2018 Review - will it pass through Parliament?

[greenhert]

Dec 23, 2016 8:49:55 GMT thirdchill said:

Dec 23, 2016 6:21:43 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

A review of constituencies will be long, long overdue by 2020. Not passing this Review only stores up trouble and ammunition for later.

I agree with this, but still reckon that it could well be defeated in the commons before getting to the lords. The reduction element, along with soe of the boundaries suggested by the commission, will make a number of conservative MPs vote against the changes.

I'd be tempted to go for the Pat Glass amendment, really not convinced by a reduction in MPs unless the role was to change significantly (the amount of constituency work done by MPs has gone up dramatically in the last 50 years). 10% variance is still pretty large though, means a difference of approximately 15,000 electors between certain constituencies.

Actually, the difference under the Pat Glass amendment on 2015 electorates would only be 13,796 at most (75,880-62,084), which is certainly much less than the current difference between the largest mainland British constituency (NW Cambridgeshire at 89,959) and the smallest mainland British constituency (Arfon at 37,753). Even if you only compared mainland English constituencies, the difference is as high as 35,727, the smallest English constituency being Wirral West with just 54,232 electors. The North West region has some of the smallest English constituencies at present.

[Eastwood]

Dec 23, 2016 17:56:32 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Dec 23, 2016 16:43:16 GMT Eastwood said:

Bangor and Menai Bridge are fundamentally not that different and quite easy for a member of parliament to represent both. The bridge does make a difference.

Shetland on the other hand is a bloody long way from anywhere. The old Jo Grimond expenses joke of putting "Bergen" as closest railway station is neither quite true (it was actually a soldier Grimond knew who did a War Office travel warrant) nor accurate (Thurso is slightly closer) but it does represent a kernel of truth about the Shetland lived experience.

If you were to combine the Northern Isles with somewhere the question arises should it be Caithness (with it's links to Orkney but little in common with Shetland) or Aberdeen (as the bridgehead for Shetland but politically very different). In fact the Scottish Parliament separation of Orkney and Shetland is in many ways more sensible.

Na h-Eileanan an Iar on the other hand have stronger links to the mainland. You again though face the choice of linking Lewis to Rossshire, Harris to Skye, South Uist to Mallaig or Barra to Oban. Each part of the islands looks to a different area of the mainland for it's primary links. Perhaps a Gàidhealtachd constituency linking the islands to Partick and Dowanvale would be the best solution!

In short the Scottish Islands constituencies represent a genuine challenge of geography and culture to represent properly that is not replicated by the Menai Strait. Bad Idea I'm afraid.

Bangor and Menai Bridge are fundamentally not that different and quite easy for a member of parliament to represent both.

I know that the MP for Ynys Mon is arguing otherwise, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. The issue I have is that one (or two) particular undersized island that has received its own seperate representation in parliament, is permitted to continue this arrangment, why not all of them?

The bridge does make a difference.

It makes no more of a difference than a lack of a bridge and the presence of choppy seas. Point being, the strength/weakness of transportation links between areas is not a valid excuse for not even attempting to implement more equitable representation amongst parliamentary constituencies.

If you were to combine the Northern Isles with somewhere the question arises should it be Caithness (with it's links to Orkney but little in common with Shetland) or Aberdeen (as the bridgehead for Shetland but politically very different). In fact the Scottish Parliament separation of Orkney and Shetland is in many ways more sensible.

Na h-Eileanan an Iar on the other hand have stronger links to the mainland. You again though face the choice of linking Lewis to Rossshire, Harris to Skye, South Uist to Mallaig or Barra to Oban. Each part of the islands looks to a different area of the mainland for it's primary links. Perhaps a Gàidhealtachd constituency linking the islands to Partick and Dowanvale would be the best solution!

So, determining suitable links between the islands and the mainland is something of a challenge, I can accept that. But, has anyone even attempted to find a workable solution to this challenge? If no, then that just strikes me of laziness.

In short the Scottish Islands constituencies represent a genuine challenge of geography and culture to represent properly that is not replicated by the Menai Strait.

