arise typically when a town or suburb developed around a railway station, as is very common around London but to an extent around other big cities. If the town grew from practically nothing, then the railway is in effect a unifying factor, not a dividing line, and the area around the station is likely to be the heart of the town. This is why I think Minion is wrong to divide Ladywell from Lewisham, and a few miles to the east I also disagree with his use of a railway through the middle of Welling (although I admit the latter is especially tempting).
That’s it. Sorry for an inordinately long post. I found I had more to say than I expected. I reiterate that I'm simply explaining my own approach, I'm not seeking to impose it on others.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 29, 2016 15:15:58 GMT
Ward Splitting (or not):
Looking at others proposals and considering what I would try and do in places it occurs to me that most people are against ward-splitting in virtually any scenario, and in fact will go to considerable lengths to avoid it.
I am much less resistant to this, and in fact would like to suggest that any ward which is larger in size than 10% of the Quota is, by definition, too large and one should feel free to split it if required. (The 10% of the Quota number comes about as it is at this point which a ward being added to a proposed area can move it directly from 'under quota' to 'over quota'. If the blocks being used are larger than the maximum tolerance allowed then the blocks are too big.)
The most obvious example appears to be Sheffield, with a quota of 4.96 seats, but with only 28 wards across the city. Instead of being comfortable splitting wards which are clearly far too large to be reasonably used as sensible components it seems that some will go to considerable length (ie moving wards to and from Rotherham) to avoid this.
Why is this? Almost any ward, but particularly one which contains more than 7,500 electors, will consist of multiple 'population units' which just happen to have been grouped together in one particular way at one particular time for local government purposes. (The Sheffield example is particularly pointed given that by the time the new parliamentary boundaries are in use, so will the new ward boundaries and so the 'advantage' of using whole wards meaning contiguity between local and parliamentary boundaries doesn't apply. And yet people are still insistent on not ward-splitting / minimum ward-splitting).
I'd be interested to hear the opposing view as it seems to me to be a somewhat artificial restriction that is being imposed and I would think that better (more natural) seats could be created without the imposition of it when inappropriate.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 29, 2016 17:44:28 GMT
Ward Splitting (or not):
Looking at others proposals and considering what I would try and do in places it occurs to me that most people are against ward-splitting in virtually any scenario, and in fact will go to considerable lengths to avoid it. I am much less resistant to this, and in fact would like to suggest that any ward which is larger in size than 10% of the Quota is, by definition, too large and one should feel free to split it if required. (The 10% of the Quota number comes about as it is at this point which a ward being added to a proposed area can move it directly from 'under quota' to 'over quota'. If the blocks being used are larger than the maximum tolerance allowed then the blocks are too big.) The most obvious example appears to be Sheffield, with a quota of 4.96 seats, but with only 28 wards across the city. Instead of being comfortable splitting wards which are clearly far too large to be reasonably used as sensible components it seems that some will go to considerable length (ie moving wards to and from Rotherham) to avoid this. Why is this? Almost any ward, but particularly one which contains more than 7,500 electors, will consist of multiple 'population units' which just happen to have been grouped together in one particular way at one particular time for local government purposes. (The Sheffield example is particularly pointed given that by the time the new parliamentary boundaries are in use, so will the new ward boundaries and so the 'advantage' of using whole wards meaning contiguity between local and parliamentary boundaries doesn't apply. And yet people are still insistent on not ward-splitting / minimum ward-splitting). I'd be interested to hear the opposing view as it seems to me to be a somewhat artificial restriction that is being imposed and I would think that better (more natural) seats could be created without the imposition of it when inappropriate. Generally, I agree with you. I think that, with the 5% rule, trying too hard to avoid split wards is bad policy and was responsible for a lot of what was wrong with the zombie review's recommendations in England, especially around the big cities; Mersey Banks would never have been dreamt of otherwise, and nor would that Leeds Metropolitan & Ossett nonsense. (How anyone can think that a city the size of Leeds should have its city centre placed with a clearly separate town that is outside even its very loosely drawn boundaries beats me.) There are, however, a couple of reasons why amateur map-drawers such as those on this forum might try to avoid splitting wards. One is