|
|
Post by islington on Feb 12, 2024 10:31:00 GMT
The 1946 review was loathed by all. The electorate figures for London were already out of date as folk moved back to our capital. It was clear that the rules would have to be relaxed and the BC restart the review. The 1947 review created 608 territorial seats although possible that the University seats and the CoL double seat could have survived at that point. The government was not fully happy with the review and they did have a point. County seats had electorates noticeably below Borough seats hence the extra 17 seats. Churchill was livid and requested another review for this enlarged House(there are proposals). Anyway to cut the story short the 17 seats had no bias to either side. Good piece by David Butler in his Electoral System book. I found an interesting debate (13 Nov 1946) here: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1946/nov/13/parliamentary-boundaries-fresh-reviewIt's interesting that, even after the 1945 interim review, Lichfield apparently had an electorate of 113000.
Also, the proposals as they were being worked up under the 1944 Rules apparently involved including Malvern UD (Worcs) in a Herefordshire seat. I presume that the 25% tolerance meant that Herefs was too big for one seat but too small for two unless something was added.
I can see why people objected to this but it should have been obvious that the 1944 Rules might generate this sort of outcome and the time to deal with it was before those rules were signed off, not after the BCs had done their work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 12, 2024 11:02:24 GMT
It's interesting that, even after the 1945 interim review, Lichfield apparently had an electorate of 113000. The 1945 review was only supposed to be a quick fix. The 1947 register numbers were published in HC 106 1946-47 (E, W, NI) and HC 107 1946-47 (S) and show the ten largest single-member constituencies all had over 100,000 electors: 1. Renfrewshire, Eastern 125,039 2. Wirral 116,656 3. Lichfield 114,395 4. Rushcliffe 110,402 5. Cannock 109,494 6. Derbyshire, Southern 108,716 7. Chertsey 104,418 8. Fareham 103,019 9. Llandaff and Barry 102,123 10. Stourbridge 100,537 |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 12, 2024 11:11:26 GMT
The 1946 review was loathed by all. The electorate figures for London were already out of date as folk moved back to our capital. It was clear that the rules would have to be relaxed and the BC restart the review. The 1947 review created 608 territorial seats although possible that the University seats and the CoL double seat could have survived at that point. The government was not fully happy with the review and they did have a point. County seats had electorates noticeably below Borough seats hence the extra 17 seats. Churchill was livid and requested another review for this enlarged House(there are proposals). Anyway to cut the story short the 17 seats had no bias to either side. Good piece by David Butler in his Electoral System book. A couple more points on this.
First, thanks for confirming the number of 608 territorial seats proposed in the Initial Review. With 12 in NI this means 596 in GB, an acceptable approximation to the target of 591. In addition, under 1944 Rule 7, the City of London would have been preserved as a separate seat but the Rule leaves it open whether it was to remain a double seat or be cut to a single member.
In the event, the government prepared legislation that implemented the Review but abolished the City as a separate seat, proposing initially to add it to the proposed Shoreditch & Finsbury but then, after objections were raised, to Westminster instead (an arrangement that has remained ever since). The eventual Act also paired too-small Chelsea with Kensington (for 3 seats), rather than with Westminster (for 2 seats) as the BC had proposed. I don't know whether there were any other similar small adjustments of this type; but obviously the big change was the 17 extra seats for English boroughs and since most of these were strong Labour areas I don't see how this can have involved 'no bias'. The Tories bitterly objected, and I can see why.
