2018 review-Pat Glass amendment

[goose]

Alternative North East proposals

27 Seats



1. Langbaurgh  - 64,963 (Tory - Labour marginal) [Ward splits in Ladgate and Marton East, Everything North of Ladgate Lane in Middlesbrough]

2. Redcar - 64,025 (Safe Labour)

3. Middlesbrough - 61,539 (Safe Labour) [Ward splits in Ladgate and Marton East, Everything North of Ladgate Lane in Middlesbrough]

4. Billingham and Ingleby Barwick - 62,742 (Tory - Labour marginal)

5. Stockton-on-Tees - 75,096 (Safe Labour)

6. Hartlepool - 68,201 (Safe Labour)



7. Darlington - 74,929 (Tory - Labour marginal)

8. Bishop Auckland - 65,862 (Tory - Labour marginal)

9. Sedgefield - 63,672 (Safe Labour)

10. Easington - 73,586 (Safe Labour)

11. City of Durham - 64,467 (Safe Labour)

12. Consett - 74,204 (Safe Labour)



13. Sunderland South - 71,103 (Safe Labour)

14. Sunderland North and Boldon - 70,159 (Safe Labour)

15. Washington and Hebburn - 67,768 (Safe Labour)

16. Chester-le-Street and Houghton - 72,058 (Safe Labour)

17. South Shields and Jarrow - 75,404 (Safe Labour)

18. Blaydon - 66,409 (Safe Labour)

19. Gateshead - 74,533 (Safe Labour)



20. Newcastle Upon Tyne North - 73,421 (Safe Labour)

21. Newcastle Upon Tyne Central - 73,690 (Safe Labour)

22. Newcastle Upon Tyne East and Wallsend - 70,584 (Safe Labour)

23. Tynemouth - 74,618 (Safe Labour)

24. Cramlington and Longbenton - 72,436 (Safe Labour)



25. Berwick and Morpeth - 66,279 (Safe Tory)

26. Hexham - 62,662 (Safe Tory)

27. Blyth and Ashington - 69,986 (Safe Labour)

2017 Notional Results North East

Tory - 6 (Up 3)

Labour - 21 (Down 5)

[jamie]

Some of those North East proposals are horrific, no offence.

[Clarko]

Jul 9, 2017 8:18:17 GMT andrewteale said:

In case anybody else wants to have a play, here are the entitlements.

Electoral quota 68982
Lower bound 62084
Upper bound 75880

National allocations
England 540+2
Wales 32
Scotland 56+2
Northern Ireland 18

East Midlands 47
Eastern 61
London 74
North East 27
North West 73
South East 87+2
South West 57
West Midlands 58
Yorkshire/Humber 54

Are you sure about those allocations?
If you add up the allocations for England it comes up two seats short.

I get it as:

East Midlands  47
Eastern  61
Greater London  74
North East  27
North West  74
Northern Ireland  18
Scotland  56
South East  88
South West  57
Wales  32
West Midlands  58
Yorkshire & Humber  54
IoW  2
O&S  1
WI  1

[goose]

