2018 Review - will it pass through Parliament?

[matureleft]

I think this discussion misses the full tool set available to party managers. Both major parties induce "retirements" from MPs who are older/bored using a variety of temptations - peerages, quango roles or (in the case of the Tories) just "seeing you right" with non-executive directorships. If the new boundaries come in I would expect these tools to be employed. Anyway the next election is probably some years away and some voluntary retirements will arise.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jan 31, 2018 23:21:50 GMT @benjl said:

Jan 31, 2018 22:51:42 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

No. This still does not make sense. Your definition of 'favourable boundaries' is one less unionist seat. I think you're failing to understand how this calculus works.

Yes, long-term it does seem unlikely that unionism can hold all its current seats. But the DUP have consistently fought for unionism's long-term goals by fighting for its short-term goals. 18 seats work for them right now. Until that changes, why would they want to give a seat away?

And no, the DUP have no interest in helping the Tories get a majority, or in reducing the amount paid on elected officials' salaries.

What. I did not say that they had an interest in helping the Conservatives or saving money. I have set out why I think the DUP will not oppose the plans, even if that means abstaining. Please don’t say I don’t understand.

But you really don't understand how the DUP think. Northern Ireland does not follow the same political rules as Great Britain does. You are assuming that the DUP will accept this change, because it is better than most other possible changes. But they are not good at accepting change and they come from a political culture where you dig your heels in.

I could see circumstances where they would abstain, because they are venal and because they can read a long-term trend. But they aren't going to do it without all kinds of concessions. The going rate for a DUP MP is around £100m. I suspect some inflation of that figure will be necessary to secure an abstension.

[rivers10]

Feb 1, 2018 16:29:30 GMT greenhert said:

Feb 1, 2018 14:48:53 GMT rivers10 said:

OK here is my analysis of each new Tory seat for those that care...

Ex Lib
Carshalton and Wallington
Would only just be Tory by my calculations (3 figure majority) and most of the seat is made up of the old one so Tom Brake will still have most of his personal vote and their are no nearby Tories who lose out that might actually want this seat

Westmoreland and Lonsdale
Tory by about 5% now but no obvious Tory successor, the best bet would be David Morris who's own Morecambe seat is abolished but would he really fancy going up against Farron in a seat that contains NONE of his old seat?

Oxford North and Abingdon
Also Tory by about 5% now but there are no Tory losers anywhere nearby and going up against first time incumbent Layla Moran doesn't strike me as wise.

Ex Lab seats
Barrow and Furness
Three figure Tory majority, Trudy Harrison (Copeland) might go for this given that part of her seat is contained within it but crucially the vast majority of her seat including her home in the Bootle ward is located in the newly safe Labour West Cumbria seat not to mention this seat has half the majority she currently enjoys

Weaver Vale
Tory by a little over a thousand votes and with what is quickly becoming a popular Lab incumbent in Mike Amesbury, the only plausible Tory successor is Esther McVey!!! Cabinet loyalty might keep her on side or maybe cabinet member priority will see her be given the more plum Altrincham and Knutsford but then that leaves Graham Brady in the cold

Crewe and Nantwich
The addition of an extra rural ward see's this ultra marginal tip over to the Tory column with a 2% majority but with no losing Tories nearby I don't know who is getting bribed with this seat

Keighley
The addition of Tory Wharfdale nudges this into the Tory column with a similar majority to Crewe, a few nearby Tory losers who might want this (Jenkyns in Morley or Andrew in Pudsey) but important to note it contains none of their old seats so their only claim is they are located nearby.

Grimsby South and Cleethorpes
Finally a seat the Tories might actually be able to bribe someone with, its Tory by a comfortable 5,000 votes or thereabout and being on Humberside both Andrew Percy or David Davis (whoever loses in the battle for Goole and Axholme) could be given this.

Lincoln
Near worthless as a bribe, by my figures this is right on a knife edge, three figure Tory majority at most and given there are no Tory losers in Lincolnshire this would be quite the parachute job for such a marginal seat.

Derby East
A possible bribe here, the seat itself is marginal (Tory majority about 5%) but it's something of a successor to the abolished Derbyshire Mid seat of Pauline Latham, only question is will she be content to trade in her current majority of more than 20% for one less than a quarter of that?

Newcastle-under-Lyme
Tory notional majority of 2,500 but Paul Farrelly has defied the odds before and clung on. Real spanner for this seat is that the nearest Tory loser is serial rebel Bill Cash who's Stone seat is abolished, somehow I don't see him being content with this as a replacement.

Coventry South and Kenilworth + Warwick and Leamington
I've thrown these two neighbouring seats in together for obvious reasons. The former has a comfortable(ish) Tory majority of about 4,500 while the latter is more marginal with a majority of less than 2,000. there are certainly Tory losers nearby who might want them, Jeremy Wright in Kenilworth and Southam and Bill Wiggin in Herefordshire North, the question is will they be content to trade in two of the safest Tory seats in the country for two marginals?