that if the BCE is going to be hostile to ward splits then there isn't much point in drawing maps which have them. This was why I drew that map crossing the Sheffield/Rotherham border: I'd got the impression that they might well want to try to keep the Sheffield ward splits to one, and wanted to see whether it was possible to do anything not too horrible within that constraint. (I do think that, within that constraint, it's not that bad and keeps the border crossing in a place where the border is fairly arbitrary, but I agree that it would be better to split two Sheffield wards and respect that border.) The other thing is that we don't have detailed electorate data at a sub-ward level, so it's not immediately obvious whether a particular split works, especially in an area we might not know particularly well. In Sheffield, J.G.Harston has some useful maps on his website ( here) but even there the electorates are local government numbers from a couple of years ago and so are only an approximation. If there's a similar resource for Leeds I'd like to see it! |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 29, 2016 18:39:38 GMT
Replying to one of islington's points about split towns: Where a town is too big for one seat and has to have some areas hived off, I feel that they ought to be a coherent group of wards and should all go in the same constituency. Oxford is an example: the obvious approach is to have an Oxford seat consisting of the city minus three wards, and I'd rather those three wards themselves formed a natural group rather than have the surrounding seats nibbling at the Oxford boundary in various places. (I suggested Wolvercote, Summertown and St. Margaret's, although there are other possibilities which would meet that criterion just as well.) |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 29, 2016 18:44:53 GMT
I don't think the lack of accurate PD data should put people off considering the options - the data will become available in the autumn and you can check your figures then.
I was - and still am - very angry with the BCE for their stance on split wards at the zombie review, and I was quite rude to them when I spoke in Chester. I assume this diktat came from the non-statisticians among them, because any of their many statisticians could surely see that it was mathematical nonsense to try to create sensible seats +/- 5% of the quota without splitting wards, in areas with ward sizes bigger than 10% of the quota. The whole thing seemed like a bad case of the Emperor's New Clothes to me.
This impacts greatly on Islington's discussion of town-splitting. Apart from the fact that it makes life more complicated, it's a no-brainer to me that ward-splitting is preferable to town-splitting. Many wards include bits and bobs, and the idea that they should be sacrosanct is barmy.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 29, 2016 18:47:44 GMT
In the North-West thread, Adrian said: TBH I think this is a lost cause, especially given the way they do the seat allocation. The only place where I think there's much of a case is around Grimsby and Cleethorpes where the regional boundary is quite constraining and forces the parts of the two towns outside the main urban seat in the area into a seat with places way to the west. Of course my preferred solution to this is to move the regional boundary back to the Yorkshire/Lincolnshire boundary. If they're still trying desperately not to split wards, there'd also be a case for crossing the YatH/EM boundary further west as well, to make it easier to draw not-totally-ridiculous seats in the Sheffield area. But if you're prepared to split a Sheffield ward or two, crossing into Derbyshire strikes me as a solution looking for a problem. (Not to mention the pitchforks.) |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,804
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 29, 2016 18:47:51 GMT
The other thing is that we don't have detailed electorate data at a sub-ward level, so it's not immediately obvious whether a particular split works, especially in an area we might not know particularly well. In Sheffield, J.G.Harston has some useful maps on his website ( here) but even there the electorates are local government numbers from a couple of years ago and so are only an approximation. If there's a similar resource for Leeds I'd like to see it! is the Sheffield polling district parliamentary electorate, I haven't transfered it all to the maps yet. They are the figures for 1st Macrh 2016, so will be very slightly adrift of 1st December 2015 but should be not enough to be significant. Also, it only has the raw figures for Central and Brightside at the moment, the rest are currently calculated from the ward parliamentary electorate in proportion to the published number of households in each polling district. I'm replacing these calculated figures with the raw figures as I go, but it's only been changing in the region of +10/-10 electors. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 29, 2016 19:12:16 GMT
I agree with most of Islington's points, but I do think clean lines are important when splitting a town. Yes, those won't always be railway lines, but there is going to be a locally recognisable line - this is just an area where us internet mapmakers will be at a disadvantage relative to people who actually know the towns in question.