Alternative North West proposals

74 Seats



1. Westmorland - 75,204 (Tory - Lib Dem marginal)

2. Penrith and Solway - 75,130 (Safe Tory)

3. Workington and Whitehaven - 75,152 (Safe Labour)

4. Barrow and Furness - 73,316 (Tory - Labour marginal)

5. Carlisle - 75,195 (Safe Tory)



6. Morecambe and Lunesdale - 66,808 (Tory - Labour marginal)

7. Lancaster and Wyre - 72,730 (Tory - Labour marginal)

8. Fylde - 74,008 (Safe Tory)

9. Blackpool South - 68,409 (Labour - Tory marginal)

10. Blackpool North and Fleetwood - 71,687 (Labour - Tory marginal)

11. Preston - 72,286 (Safe Labour)

12. Clitheroe and Bamber Bridge - 64,952 (Safe Tory)

13. Leyland - 70,821 (Safe Tory)

14. Chorley - 73,323 (Safe Labour)

15. Ormskirk - 71,897 (Safe Labour)

16. Blackburn - 72,816 (Safe Labour)

17. Rossendale and Darwen - 66,613 (Tory - Labour marginal)

18. Accrington - 68,093 (Safe Labour)

19. Nelson and Colne - 62,891 (Tory - Labour marginal)

20. Burnley - 63,228 (Safe Labour)

21. Southport - 75,828 ( Tory - Labour marginal)



22. Crosby - 63,891 (Safe Labour)

23. Bootle - 69,928 (Safe Labour)

24. Liverpool Walton and Kirkby - 71,787 (Safe Labour)

25. Liverpool West Derby - 62,153 (Safe Labour)

26. Liverpool Riverside - 67,054 (Safe Labour)

27. Liverpool Wavertree - 66,824 (Safe Labour)

28. Liverpool Garston - 66,626 (Safe Labour)

29. Widnes - 62,664 (Safe Labour)

30. Huyton - 63,819 (Safe Labour)

31. St Helens North - 64,022 (Safe Labour)

32. St Helens South - 66,554 (Safe Labour)



33. Birkenhead - 72,957 (Safe Labour)

34. Wallasey - 74,240 (Safe Labour)

35. Bebington and Heswall - 65,762 (Labour - Tory marginal)

36. Ellesmere Port and Bromborough - 74,860 (Safe Labour)

37. Eddisbury and Neston - 70,281 (Safe Tory)

38. Chester - 69,895 (Safe Labour)

39. Northwich - 66,921 (Tory - Labour marginal)

40. Crewe and Nantwich - 72,890 (Tory - Labour marginal)

41. Runcorn - 69,380 (Safe Labour)

42. Congleton - 74,186 (Safe Tory)

43. Macclesfield - 69,582 (Safe Tory)

44. Knutsford - 63,955 (Safe Tory)



45. Warrington Central - 63,554 (Safe Labour)

46. Warrington North and Irlam - 71,230 (Labour - Tory marginal)

47. Salford and Eccles - 73,741 (Safe Labour)

48. Worsley and Pendlebury - 74,004 (Safe Labour)

49. Leigh - 65,497 (Safe Labour) 

50. Makerfield - 72,235 (Safe Labour)

51. Wigan - 72,733 (Safe Labour)

52. Bolton West and Hindley - 67,157 (Labour - Tory marginal)

53. Bolton North - 73,639 (Labour - Tory marginal)

54. Bolton South - 65,610 (Safe Labour)

55. Prestwich and Radcliffe - 70,085 (Safe Labour)

56. Bury - 64,564 (Labour - Tory marginal)



57. Altrincham and Sale South - 70,251 (Tory - Labour marginal)

58. Wythenshawe and Sale North - 75,387 (Safe Labour)

59. Stretford and Urmston - 67,424 (Safe Labour)

60. Manchester Withington - 74,616 (Safe Labour)

61. Manchester Gorton - 74,227 (Safe Labour)

62. Manchester Central - 76,173 (Safe Labour) [ward split in Miles Platting and Newton Heath] Everything North of the train line and West of the canal in Manchester Blackley.

63. Manchester Blackley - 67,001 (Safe Labour) [ward split in Miles Platting and Newton Heath] Everything North of the train line and West of the canal in Manchester Blackley.

64. Cheadle - 71,137 (Tory - Lib Dem marginal)

65. Stockport - 70,352 (Safe Labour)

66. Hazel Grove - 70,359 (Safe Tory)



67. Littleborough and Saddleworth - 69,077 (Tory - Labour marginal)

68. Rochdale - 65,114 (Safe Labour) [ward split in Castleton] Everything South of the M62 in Heywood and Middleton.

69. Heywood and Middleton - 69,439 (Safe Labour) [ward split in Castleton] Everything South of the M62 in Heywood and Middleton.