A fair point, but it still strikes me as unfair exceptionalism that the Scottish Island constituencies are allowed to remain standing, whereas the less malapportioned (but still undersized) Ynys Mon gets junked.

Bad Idea I'm afraid.

Not nearly as bad of an idea as letting such gross malapportionment stand. Why should one lot of people receive more effective representation per capita than people elsewhere?  I accept and understand that merging these areas into viable, larger seats is something of a steep challenge, but that's not really any excuse.


I suppose if nothing else, letting these seats stand as they are just goes against my sense of fair play...

So basically your argument here is that representation is all about numbers with geography and local ties irrelevant.

But on the other thread you dislike the proposals because of the poor quality constituencies created in North Wales. Surely as they are numerically equal you must be happy?

Or are you just arguing that as the proposed constituencies for North Wales are bad they should be equally bad elsewhere to level everyone down to the same poor representation?

I'm afraid the historical overrepresentation of Wales is one of the things that has led us to this overly restrictive review with local ties no longer given due recognition.

I was very much in favour of the general equalisation of Scottish Westminster electorates after the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can understand why Wales felt it didn't want to proceed along the same lines but it was probably a mistake.

If there is an unfairness in the Scottish island electorates it is that the calculations on constituency size in the rest of Scotland is not affected by this initial electoral alteration.

There is an argument that each constituent country should just get an allocation of MPs and then decide how to apportion them.

If they were of course then Scotland would have the largest constituency populations elsewhere.

Pursuing that policy though would not have been politically palatable as it would be effectively conceding the UK was not a Unitary state.

I'd personally find it quite entertaining to have Scotland electing MPs by AMS, Northern Ireland by STV, Wales on a hybrid list system and England FPTP. Psephologically interesting anyway :-)

[Lord Twaddleford]

Dec 23, 2016 18:56:53 GMT Eastwood said:

Dec 23, 2016 17:56:32 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

I know that the MP for Ynys Mon is arguing otherwise, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. The issue I have is that one (or two) particular undersized island that has received its own seperate representation in parliament, is permitted to continue this arrangment, why not all of them?

It makes no more of a difference than a lack of a bridge and the presence of choppy seas. Point being, the strength/weakness of transportation links between areas is not a valid excuse for not even attempting to implement more equitable representation amongst parliamentary constituencies.

So, determining suitable links between the islands and the mainland is something of a challenge, I can accept that. But, has anyone even attempted to find a workable solution to this challenge? If no, then that just strikes me of laziness.

A fair point, but it still strikes me as unfair exceptionalism that the Scottish Island constituencies are allowed to remain standing, whereas the less malapportioned (but still undersized) Ynys Mon gets junked.

Not nearly as bad of an idea as letting such gross malapportionment stand. Why should one lot of people receive more effective representation per capita than people elsewhere?  I accept and understand that merging these areas into viable, larger seats is something of a steep challenge, but that's not really any excuse.


I suppose if nothing else, letting these seats stand as they are just goes against my sense of fair play...

So basically your argument here is that representation is all about numbers with geography and local ties irrelevant.

But on the other thread you dislike the proposals because of the poor quality constituencies created in North Wales. Surely as they are numerically equal you must be happy?

Or are you just arguing that as the proposed constituencies for North Wales are bad they should be equally bad elsewhere to level everyone down to the same poor representation?

I'm afraid the historical overrepresentation of Wales is one of the things that has led us to this overly restrictive review with local ties no longer given due recognition.

I was very much in favour of the general equalisation of Scottish Westminster electorates after the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can understand why Wales felt it didn't want to proceed along the same lines but it was probably a mistake.

If there is an unfairness in the Scottish island electorates it is that the calculations on constituency size in the rest of Scotland is not affected by this initial electoral alteration.

There is an argument that each constituent country should just get an allocation of MPs and then decide how to apportion them.

If they were of course then Scotland would have the largest constituency populations elsewhere.

Pursuing that policy though would not have been politically palatable as it would be effectively conceding the UK was not a Unitary state.