Just look at the list. Each of the following 17 received an extra seat: Battersea, Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford, Bristol, East Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, Nottingham, Paddington, Reading, Sheffield. How can that not operate to the advantage of Labour?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 12, 2024 11:21:11 GMT
It's interesting that, even after the 1945 interim review, Lichfield apparently had an electorate of 113000. The 1945 review was only supposed to be a quick fix. The 1947 register numbers were published in HC 106 1946-47 (E, W, NI) and HC 107 1946-47 (S) and show the ten largest single-member constituencies all had over 100,000 electors: 1. Renfrewshire, Eastern 125,039 2. Wirral 116,656 3. Lichfield 114,395 4. Rushcliffe 110,402 5. Cannock 109,494 6. Derbyshire, Southern 108,716 7. Chertsey 104,418 8. Fareham 103,019 9. Llandaff and Barry 102,123 10. Stourbridge 100,537 Without exception those are all on the fringes of major cities or conurbations and they show where growth was taking place at the time. I presume that in 1939 they must all have had fewer than 100000 electors or they would have been addressed in the 1945 interim review. (Lichfield was subject to changes in that review but they were very minor, essentially consequential on changes to over-size seats in Warwickshire.) |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 12, 2024 13:02:49 GMT
The 1946 review was loathed by all. The electorate figures for London were already out of date as folk moved back to our capital. It was clear that the rules would have to be relaxed and the BC restart the review. The 1947 review created 608 territorial seats although possible that the University seats and the CoL double seat could have survived at that point. The government was not fully happy with the review and they did have a point. County seats had electorates noticeably below Borough seats hence the extra 17 seats. Churchill was livid and requested another review for this enlarged House(there are proposals). Anyway to cut the story short the 17 seats had no bias to either side. Good piece by David Butler in his Electoral System book. A couple more points on this. First, thanks for confirming the number of 608 territorial seats proposed in the Initial Review. With 12 in NI this means 596 in GB, an acceptable approximation to the target of 591. In addition, under 1944 Rule 7, the City of London would have been preserved as a separate seat but the Rule leaves it open whether it was to remain a double seat or be cut to a single member. In the event, the government prepared legislation that implemented the Review but abolished the City as a separate seat, proposing initially to add it to the proposed Shoreditch & Finsbury but then, after objections were raised, to Westminster instead (an arrangement that has remained ever since). The eventual Act also paired too-small Chelsea with Kensington (for 3 seats), rather than with Westminster (for 2 seats) as the BC had proposed. I don't know whether there were any other similar small adjustments of this type; but obviously the big change was the 17 extra seats for English boroughs and since most of these were strong Labour areas I don't see how this can have involved 'no bias'. The Tories bitterly objected, and I can see why. Just look at the list. Each of the following 17 received an extra seat: Battersea, Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford, Bristol, East Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, Nottingham, Paddington, Reading, Sheffield. How can that not operate to the advantage of Labour?
The footnote by David Butler:-  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 12, 2024 18:49:35 GMT
The 1946 review was loathed by all. The electorate figures for London were already out of date as folk moved back to our capital. It was clear that the rules would have to be relaxed and the BC restart the review. The 1947 review created 608 territorial seats although possible that the University seats and the CoL double seat could have survived at that point. The government was not fully happy with the review and they did have a point. County seats had electorates noticeably below Borough seats hence the extra 17 seats. Churchill was livid and requested another review for this enlarged House(there are proposals). Anyway to cut the story short the 17 seats had no bias to either side. Good piece by David Butler in his Electoral System book. I found an interesting debate (13 Nov 1946) here: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1946/nov/13/parliamentary-boundaries-fresh-reviewIt's interesting that, even after the 1945 interim review, Lichfield apparently had an electorate of 113000. Also, the proposals as they were being worked up under the 1944 Rules apparently involved including Malvern UD (Worcs) in a Herefordshire seat. I presume that the 25% tolerance meant that Herefs was too big for one seat but too small for two unless something was added. I can see why people objected to this but it should have been obvious that the 1944 Rules might generate this sort of outcome and the time to deal with it was before those rules were signed off, not after the BCs had done their work.