70. Oldham North - 62,230 (Safe Labour)

71. Oldham South and Droylsden - 62,995 (Safe Labour)

72. Ashton-under-Lyne - 67,823 (Safe Labour)

73. Denton and Hyde - 69,459 (Safe Labour)

2017 Notional Results North West

Tory - 22 (Up 2)

Labour - 51 (Down 3)

Lib Dem 0 (Down 1)

(While overall entitlement is 74 seats I ended up with 73 to avoid crossing the Cumbria - Lancashire boundary)

[goose]

Alternate West Midlands proposals

58 Seats



1. Hereford - 69,925 (Safe Tory)

2. Leominster - 63,101 (Safe Tory)



3. Worcestershire West - 72,674 (Safe Tory)

4. Worcester - 70,542 (Tory - Labour marginal)

5. Worcestershire Mid - 73,420 (Safe Tory)

6. Redditch - 64,071 (Safe Tory)

7. Kidderminster - 75,226 (Safe Tory)

8. Bromsgrove - 72,042 (Safe Tory)



9. Meriden - 68,992 (Safe Tory)

10. Solihull - 75,121 (Safe Tory)

11. Rugby - 71,187 (Safe Tory)

12. Nuneaton - 63,786 (Tory - Labour marginal)

13. Warwickshire North - 74,124 (Safe Tory)

14. Warwick and Leamington - 69,256 (Labour - Tory marginal)

15. Kenilworth and Southam - 68,866 (Safe Tory)

16. Stratford-On-Avon - 63,857 (Safe Tory)

17. Coventry North West - 70,716 (Safe Labour)

18. Coventry North East - 72,135 (Safe Labour)

19. Coventry South - 67,180 (Safe Labour)



20. Sutton Coldfield - 73,172 (Safe Tory)

21. Birmingham Erdington - 62,552 (Safe Labour)

22. Birmingham Perry Barr - 67,710 (Safe Labour)

23. Birmingham Ladywood - 65,716 (Safe Labour)

24. Birmingham Hodge Hill - 73,173 (Safe Labour)

25. Birmingham Yardley - 69,911 (Safe Labour)

26. Birmingham Hall Green - 73,991 (Safe Labour)

27. Birmingham Selly Oak - 68,407 (Safe Labour)

28. Birmingham Northfield - 69,377 (Safe Labour)

29. Birmingham Edgbaston - 62,795 (Safe labour)



30. Stoke-On-Trent South - 66,835 (Tory - Labour marginal)

31. Stoke-On-Trent Central - 68,293 (Labour - Tory marginal)

32. Stoke-On-Trent North - 62,354 (Labour - Tory marginal)

33. Newcastle-Under-Lyme - 71,622 (Tory - Labour marginal)



34. Staffordshire Moorlands - 63,840 (Safe Tory)

35. Stone - 70,817 (Safe Tory)

36. Burton - 65,511 (Safe Tory)

37. Stafford - 66,817 (Safe Tory)

38. Cannock Chase - 73,470 (Safe Tory)

39. Staffordshire South - 71,488 (Safe Tory)

40. Lichfield - 66,504 (Safe Tory)

41. Tamworth - 67,776 (Safe Tory)



42. Stourbridge - 68,475 (Safe Tory)

43. Halesowen and Rowley Regis - 66,864 (Tory - Labour marginal)

44. Dudley North - 70,661 (Labour - Tory marginal)

45. Dudley South - 70,397 (Safe Tory)

46. Wolverhampton West - 66,116 (Labour - Tory marginal)

47. Wolverhampton East - 68,898 (Safe Labour)

48. Wednesfield and Willenhall - 63,678 (Safe Labour)

49. West Bromwich and Bilston - 62,531 (Safe Labour)

50. Smethwick - 70,534 (Safe Labour)

51. Wednesbury - 63,518 (Safe Labour)

52. Walsall - 73,248 (Safe Labour)

53. Aldridge-Brownhills - 67,141 (Safe Tory)



54. Shropshire North - 74,385 (Safe Tory)

55. Shrewsbury and Atcham - 75,768 (Safe Tory)

56. Ludlow - 68,930 (Safe Tory)

57. Telford - 65,706 (Tory - Labour marginal)

58. The Wrekin - 64,118 (Safe Tory)

2017 Notional Results

Tory - 35 (No Change)