I'd personally find it quite entertaining to have Scotland electing MPs by AMS, Northern Ireland by STV, Wales on a hybrid list system and England FPTP. Psephologically interesting anyway :-)

So basically your argument here is that representation is all about numbers with geography and local ties irrelevant.

I never said that local ties are unimportant, and whilst earnest attempts should be made to cater to them, it should not be at the cost of creating grossly uneven apportionment.

But on the other thread you dislike the proposals because of the poor quality constituencies created in North Wales. Surely as they are numerically equal you must be happy?

Were it to be adequately demonstrated that the boundaries proposed for North Wales the only way to achieve equitable constituency sizes for the quota that has been set, then I guess I would just have to lump it. As things stand currently, I believe that better boundary combinations that could be applied to the region _{(though amongst the misses, there are a few hits, I will admit: I do approve of the proposals for the seats of "Flint & Rhuddlan", "Alyn & Deeside", and "Wrexham Maelor", in particular)}.

Or are you just arguing that as the proposed constituencies for North Wales are bad they should be equally bad elsewhere to level everyone down to the same poor representation?

...

Really?

...

Moving on.

I'm afraid the historical overrepresentation of Wales is one of the things that has led us to this overly restrictive review with local ties no longer given due recognition.

I was very much in favour of the general equalisation of Scottish Westminster electorates after the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can understand why Wales felt it didn't want to proceed along the same lines but it was probably a mistake.

Before devolution, it could be argued that the overrepresentation that Wales received had a purpose when one considers the fact that England absolutely dominates in terms of population, and ergo parliamentary representation, but I will agree that not moving to equalise the Welsh electorate much sooner _{(though the Cariff Bay didn't, still doesn't have powers on par those received by Holyrood, but that's another story)} was a in all likelyhood a poor decision, and has probably only served to create more issues down the road.

There is an argument that each constituent country should just get an allocation of MPs and then decide how to apportion them.

Not an unappealing proposal...

Pursuing that policy though would not have been politically palatable as it would be effectively conceding the UK was not a Unitary state.

Well, considering its history...

I for one am in favour of the UK adopting a federal structure of governance, don't know about you, but barring any potential break-up of the union, this seems to me to be a logical end point for all these experiments in devolution.

But as you've implied, the political will doesn't seem to be there at the moment.

I'd personally find it quite entertaining to have Scotland electing MPs by AMS, Northern Ireland by STV, Wales on a hybrid list system and England FPTP.

Technically speaking, Scotland and Wales use the same type of electoral system for the elections to their regional parliament/assembly, the only real difference being the ratio of constituencies and list seats.

[An Sionnach Flannbhuí]

Dec 23, 2016 17:56:32 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

I know that the MP for Ynys Mon is arguing otherwise, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. The issue I have is that one (or two) particular undersized island that has received its own seperate representation in parliament, is permitted to continue this arrangment, why not all of them?

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Shetland is a 15-hour ferry ride from the mainland, and then the mainland is Aberdeen rather than Caithness. Anglesey is not in the same boat (no pun intended). Horses for courses. Or where do you stop? Portsea is an island; shall Portsmouth North be broken up? A seat for the Isle of Thanet?One for the Isle of Sheppey? One for the Isle of Grain?

[Eastwood]

Dec 23, 2016 19:47:39 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Dec 23, 2016 18:56:53 GMT Eastwood said:

So basically your argument here is that representation is all about numbers with geography and local ties irrelevant.

But on the other thread you dislike the proposals because of the poor quality constituencies created in North Wales. Surely as they are numerically equal you must be happy?

Or are you just arguing that as the proposed constituencies for North Wales are bad they should be equally bad elsewhere to level everyone down to the same poor representation?

I'm afraid the historical overrepresentation of Wales is one of the things that has led us to this overly restrictive review with local ties no longer given due recognition.

I was very much in favour of the general equalisation of Scottish Westminster electorates after the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can understand why Wales felt it didn't want to proceed along the same lines but it was probably a mistake.

If there is an unfairness in the Scottish island electorates it is that the calculations on constituency size in the rest of Scotland is not affected by this initial electoral alteration.