It should have been, but the experience of the 2011 change to the rules and the first zombie review suggests to me that some people don't realise the impact of that sort of rule, especially if it affects an area they didn't think much about, until they actually see it happen in what is in effect a dry run. Who was actually minded to think about Herefordshire? Who working on the 2011 changes thought properly about the consequences of a 5% rule in areas with big wards until "Mersey Banks" and so on reared their ugly heads? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 13, 2024 11:01:13 GMT
I found an interesting debate (13 Nov 1946) here: api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1946/nov/13/parliamentary-boundaries-fresh-reviewIt's interesting that, even after the 1945 interim review, Lichfield apparently had an electorate of 113000. Also, the proposals as they were being worked up under the 1944 Rules apparently involved including Malvern UD (Worcs) in a Herefordshire seat. I presume that the 25% tolerance meant that Herefs was too big for one seat but too small for two unless something was added. I can see why people objected to this but it should have been obvious that the 1944 Rules might generate this sort of outcome and the time to deal with it was before those rules were signed off, not after the BCs had done their work.
It should have been, but the experience of the 2011 change to the rules and the first zombie review suggests to me that some people don't realise the impact of that sort of rule, especially if it affects an area they didn't think much about, until they actually see it happen in what is in effect a dry run. Who was actually minded to think about Herefordshire? Who working on the 2011 changes thought properly about the consequences of a 5% rule in areas with big wards until "Mersey Banks" and so on reared their ugly heads? Hmm ...
I'm not entirely convinced because while it's understandable that no one thought of Herefordshire specifically, the 25% tolerance rule was worded in a way that left a large gap between the point at which a county or borough became too big for a single seat, i.e. 125% of quota, and the size needed for two whole seats, which in theory was 150% of quota (i.e. 75% x 2) but in practice rather more than that to allow some leeway in dividing the area in such a way that neither division fell below 75%.
But there it is. Perhaps I'm arguing too much with the benefit of hindsight.
Regarding Mersey Banks, though, I will argue to my dying day that such an ill-conceived proposal resulted not from the 5% limit but from slapdash work on the part of the Boundary Commission. It was perfectly possible, as I think submissions here demonstrated, to draw more reasonable seats in this area, even with the 5% tolerance and a policy of not splitting wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 13, 2024 11:22:14 GMT
It is fascinating to look at the interim review of abnormally large seats that was carried out in time for the 1945 GE.
I now have access to the BC report and, given the constraints governing the review, it's an outstanding piece of work. Because the normal annual review of registers was suspended during the War, the review was based on 1939 electorates. The largest single-member constituency at that time was Hendon with a staggering 208609, followed very closely by Romford (207101) and at a greater distance by Harrow (168594). Of course what all these seats have in common is that they comprise areas on the edge of London that had seen massive suburban development since boundaries were last drawn in 1918.
What impresses me particularly about the 1945 review is its tidiness. Not only did the BC achieve its mission to eliminate all seats exceeding 100000 in 1939; it achieved the task in a way that cleared up various anomalies in the 1918 map. This is most notable in Warwickshire, where the 1918 arrangement was not very satisfactory even at the time it was drawn, and from this unpromising material the BC contrived an altogether more sensible arrangement (its main flaw, the awkward northerly salient of Solihull running through east Birmingham suburbs, was an unfortunate byproduct of the rules governing the review and cannot be laid at the door of the BC).