Labour - 23 (Down 1)

[goose]

Alternative Eastern proposals

61 Seats



1. Luton South - 71,881 (Safe Labour)

2. Luton North and Toddington - 70,671 (Safe Labour)

3. Bedfordshire South West - 74,509 (Safe Tory)

4. Bedfordshire Mid - 74,979 (Safe Tory)

5. Bedfordshire North - 74,265 (Safe Tory)

6. Bedford - 73,269 (Labour - Tory marginal)



7. Hemel Hempstead - 70,741 (Safe Tory)

8. Hertfordshire South West - 66,161 (Safe Tory)

9. Watford - 63,484 (Labour - Tory marginal)

10. Hertsmere - 69,825 (Safe Tory)

11. Harpenden - 64,436 (Safe Tory)

12. St Albans - 70,727 (Tory - Lib Dem marginal)

13. Welwyn Hatfield - 73,296 (Safe Tory)

14. Broxbourne - 66,150 (Safe Tory)

15. Hertford and Reyston - 63,469 (Safe Tory)

16. Stortford and Ware - 63,423 (Safe Tory)

17. Stevenage - 65,649 (Tory - Labour marginal)

18. Hitchin and Letchworth - 63,869 (Safe Tory)



19. Norwich South - 75,061 (Safe Labour)

20. Norwich North - 63,487 (Tory - Labour marginal)

21. Broadland - 72,897 (Safe Tory)

22. Norfolk North - 67,640 (Lib Dem - Tory marginal)

23. Norfolk North West - 74,734 (Safe Tory)

24. Norfolk South West - 75,121 (Safe Tory)

25. Norfolk Mid - 74,676 (Safe Tory)

26. Norfolk South - 72,454 (Safe Tory)

27. Great Yarmouth - 69,691 (Safe Tory)



28. Suffolk South - 65,071 (Safe Tory)

29. Ipswich West - 73,312 (Labour - Tory marginal)

30. Ipswich East and Felixstowe - 62,107 (Safe Tory)

31. Suffolk Coastal - 70,928 (Safe Tory)

32. Lowestoft - 66,062 (Safe Tory)

33. Stowmarket - 62,550 (Safe Tory)

34. Bury St Edmunds - 63,443 (Safe Tory)

35. Suffolk West - 62,744 (Safe Tory)



36. Cambridge - 72,757 (Safe Labour)

37. St Neots - 65,735 (Safe Tory)

38. Cambridgeshire South - 67,923 (Safe Tory)

39. Ely - 67,173 (Safe Tory)

40. Huntingdon - 75,406 (Safe Tory)

41. Cambridgeshire North East - 69,319 (Safe Tory)

42. Peterborough - 70,623 (Labour - Tory marginal)

43. Cambridgeshire North West - 65,951 (Safe Tory)



44. Thurrock West - 69,065 (Tory - Labour marginal)

45. Billericay and Thurrock East - 73,476 (Safe Tory)

46. Basildon - 71,441 (Safe Tory)

47. Brentwood and Ongar - 69,244 (Safe Tory)

48. Castle Point - 67,541 (Safe Tory)

49. Southend West - 64,952 (Safe Tory)

50. Rochford and Southend East - 69,533 (Safe Tory)

51. Rayleigh and Wickford - 75,456 (Safe Tory)

52. Chelmsford - 73,716 (Safe Tory)

53. Maldon - 73,315 (Safe Tory)

54. Saffron Walden - 74,401 (Safe Tory)

55. Braintree - 72,842 (Safe Tory)

56. Witham - 70,910 (Safe Tory)

57. Colchester - 72,295 (Safe Tory)

58. Harwich and Tey - 68,541 (Safe Tory)

59. Clacton -  68,209 (Safe Tory)

60. Harlow - 66,139 (Safe Tory)

61. Epping Forest - 73,521 (Safe Tory)

2017 Notional Results

Tory - 52 (Up 2)

Labour - 8 (Up 1)

Lib Dem - 1 (No Change)

[simonc30]

Can easily see us having to have something like this - can't see May pushing through a reduction in the number of MPs when she's so weak.