Brighton Kemptown and Seahaven
This seat swings massively to the Tories going from a safe Lab seat to a Tory majority of 4% The nearest Tory loser is whoever loses out in the battle for Tunbridge Wells and Crowborough yet this seat is still clearly trending Lab and I cant see Nus Ghani trading in Wealden or Greg Clark trading in Tunbridge Wells for it.

Canterbury and Faversham
Tory majority of 1,500, Helen Whatley would be a fool to trade in ultra safe Faversham and Kent Mid for this.

Bedford
This would be so tight I'm not even sure it would be notionally Tory!!! Pretty useless as a bribe especially against a first time incumbent.

Erith and Crayford
David Evennett going from a 20% majority to a 4% majority with most of his old seat (including his constituency office) pawned off elsewhere, pretty raw deal all around.

Croydon South East
What looks to be a solid Lab incumbent, trending Lab and with a notional Tory majority of less than 2,000 this is not a good bribe for a Tory MP facing the chop

Kensington and Chelsea
Last but by no means least Greg Hands has a good possible alternative here. 10% Tory majority (compared to the 10% Labour majority in Hammersmith and Fulham) Hands can go with half his seat into the safer option, only problem is he loses half his majority with it, not to mention that he will now have to be intimately involved in the whole Grenfell saga which I'm sure any Tory MP would prefer to avoid if they could.

Conclusion from all this there are a LOT of potential rebels and the new Tory seats don't nearly begin make up for it.

Faversham & Mid Kent disappears in the revised proposals just as it does in the original proposals.

Kenilworth & Southam and Herefordshire North (fka Leominster) are also abolished in the revised proposals, just as they are in the original proposals. Many of those "trading" seats in fact have no choice.

that's the point I was trying to make, their seat is abolished and these marginals are the only nearby alternatives, the only "choice" they have is to support the review or not, if all their offered in exchange for the abolition of their safe seat is one of these newly Tory marginals I imagine many will be pretty peeved off and could well rebel and vote down the review.

[hullenedge]

My figures and calculations (Gini coefficients) may be wrong but very surprised to find that the current boundaries for England are not historically 'unequal'. The higher the score the more unequal the boundaries:-

1945 - 19.2 (not surprising given inaccurate registers, 'blitzed' constituencies although extra seats created), 1950 - 8.5, 1955 - 7.5, 1959 - 8.6, 1964 - 10.4 (effects of slum clearance, New Towns etc), 1966 - 11.4, 1970 13.8 (the highest score...the Callamander!), 1974 - 10.7, 1979 - 12.4, 1983 - 5.7, 1987 - 6.7, 1992 - 7.9, 1997 - 4.7, 2001 - 5.2, 2005 - 5.9, 2010 - 4.7, 2015 - 5.1 and 2017 - 5.3.

Calculations here:-

www.dropbox.com/sh/edk7jcn7wqvvyv1/AACUJChyo1h-ASj_lPjksK-ea?dl=0

[greenhert]

There was not a "Callamander". James Callaghan did not alter any existing constituency boundaries. He and Labour just ordered that the boundary revision be delayed and that the current constituencies remain intact for the 1970 general election-this is not the same as gerrymandering which deliberately alters existing constituencies for partisan gain.

[hullenedge]

Feb 4, 2018 12:16:45 GMT greenhert said:

There was not a "Callamander". James Callaghan did not alter any existing constituency boundaries. He and Labour just ordered that the boundary revision be delayed and that the current constituencies remain intact for the 1970 general election-this is not the same as gerrymandering which deliberately alters existing constituencies for partisan gain.

The boundaries were 'delayed' for partisan gain (although the loss, 1970 notionals, was not as many as Labour feared). You can bet your bottom dollar that the report would have sailed through the HoC if the government had seen partisan advantage in the new boundaries. Not an uplifting episode in our parliamentary history. No government, whatever colour, should delay a boundary report.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

As I've pointed out before, evidence for the claim that the 1974 boundaries were delayed for partisan reasons is lacking. The Labour government was expressing concern about the effect of changing the boundaries at the same time as the Redcliff-Maud changes to local government structure long before the shape of the new boundaries and therefore the partisan impact was known.

[hullenedge]

Feb 4, 2018 14:34:30 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

As I've pointed out before, evidence for the claim that the 1974 boundaries were delayed for partisan reasons is lacking. The Labour government was expressing concern about the effect of changing the boundaries at the same time as the Redcliff-Maud changes to local government structure long before the shape of the new boundaries and therefore the partisan impact was known.

You have mentioned before and we'll have to agree to disagree. The '626 proposal' would have had far more credibility if the government had suggested changes, at least, to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Bristol & Bradford. (Easy-peasy to combine some seats regardless of local government changes). The calculation for 626 from Michael Steed's 1969 article:-



1970 was fought on way outdated boundaries hence the high score. Our current boundaries, very much to my surprise, are more equal than the 1983 map!