|
|
|
|
Post by parlconst on Feb 13, 2024 14:00:28 GMT
It is fascinating to look at the interim review of abnormally large seats that was carried out in time for the 1945 GE. I now have access to the BC report and, given the constraints governing the review, it's an outstanding piece of work. Because the normal annual review of registers was suspended during the War, the review was based on 1939 electorates. The largest single-member constituency at that time was Hendon with a staggering 208609, followed very closely by Romford (207101) and at a greater distance by Harrow (168594). Of course what all these areas have in common is that they comprise areas on the edge of London that had seen massive suburban development since boundaries were last drawn in 1918. What impresses me particularly about the 1945 review is its tidiness. Not only did the BC achieve its mission to eliminate all seats exceeding 100000 in 1939; it achieved the task in a way that cleared up various anomalies in the 1918 map. This is most notable in Warwickshire, where the 1918 arrangement was not very satisfactory even at the time it was drawn, and from this unpromising material the BC contrived an altogether more sensible arrangement (its main flaw, the awkward northerly salient of Solihull running through east Birmingham suburbs, was an unfortunate byproduct of the rules governing the review and cannot be laid at the door of the BC). The 1945 report is also, in my opinion, one of the best presented. It has good maps throughout and a clear exposition of what was changing. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 13, 2024 18:46:44 GMT
It should have been, but the experience of the 2011 change to the rules and the first zombie review suggests to me that some people don't realise the impact of that sort of rule, especially if it affects an area they didn't think much about, until they actually see it happen in what is in effect a dry run. Who was actually minded to think about Herefordshire? Who working on the 2011 changes thought properly about the consequences of a 5% rule in areas with big wards until "Mersey Banks" and so on reared their ugly heads? Hmm ... I'm not entirely convinced because while it's understandable that no one thought of Herefordshire specifically, the 25% tolerance rule was worded in a way that left a large gap between the point at which a county or borough became too big for a single seat, i.e. 125% of quota, and the size needed for two whole seats, which in theory was 150% of quota (i.e. 75% x 2) but in practice rather more than that to allow some leeway in dividing the area in such a way that neither division fell below 75%. But there it is. Perhaps I'm arguing too much with the benefit of hindsight. I think that Herefordshire seems likely to have been regarded as the worst case of that, though. There were already cases in the 1918 review where a County Borough had been regarded as too small to be a constituency in its own right and a neighbouring area was tacked on (e.g. Barnsley), and it doesn't strike me as much worse than that to have a County Borough divided into two constituencies one of which also includes areas from outside the borough, and indeed that happened in places in 1955. Huddersfield is a good example of this: the 1946 zombie review recommended including Elland UD in Huddersfield West, the actual review implemented in 1950 had two constituencies entirely within the borough boundaries, but in 1955 Kirkburton UD was added to Huddersfield East. (And in Bristol the 1955 review added areas outside the city boundaries to two different constituencies: Mangotsfield UD to North East and Kingswood UD to South East.) So I think that it must have been regarded as worse when that happened to an actual county like Herefordshire than to a mere County Borough. Of course the crossing of Rutland's boundaries had already been tolerated, but I suspect it was regarded as so small that it was inevitably a special case. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 14, 2024 8:43:52 GMT
I've been trying to piece together the way boundaries were redrawn in 1945 and 1950. My current stab at the correct sequence of events is as follows. It is based on information drawn from several different sources so I'd be very grateful if anyone better informed can confirm or correct it. - House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 - Enacted by cross-party agreement while the wartime coalition was still in place, this: set up boundary commissions; laid down a set of rules (the '1944 Rules') for a general review of constituencies (the 'Initial Review'); required the commission, before embarking on the Initial Review, to undertake a more limited, interim, review to address the twenty 'exceptionally large' seats that had had more than 100000 electors when the most recent registration was carried out in 1939 (and allowed them to create up to 25 additional seats in the process).
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1945 - Implemented the interim review in time for the 1945 GE.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1947 - Enacted at the request of the boundary commissions, which were struggling with the Initial Review, it removed the 25% tolerance laid down the 1944 Rules.
- Boundary Commission proposals for Initial Review - Published in 1948, using the 1944 rules as amended in 1947.
- Representation of the People Act 1949 - Numerous electoral changes, including the alignment of the Parliamentary and local government franchises and the abolition of the University seats. It also abolished the business vote, which had the effect of slashing the electorate of the City of London from about 12500 to fewer than 5000.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 - This
- implemented the BC recommendations for the Initial Review but with significant changes imposed by the government, notably the creation of an additional 17 borough seats in England (and these boundaries applied in the GEs of 1950 and 1951).
- abolished the City of London as a separate constituency, even though its continuation as such had been explicitly provided for in the 1944 rules (and this provision had not been changed in 1947)
- laid down a new set of rules for future 'Periodic Reviews' of constituencies (the '1949 Rules').