[The Bishop]

Assuming the DUP remains opposed - and there's no current reason to think otherwise - even a "strong" Tory PM wouldn't have the votes for it.

[YL]

Nov 10, 2017 8:34:16 GMT simonc30 said:

Can easily see us having to have something like this - can't see May pushing through a reduction in the number of MPs when she's so weak.

At the moment I think it's quite likely that the current review will limp on until it's eventually rejected, leaving the existing constituencies in place. For a new review with new rules primary legislation would be needed, and while that shouldn't be that difficult if some sort of consensus can be reached I haven't seen any sign of it happening.

[andrew111]

Nov 10, 2017 17:07:36 GMT YL said:

Nov 10, 2017 8:34:16 GMT simonc30 said:

Can easily see us having to have something like this - can't see May pushing through a reduction in the number of MPs when she's so weak.

At the moment I think it's quite likely that the current review will limp on until it's eventually rejected, leaving the existing constituencies in place. For a new review with new rules primary legislation would be needed, and while that shouldn't be that difficult if some sort of consensus can be reached I haven't seen any sign of it happening.

How about this? services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parliamentaryconstituenciesamendment.html

Since the 2nd reading is less than 3 weeks away, we should find out what Afzal is proposing pretty soon. However, if you look at the list of supporters below I would say it is virtually certain to propose the end of the current review and a return to 650 seats. If the Tories and Labour leadership agree it could go through on the nod. Perhaps there is someone on here who is in the know??

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

[simonc30]

Nov 12, 2017 16:10:22 GMT andrew111 said:

Nov 10, 2017 17:07:36 GMT YL said:

At the moment I think it's quite likely that the current review will limp on until it's eventually rejected, leaving the existing constituencies in place. For a new review with new rules primary legislation would be needed, and while that shouldn't be that difficult if some sort of consensus can be reached I haven't seen any sign of it happening.

How about this? services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parliamentaryconstituenciesamendment.html

Since the 2nd reading is less than 3 weeks away, we should find out what Afzal is proposing pretty soon. However, if you look at the list of supporters below I would say it is virtually certain to propose the end of the current review and a return to 650 seats. If the Tories and Labour leadership agree it could go through on the nod. Perhaps there is someone on here who is in the know??

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

It looks like it's first on the list to be discussed on 1st December at the moment - think it depends very much on what is in it. If there's a lot of things that the government side don't support, then it's probable that they will get people in to talk it out. Interesting that no Conservatives supported Khan in presenting the Bill and that he is also the only Labour on the list. Not sure whether that was deliberately planned that way or whether it says something...

[andrew111]

Nov 12, 2017 17:24:10 GMT simonc30 said:

Nov 12, 2017 16:10:22 GMT andrew111 said:

How about this? services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parliamentaryconstituenciesamendment.html

Since the 2nd reading is less than 3 weeks away, we should find out what Afzal is proposing pretty soon. However, if you look at the list of supporters below I would say it is virtually certain to propose the end of the current review and a return to 650 seats. If the Tories and Labour leadership agree it could go through on the nod. Perhaps there is someone on here who is in the know??

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

It looks like it's first on the list to be discussed on 1st December at the moment - think it depends very much on what is in it. If there's a lot of things that the government side don't support, then it's probable that they will get people in to talk it out. Interesting that no Conservatives supported Khan in presenting the Bill and that he is also the only Labour on the list. Not sure whether that was deliberately planned that way or whether it says something...

well, this will have been put in very soon after the election when he did well in the Private Members ballot. Since then we had a heavy hint in the press that the Tories intend to drop the 600 seat review. (possibly because the DUP don't like it. Who knows whether Lady Hermon talked to them about this....)

Using this bill would be a very painless way for Parliament to drop the review with relatively little attention. It may be that the reason nothing is published yet reflects negotiation with the Whips...