And I don't see the problem with something like Tyne Bridge - you seem to be treating a 'town' as sui generis, whereas in fact you can wander from the centre of Newcastle to the centre of Gateshead in 15 minutes and have finished your pint before somebody walking the other way has got to Jesmond. If urban geography happens to place two town centres next to each other, I don't see the issue - particularly since when we're dealing with cities, the central population is often fairly transient and has weaker attachments to particular geographic areas than their more suburban counterparts do.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 8:14:46 GMT
The other thing is that we don't have detailed electorate data at a sub-ward level, so it's not immediately obvious whether a particular split works An issue especially if you're trying to create two undersized (or oversized) seats in order to avoid a boundary crossing. Ward splitting in itself should not be viewed as problematic, but moving half of a particular backstreet to another seat to make up the numbers should be. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 8:21:01 GMT
Wards in excess of 10% of quota and wards in excess of 5% of quota in authorities where the average ward is in excess of 10% of quota might be a workable constraint on allowable ward splits. (Though incidentally, that would still disallow the Gloucestershire ward splits from the zombie.) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 30, 2016 8:46:00 GMT
A much more common problem occurs when a ward contains part of a town that mainly lies in one or more other wards. I have to say that I have much less compunction about dividing a town in these circumstances: I might try to avoid it, but probably not very hard if the seat pattern otherwise works well. But for me to feel (reasonably) comfortable about it, the ward in question must be mainly ‘something else’, i.e. the bulk of its electors should live in rural areas or other towns so that these are the main focus of the ward. Examples are Ossett in Yorkshire and Tiptree in Essex, where I was challenged over my readiness to draw a boundary separating the bulk of a town (including its centre) from some of its more peripheral areas in another ward. A third of the town, in that case.Is it the line of a stream? I had no idea. Though such things often are, of course. It's only partly my preference, partly something picked up from earlier reports. They often talk about strong, recognizable boundaries, and it does make sense - though slightly less sense now that there's a review every five years and thus less of a supposition that a new boundary may last forever. This is a major reason why the no ward splits policy is wrong, incidentally. If maintained It will mean wholesale rearrangements of all or most major urban areas at every single election . Christ almighty. I suppose the government figured that most of the affected would be Labour MPs anyways, so who care. Hearing you loud and clear, and perfectly willing to admit you're probably right. These are the kind of boundaries that arise when you don't know an area.  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 30, 2016 11:21:57 GMT
I'll try to do a longer reply on the subject of ward splits if I have time later, but all I want to say now is that it would be easy to get the impression that ward splits are the solution to all ills and if only they were more freely adopted there would be no more awkward seats with ugly boundaries.
Well, I have experimented with a few and it's not what I've found. The great majority of ugly or awkward boundaries aren't the result of a failure to split wards. They're the result of numbers - simply, too many voters in one place, or too few in another, to allow us to draw a better boundary.
Sheffield's a classic example. Its entitlement is 5.10 (not 4.96 as stated upthread) so it could receive 5 whole seats with a degree of ward-splitting (over and above the single split that is clearly unavoidable). But then the entitlement of the rest of S Yorks is 7.64, which is impractical for 8 seats. Therefore you would have to cross the S Yorks boundary into W Yorks, N Yorks, or Humberside (take your pick) thus disrupting the satisfactory schemes that we already have for treating each of those areas by itself - all for the sake of protecting the Sheffield city boundary. Whereas if you add Sheffield's 5.10 to the rest of S Yorks, you get an entitlement of 12.74 for 13 seats. This is tricky but doable, and the other parts of Y&H can be left alone. So it's all about numbers, not ward-splitting - it would almost certainly still be necessary to cross the Sheffield boundary even if the city could be divided into five whole seats without any ward-splitting at all.
And bear in mind that we already have plans that, with the barest minimum of ward-splitting (one ward in Sheffield), offer boundaries for the whole of England that are pretty reasonable on the whole - of course, with their awkwardnesses here and there but a substantial improvement (I suggest) on what the BCE came up with at the zombie review. (Actually, I liked Minion's phrase the other day: 'Legal and not completely horrid'.)
So I think the onus is on ward-splitters to show us that splitting allows a map that is a substantial (not marginal) improvement on what we have now, taking account not just of a specific city but of the ripple effects that are likely to extend over a much wider area.
On the subject of dividing towns, YL suggested that when the numbers require wards to be hived off from a town, those wards should preferably go into the same seat. I agree this is desirable, although it has to take its place alongside other desirable things like minimum change; and admittedly (as he's probably about to point out) I couldn't achieve it in the case of Bradford and Birmingham. However, I don't see why it should matter whether the hived-off wards form a coherent bloc in themselves, since they are not going to function as a unit for any purpose.
|
|