Compared with the 1944 Rules, the 1949 Rules provided that the total number of seats in GB should be 'not substantially greater or less (sic) than 613' (in 1944 it had been 591). They also provided that each seat should return a single member. The 1944 Rules, by contrast, had held the door theoretically open to the continuation of a few two-member seats but the Commissions had to jump through a number of hoops before they could recommend a double seat and I think I'm right in saying that the Commissions took the hint and didn't recommend any. Another significant change was that, whereas the 1944 Rules had guaranteed the survival of the City of London in its existing boundaries (while leaving it to the politicians to decide whether it should continue to have 2 MPs or be cut to 1), the 1949 Rules provided only that the whole City should be part of a single seat the name of which must refer to the presence of the City within it.
The First Periodic Review then took place in accordance with the 1949 Rules, and the boundaries it recommended were in effect 1955-74.
The size of the House of Commons was 615 (including 12 university seats) from 1922 to 1945, when the 25 additional seats under the interim review increased the total to 640. However, the stipulation in the 1944 Rules of approximately 591 territorial seats in GB shows that the increase was intended to be temporary. I haven't got access to the Boundary Commission reports under the Initial Review but I think they must have involved 596 territorial seats in GB, which I presume, even with an extra 1 or 2 for the City, was deemed not to be 'substantially greater ... than 591'. Add 12 for NI, plus 12 university seats, and this implies a House of 621 or 622. In the event, though, the government abolished the university seats and ended the City's existence as a separate seat, then added 17 seats in English boroughs, so the eventual total was 596 + 17 + 12 = 625. It was evidently intended to keep the House at around this size because the 1949 Rules provided for 613 seats in GB (give or take) plus 12 for NI.
It's interesting that in the 1940s a proposed 25% tolerance above or below quota was repealed because it was thought to be too restrictive, whereas in the 2020s we have to get within 5%. There's also Representation of the People Act 1948 which is where the constituencies actually used in 1950 were set. Note: - This includes the abolition of the City of London as a separate constituency and the introduction of Cities of London & Westminster. - This also defined constituencies individually as county and borough constituencies rather than, as had been the previous practice right up to the Commission's reports, defining Parliamentary Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs and then dividing them up. - It also includes the abolition of the University constituencies: "there shall be county and borough constituencies, each returning a single member, which are described in the First Schedule to this Act, and no other constituencies". |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 9:53:39 GMT
I've been trying to piece together the way boundaries were redrawn in 1945 and 1950. My current stab at the correct sequence of events is as follows. It is based on information drawn from several different sources so I'd be very grateful if anyone better informed can confirm or correct it. - House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 - Enacted by cross-party agreement while the wartime coalition was still in place, this: set up boundary commissions; laid down a set of rules (the '1944 Rules') for a general review of constituencies (the 'Initial Review'); required the commission, before embarking on the Initial Review, to undertake a more limited, interim, review to address the twenty 'exceptionally large' seats that had had more than 100000 electors when the most recent registration was carried out in 1939 (and allowed them to create up to 25 additional seats in the process).
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1945 - Implemented the interim review in time for the 1945 GE.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1947 - Enacted at the request of the boundary commissions, which were struggling with the Initial Review, it removed the 25% tolerance laid down the 1944 Rules.
- Boundary Commission proposals for Initial Review - Published in 1948, using the 1944 rules as amended in 1947.
- Representation of the People Act 1949 - Numerous electoral changes, including the alignment of the Parliamentary and local government franchises and the abolition of the University seats. It also abolished the business vote, which had the effect of slashing the electorate of the City of London from about 12500 to fewer than 5000.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 - This
- implemented the BC recommendations for the Initial Review but with significant changes imposed by the government, notably the creation of an additional 17 borough seats in England (and these boundaries applied in the GEs of 1950 and 1951).
- abolished the City of London as a separate constituency, even though its continuation as such had been explicitly provided for in the 1944 rules (and this provision had not been changed in 1947)
- laid down a new set of rules for future 'Periodic Reviews' of constituencies (the '1949 Rules').