There is an argument that each constituent country should just get an allocation of MPs and then decide how to apportion them.

If they were of course then Scotland would have the largest constituency populations elsewhere.

Pursuing that policy though would not have been politically palatable as it would be effectively conceding the UK was not a Unitary state.

I'd personally find it quite entertaining to have Scotland electing MPs by AMS, Northern Ireland by STV, Wales on a hybrid list system and England FPTP. Psephologically interesting anyway :-)

So basically your argument here is that representation is all about numbers with geography and local ties irrelevant.

I never said that local ties are unimportant, and whilst earnest attempts should be made to cater to them, it should not be at the cost of creating grossly uneven apportionment.

But on the other thread you dislike the proposals because of the poor quality constituencies created in North Wales. Surely as they are numerically equal you must be happy?

Were it to be adequately demonstrated that the boundaries proposed for North Wales the only way to achieve equitable constituency sizes for the quota that has been set, then I guess I would just have to lump it. As things stand currently, I believe that better boundary combinations that could be applied to the region _{(though amongst the misses, there are a few hits, I will admit: I do approve of the proposals for the seats of "Flint & Rhuddlan", "Alyn & Deeside", and "Wrexham Maelor", in particular)}.

Or are you just arguing that as the proposed constituencies for North Wales are bad they should be equally bad elsewhere to level everyone down to the same poor representation?

...

Really?

...

Moving on.

I'm afraid the historical overrepresentation of Wales is one of the things that has led us to this overly restrictive review with local ties no longer given due recognition.

I was very much in favour of the general equalisation of Scottish Westminster electorates after the establishment of the Scottish parliament. I can understand why Wales felt it didn't want to proceed along the same lines but it was probably a mistake.

Before devolution, it could be argued that the overrepresentation that Wales received had a purpose when one considers the fact that England absolutely dominates in terms of population, and ergo parliamentary representation, but I will agree that not moving to equalise the Welsh electorate much sooner _{(though the Cariff Bay didn't, still doesn't have powers on par those received by Holyrood, but that's another story)} was a in all likelyhood a poor decision, and has probably only served to create more issues down the road.

There is an argument that each constituent country should just get an allocation of MPs and then decide how to apportion them.

Not an unappealing proposal...

Pursuing that policy though would not have been politically palatable as it would be effectively conceding the UK was not a Unitary state.

Well, considering its history...

I for one am in favour of the UK adopting a federal structure of governance, don't know about you, but barring any potential break-up of the union, this seems to me to be a logical end point for all these experiments in devolution.

But as you've implied, the political will doesn't seem to be there at the moment.

I'd personally find it quite entertaining to have Scotland electing MPs by AMS, Northern Ireland by STV, Wales on a hybrid list system and England FPTP.

Technically speaking, Scotland and Wales use the same type of electoral system for the elections to their regional parliament/assembly, the only real difference being the ratio of constituencies and list seats.

I favour a Federal system too so I suspect we're closer than first appeared.

I just think the exceptions for the island constituencies are one of the few good things about the current review and frankly we should be arguing for more acceptance of local ties not less.

A Shetland, Orkney and Caithness seat would be impossible to represent, unwieldy, lacking local ties and generally a bad idea.

Anglesea and Bangor is in no way as bad a situation for either the electorate or the MP.

[Lord Twaddleford]

Dec 23, 2016 19:57:55 GMT Eastwood said:

Dec 23, 2016 19:47:39 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

I never said that local ties are unimportant, and whilst earnest attempts should be made to cater to them, it should not be at the cost of creating grossly uneven apportionment.

Were it to be adequately demonstrated that the boundaries proposed for North Wales the only way to achieve equitable constituency sizes for the quota that has been set, then I guess I would just have to lump it. As things stand currently, I believe that better boundary combinations that could be applied to the region _{(though amongst the misses, there are a few hits, I will admit: I do approve of the proposals for the seats of "Flint & Rhuddlan", "Alyn & Deeside", and "Wrexham Maelor", in particular)}.

...

Really?