[YL]

Feb 4, 2018 11:58:47 GMT hullenedge said:

My figures and calculations (Gini coefficients) may be wrong but very surprised to find that the current boundaries for England are not historically 'unequal'. The higher the score the more unequal the boundaries:-

1945 - 19.2 (not surprising given inaccurate registers, 'blitzed' constituencies although extra seats created), 1950 - 8.5, 1955 - 7.5, 1959 - 8.6, 1964 - 10.4 (effects of slum clearance, New Towns etc), 1966 - 11.4, 1970 13.8 (the highest score...the Callamander!), 1974 - 10.7, 1979 - 12.4, 1983 - 5.7, 1987 - 6.7, 1992 - 7.9, 1997 - 4.7, 2001 - 5.2, 2005 - 5.9, 2010 - 4.7, 2015 - 5.1 and 2017 - 5.3.

Calculations here:-

www.dropbox.com/sh/edk7jcn7wqvvyv1/AACUJChyo1h-ASj_lPjksK-ea?dl=0

I don't think you should be surprised. It's clear that Boundary Commissions have tended to care more about electoral equality as opposed to local government boundaries over time; for example London boroughs weren't paired (other than Westminster with the City) until 1997. Note that your two lowest figures are for the elections immediately after the Fourth and Fifth Reviews.

Furthermore population changes have been less dramatic than in the slum clearance era, and less consistently away from urban centres (note that a number of urban constituencies currently have very high electorates), which helps to explain why the boundaries have aged relatively well in this respect in spite of being based on figures now 17 years out of date.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

PACAC Select Committee report: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/559/559.pdf

[carlton43]

Feb 19, 2018 10:37:08 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

PACAC Select Committee report: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/559/559.pdf

Thank you David.  You render us good service in these many posts.  Much appreciated.

[La Fontaine]

Feb 4, 2018 14:34:30 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

As I've pointed out before, evidence for the claim that the 1974 boundaries were delayed for partisan reasons is lacking. The Labour government was expressing concern about the effect of changing the boundaries at the same time as the Redcliff-Maud changes to local government structure long before the shape of the new boundaries and therefore the partisan impact was known.

I attended part of the Commons debate, watching from the Strangers' Gallery. It was embarrassing. There was never the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that the changes were being delayed for partizan reasons.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Feb 19, 2018 11:09:34 GMT La Fontaine said:

Feb 4, 2018 14:34:30 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

As I've pointed out before, evidence for the claim that the 1974 boundaries were delayed for partisan reasons is lacking. The Labour government was expressing concern about the effect of changing the boundaries at the same time as the Redcliff-Maud changes to local government structure long before the shape of the new boundaries and therefore the partisan impact was known.

I attended part of the Commons debate, watching from the Strangers' Gallery. It was embarrassing. There was never the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that the changes were being delayed for partizan reasons.

I must say those mindreading devices they had in 1969 were marvellous, weren't they? Wonder why they never caught on.

[Deleted]

It won't

[Foggy]

Feb 19, 2018 11:09:34 GMT La Fontaine said:

Feb 4, 2018 14:34:30 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

As I've pointed out before, evidence for the claim that the 1974 boundaries were delayed for partisan reasons is lacking. The Labour government was expressing concern about the effect of changing the boundaries at the same time as the Redcliff-Maud changes to local government structure long before the shape of the new boundaries and therefore the partisan impact was known.

I attended part of the Commons debate, watching from the Strangers' Gallery. It was embarrassing. There was never the slightest doubt in anyone's mind that the changes were being delayed for partizan reasons.

Yes, they are clearly going to be blocked in order to stop Crvena Zvezda from winning the next general election.

[Andrew_S]

Feb 28, 2018 10:26:08 GMT @barnabymarder said:

Hearing that the DUP has formally dropped its objection to the boundary changes. So, are they going to go through, after all?

I thought they'd probably drop their objections since they don't want to upset the Tories and find themselves losing the influence they currently have. But I wonder whether there might still be enough Conservative rebels to possibly stop the changes going through?

[Deleted]

The revised changes in NI see tge Ind losing out but that's it. There are still 20 odd Tories that could well be out of a job. Before the GE the Tories there were a dozen or so retirements to free up space for rebel Tories. That didn't really pan out though since May thought a Maj of 150 would secure the 6th review

[The Bishop]

Feb 28, 2018 10:26:08 GMT @barnabymarder said:

Hearing that the DUP has formally dropped its objection to the boundary changes. So, are they going to go through, after all?

A quick scan of social media doesn't turn up anything new here - what's your source?

Still sceptical that the government will get more than an abstension from the DUP, personally.

[jamie]

We shouldn't be certain that Hermon will lose her seat. If she could get a result similar to 2010 or 2015, she would be reelected even under any new boundaries. Therefore, a DUP seat is still at risk and best case scenario for them in no change (but a unionist seat nonetheless lost).

[Deleted]

It was close last time though and there are many more DUP voters in the new boundaries