[An Sionnach Flannbhuí]

Nov 12, 2017 16:10:22 GMT andrew111 said:

Nov 10, 2017 17:07:36 GMT YL said:

At the moment I think it's quite likely that the current review will limp on until it's eventually rejected, leaving the existing constituencies in place. For a new review with new rules primary legislation would be needed, and while that shouldn't be that difficult if some sort of consensus can be reached I haven't seen any sign of it happening.

How about this? services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parliamentaryconstituenciesamendment.html

Since the 2nd reading is less than 3 weeks away, we should find out what Afzal is proposing pretty soon. However, if you look at the list of supporters below I would say it is virtually certain to propose the end of the current review and a return to 650 seats. If the Tories and Labour leadership agree it could go through on the nod. Perhaps there is someone on here who is in the know??

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Afzal Khan, supported by Joanna Cherry, Hannah Bardell, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Lady Hermon and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

That bill in full with some not-very-helpful notes. The main points:

· 650 seats, not 600
· 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately
· Allowable variance up from 5% to 7.5%
· Boundary review every ten years
· Next review to report in autumn 2020
· Electorate to be used is that at the 2017 General Election

Most of this is actually sensible except the last one. The register about to be released (1 December, annual turnover) would serve as well.

[greenhert]

A variance of 10% would be much better than 7.5%. 10% is the standard used by the Local Government Boundary Commission and it works well enough for new ward boundaries.

[J.G.Harston]

Nov 29, 2017 21:58:00 GMT An Sionnach Flannbhuí said:

That bill in full with some not-very-helpful notes. The main points:

· 650 seats, not 600
· 18 seats for Northern Ireland is protected and its quota defined separately
· Allowable variance up from 5% to 7.5%
· Boundary review every ten years
· Next review to report in autumn 2020
· Electorate to be used is that at the 2017 General Election

Most of this is actually sensible except the last one. The register about to be released (1 December, annual turnover) would serve as well.

I've been persuaded by the good people on here that "the electorate at the immediately preceding General Election" is a good enough rule.

[IceAgeComing]

Honestly having it so that a review is immediately triggered following a General Election based on the electorates at that election wouldn't be that bad a rule: although that might cause issues if there are early elections called like the last election...

[Pete Whitehead]

The trouble is you then get all these fly-by-night voters who tend to just register five minutes before the general election which would skew the figures. There also needs to be some way to ensure that individuals are only counted in one place for these purposes otherwise university areas and areas which send a disproportionate number of youngsters away to university end up being over-represented

[goose]

Nov 30, 2017 13:30:34 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The trouble is you then get all these fly-by-night voters who tend to just register five minutes before the general election which would skew the figures. There also needs to be some way to ensure that individuals are only counted in one place for these purposes otherwise university areas and areas which send a disproportionate number of youngsters away to university end up being over-represented

Abolish dual registration, it's a ridiculous and unnecessary system.

[warofdreams]

Nov 30, 2017 13:30:34 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The trouble is you then get all these fly-by-night voters who tend to just register five minutes before the general election which would skew the figures. There also needs to be some way to ensure that individuals are only counted in one place for these purposes otherwise university areas and areas which send a disproportionate number of youngsters away to university end up being over-represented

If they're registering in order to vote in the general election, you really can't argue against them being counted in the electorate for Parliamentary elections.  Absolutely agree on the need to ensure people only count towards one electorate, though dual registration is very sensible for people who spend significant parts of the year in different areas.

[Pete Whitehead]

Nov 30, 2017 14:42:46 GMT warofdreams said:

Nov 30, 2017 13:30:34 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The trouble is you then get all these fly-by-night voters who tend to just register five minutes before the general election which would skew the figures. There also needs to be some way to ensure that individuals are only counted in one place for these purposes otherwise university areas and areas which send a disproportionate number of youngsters away to university end up being over-represented

If they're registering in order to vote in the general election, you really can't argue against them being counted in the electorate for Parliamentary elections.  Absolutely agree on the need to ensure people only count towards one electorate, though dual registration is very sensible for people who spend significant parts of the year in different areas.

To be fair the first part of my post was a little bit tongue in cheek. The second part as you acknowledge was serious and important