...

Moving on.

Before devolution, it could be argued that the overrepresentation that Wales received had a purpose when one considers the fact that England absolutely dominates in terms of population, and ergo parliamentary representation, but I will agree that not moving to equalise the Welsh electorate much sooner _{(though the Cariff Bay didn't, still doesn't have powers on par those received by Holyrood, but that's another story)} was a in all likelyhood a poor decision, and has probably only served to create more issues down the road.

Not an unappealing proposal...

Well, considering its history...

I for one am in favour of the UK adopting a federal structure of governance, don't know about you, but barring any potential break-up of the union, this seems to me to be a logical end point for all these experiments in devolution.

But as you've implied, the political will doesn't seem to be there at the moment.

Technically speaking, Scotland and Wales use the same type of electoral system for the elections to their regional parliament/assembly, the only real difference being the ratio of constituencies and list seats.

I favour a Federal system too so I suspect we're closer than first appeared.

I just think the exceptions for the island constituencies are one of the few good things about the current review and frankly we should be arguing for more acceptance of local ties not less.

A Shetland, Orkney and Caithness seat would be impossible to represent, unwieldy, lacking local ties and generally a bad idea.

Anglesea and Bangor is in no way as bad a situation for either the electorate or the MP.

Well, I'm not arguing about the issues pertaining to problems with local ties, but I think redressing malapportionment is more important.

Agree to disagree on this on?

[Eastwood]

Dec 23, 2016 20:01:09 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

Dec 23, 2016 19:57:55 GMT Eastwood said:

I favour a Federal system too so I suspect we're closer than first appeared.

I just think the exceptions for the island constituencies are one of the few good things about the current review and frankly we should be arguing for more acceptance of local ties not less.

A Shetland, Orkney and Caithness seat would be impossible to represent, unwieldy, lacking local ties and generally a bad idea.

Anglesea and Bangor is in no way as bad a situation for either the electorate or the MP.

Well, I'm not arguing about the issues pertaining to problems with local ties, but I think redressing malapportionment is more important.

Agree to disagree on this on?

I positively enjoy disagreeing. If everyone agrees it usually means it's a bad idea.

The 15 hour ferry trip to Shetland mentioned above ought to be reasonably convincing evidence that Shetland is an exception but absolute mathematical equality is a valid (albeit wrong ;-) ) perspective.

[timrollpickering]

Dec 23, 2016 0:29:14 GMT Foggy said:

It's overdue in Scotland, but more or less on time in England, Wales and NI. Had the zombie review not been abandoned, that would have represented an early change in boundaries for those three constituent countries.

It may be "on time" under the old calendar but that's a strong indictment of the problems with the old system. The current boundaries are based on voter location in 2000. Outside of Scotland they didn't come until 2010, already a decade out of date and are getting more out of date all the time. It's even possible that, but for the fad for fixed terms and five year Parliaments, the boundaries would have been already over halfway through their total life before they were even first used.

[No Offence Alan]

Dec 23, 2016 19:57:55 GMT Eastwood said:

I just think the exceptions for the island constituencies are one of the few good things about the current review and frankly we should be arguing for more acceptance of local ties not less.

A Shetland, Orkney and Caithness seat would be impossible to represent, unwieldy, lacking local ties and generally a bad idea.

Anglesea and Bangor is in no way as bad a situation for either the electorate or the MP.

Actually, not being local is a pre-requisite for representing Orkney and Shetland. Shetland won't welcome an Orcadian as MP and vice versa.

[Robert Waller]

The Bishop has hit the nail on the head above.
Of course there can be no democratic objection to updating or equalising boundaries.
But the reduction by 50 backbench MPs simply increases the power of the Executive, which to my mind is the main institutional problem in UK politics.
It would also further reduce the representative function at a time when the population continues, rightly or wrongly, to grow rapidly.
The problem is, of course, that if MPs reject the change in numbers they will be perceived, and painted, as doing so for selfish reasons.

[westmercian]

Does anyone else think that the Scottish referendum might change the outlook on whether the proposed changes get the go-ahead?