Compared with the 1944 Rules, the 1949 Rules provided that the total number of seats in GB should be 'not substantially greater or less (sic) than 613' (in 1944 it had been 591). They also provided that each seat should return a single member. The 1944 Rules, by contrast, had held the door theoretically open to the continuation of a few two-member seats but the Commissions had to jump through a number of hoops before they could recommend a double seat and I think I'm right in saying that the Commissions took the hint and didn't recommend any. Another significant change was that, whereas the 1944 Rules had guaranteed the survival of the City of London in its existing boundaries (while leaving it to the politicians to decide whether it should continue to have 2 MPs or be cut to 1), the 1949 Rules provided only that the whole City should be part of a single seat the name of which must refer to the presence of the City within it.
The First Periodic Review then took place in accordance with the 1949 Rules, and the boundaries it recommended were in effect 1955-74.
The size of the House of Commons was 615 (including 12 university seats) from 1922 to 1945, when the 25 additional seats under the interim review increased the total to 640. However, the stipulation in the 1944 Rules of approximately 591 territorial seats in GB shows that the increase was intended to be temporary. I haven't got access to the Boundary Commission reports under the Initial Review but I think they must have involved 596 territorial seats in GB, which I presume, even with an extra 1 or 2 for the City, was deemed not to be 'substantially greater ... than 591'. Add 12 for NI, plus 12 university seats, and this implies a House of 621 or 622. In the event, though, the government abolished the university seats and ended the City's existence as a separate seat, then added 17 seats in English boroughs, so the eventual total was 596 + 17 + 12 = 625. It was evidently intended to keep the House at around this size because the 1949 Rules provided for 613 seats in GB (give or take) plus 12 for NI.
It's interesting that in the 1940s a proposed 25% tolerance above or below quota was repealed because it was thought to be too restrictive, whereas in the 2020s we have to get within 5%. There's also Representation of the People Act 1948 which is where the constituencies actually used in 1950 were set. Note: - This includes the abolition of the City of London as a separate constituency and the introduction of Cities of London & Westminster. - This also defined constituencies individually as county and borough constituencies rather than, as had been the previous practice right up to the Commission's reports, defining Parliamentary Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs and then dividing them up. - It also includes the abolition of the University constituencies: "there shall be county and borough constituencies, each returning a single member, which are described in the First Schedule to this Act, and no other constituencies". Ah, thank you. You're right, so it seems that the 1949 Act was a consolidating measure (as its long title says, now that I check).
The formal distinction between Parliamentary Boroughs and Parliamentary Counties, once so fundamental, had lost most of its significance in 1918 when voting rights were equalized, but I had been wondering when it received its official quietus. So thanks for answering that question.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 11:43:27 GMT
Just for info, here's a complete list of the 20 'abnormally large' constituencies (i.e. over 100000 electors in 1939) that the BC was asked to eliminate in the 1945 interim review.
208609 Hendon
207101 Romford 168594 Harrow 140299 Uxbridge
134935 Dartford 132818 Epsom
123439 Ilford
119290 Altrincham 118131 Tamworth
114992 Chislehurst 112503 Nuneaton
109059 Birmingham (Moseley) 108383 SE Essex 108216 Twickenham
107162 Epping
106892 Blackpool 103162 Mitcham
102990 St Albans
102197 Wycombe 100834 Horsham & Worthing
In the course of this exercise, the BC created 25 additional constituencies (net). Most of these were in the immediate vicinity of London: 7 in Middx; 6 in Essex; 2 in Kent; 2 in Surrey. Three more were in the wider south-east: one apiece to each of Bucks, Herts and W Sussex. That left 3 to go to Warwickshire and one each to Cheshire and Lancs. The rest of England was not affected (except for minor changes to Lichfield (Staffs) as its boundary was adjusted to align with changes to the administrative county boundary since 1918). There were no changes in Wales, Scotland or NI.