Scotland leaving the UK (and the boundary changes) would mean the Commons going down to 547 seats - quite a drop from 650. Some might use this as a reason to delay (again) the review to after we know the referendum result and, were it to be "yes, then the law could be changed so that England, Wales & Northern Ireland have a total of 600 seats...

Just a thought on what might happen.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Probably more significant is the vote breakdown on the various Brexit amendments. If Theresa May put forward a bill to feed 10% of Conservative MPs into woodchipper, the most you'd get is some strongly worded abstensions from the Tory backbenches.

[westmercian]

True - our party loyalty is near-faultless...

Can't the Lords block the boundary changes? Or would they not dare to? (I don't want them to btw - just wondering.)

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2017 22:10:29 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Probably more significant is the vote breakdown on the various Brexit amendments. If Theresa May put forward a bill to feed 10% of Conservative MPs into woodchipper, the most you'd get is some strongly worded abstensions from the Tory backbenches.

Yeah. Bottom line is if government wants the changes to go through, they'll go through. While the review is very much an initiative of the previous leadership, I see no indication that May is any less committed to it.

IIRC there were only two or three Tory rebels when the 2015 review was killed off (one of them a certain Rt Hon D Davis)

[carlton43]

Mar 15, 2017 14:52:45 GMT @strinity said:

Mar 14, 2017 22:10:29 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Probably more significant is the vote breakdown on the various Brexit amendments. If Theresa May put forward a bill to feed 10% of Conservative MPs into woodchipper, the most you'd get is some strongly worded abstensions from the Tory backbenches.

Yeah. Bottom line is if government wants the changes to go through, they'll go through. While the review is very much an initiative of the previous leadership, I see no indication that May is any less committed to it.

IIRC there were only two or three Tory rebels when the 2015 review was killed off (one of them a certain Rt Hon D Davis)

I am against these proposals but if I was a Conservative MP I would vote in favour from loyalty and out of party advantage. I think Cameron promoted this without deep thought as to any consequences and for the simple reasons he gave, being  a token sop to reduce costs of MPs in recognition of the ill-feeling engendered by the Expenses Scandal.

The Party are continuing with it despite the worry and insecurity occasioned to many members, because overall it must tend to dilute many urban areas with less Labour-inclined suburban and rural additions. I see it probably losing more seats for Labour than any other party and weakening more of their new seats than any other party. In first instance it may have a fairly minor effect, but medium term it seems to trend more Labour seats to marginal status.

[carlton43]

Mar 14, 2017 21:43:10 GMT westmercian said:

Does anyone else think that the Scottish referendum might change the outlook on whether the proposed changes get the go-ahead?

Scotland leaving the UK (and the boundary changes) would mean the Commons going down to 547 seats - quite a drop from 650. Some might use this as a reason to delay (again) the review to after we know the referendum result and, were it to be "yes, then the law could be changed so that England, Wales & Northern Ireland have a total of 600 seats...

Just a thought on what might happen.

No. The Review is overdue and need not be held up for any reason. If there is a snap election it will be on the old boundaries and on the old number. If there are any further referenda they will have no effect until it is published and in place. In the most unlikely event of a departure by NI and/or Scotland, we just deduct those seats and have a smaller HOC until the next Review when consideration might be given to smaller constituencies? If that were to trend back to tighter bounds on many urban town seats, I don't see the Conservatives being in favour of that so unlikely to happen.

[The Bishop]

Well that is the $64,000 question. I think there is going to have to be some indication one way or the other sometime soon.

[Deleted]

Perhaps a positive outcome of an arrangement with the DUP could be a commitment to a wholly new review with 650 seats and no stupidly inflexible 5% rule. Would need primary legislation though.

[mondialito]

Given what the draft proposals for Northern Ireland looked like, I am going to take a punt and say no.

[Deleted]

Jun 11, 2017 22:39:16 GMT mondialito said:

Given what the draft proposals for Northern Ireland looked like, I am going to take a punt and say no.

Is there a map with the NI proposal somewhere on the site? (couldn't locate one on a search)