Although the interim review successfully dealt with one of the electoral inequalities of the period, namely the gross underrepresentation of abnormally large seats, it left completely unaffected the serious overrepresentation of very small constituencies, most of them in London and other large cities. This had to await the Initial Review that took effect in 1950.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 14, 2024 12:47:31 GMT
Given the expenditure limits of the time it was possible for a candidate to legally spend £4,000 (£150,000 approx. today) contesting Hendon or Romford.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 14:44:12 GMT
I've been trying to piece together the way boundaries were redrawn in 1945 and 1950. My current stab at the correct sequence of events is as follows. It is based on information drawn from several different sources so I'd be very grateful if anyone better informed can confirm or correct it. - House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 - Enacted by cross-party agreement while the wartime coalition was still in place, this: set up boundary commissions; laid down a set of rules (the '1944 Rules') for a general review of constituencies (the 'Initial Review'); required the commission, before embarking on the Initial Review, to undertake a more limited, interim, review to address the twenty 'exceptionally large' seats that had had more than 100000 electors when the most recent registration was carried out in 1939 (and allowed them to create up to 25 additional seats in the process).
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1945 - Implemented the interim review in time for the 1945 GE.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1947 - Enacted at the request of the boundary commissions, which were struggling with the Initial Review, it removed the 25% tolerance laid down the 1944 Rules.
- Boundary Commission proposals for Initial Review - Published in 1948, using the 1944 rules as amended in 1947.
- Representation of the People Act 1949 - Numerous electoral changes, including the alignment of the Parliamentary and local government franchises and the abolition of the University seats. It also abolished the business vote, which had the effect of slashing the electorate of the City of London from about 12500 to fewer than 5000.
- House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 - This
- implemented the BC recommendations for the Initial Review but with significant changes imposed by the government, notably the creation of an additional 17 borough seats in England (and these boundaries applied in the GEs of 1950 and 1951).
- abolished the City of London as a separate constituency, even though its continuation as such had been explicitly provided for in the 1944 rules (and this provision had not been changed in 1947)
- laid down a new set of rules for future 'Periodic Reviews' of constituencies (the '1949 Rules').
Compared with the 1944 Rules, the 1949 Rules provided that the total number of seats in GB should be 'not substantially greater or less (sic) than 613' (in 1944 it had been 591). They also provided that each seat should return a single member. The 1944 Rules, by contrast, had held the door theoretically open to the continuation of a few two-member seats but the Commissions had to jump through a number of hoops before they could recommend a double seat and I think I'm right in saying that the Commissions took the hint and didn't recommend any. Another significant change was that, whereas the 1944 Rules had guaranteed the survival of the City of London in its existing boundaries (while leaving it to the politicians to decide whether it should continue to have 2 MPs or be cut to 1), the 1949 Rules provided only that the whole City should be part of a single seat the name of which must refer to the presence of the City within it.
The First Periodic Review then took place in accordance with the 1949 Rules, and the boundaries it recommended were in effect 1955-74.
The size of the House of Commons was 615 (including 12 university seats) from 1922 to 1945, when the 25 additional seats under the interim review increased the total to 640. However, the stipulation in the 1944 Rules of approximately 591 territorial seats in GB shows that the increase was intended to be temporary. I haven't got access to the Boundary Commission reports under the Initial Review but I think they must have involved 596 territorial seats in GB, which I presume, even with an extra 1 or 2 for the City, was deemed not to be 'substantially greater ... than 591'. Add 12 for NI, plus 12 university seats, and this implies a House of 621 or 622. In the event, though, the government abolished the university seats and ended the City's existence as a separate seat, then added 17 seats in English boroughs, so the eventual total was 596 + 17 + 12 = 625. It was evidently intended to keep the House at around this size because the 1949 Rules provided for 613 seats in GB (give or take) plus 12 for NI.
It's interesting that in the 1940s a proposed 25% tolerance above or below quota was repealed because it was thought to be too restrictive, whereas in the 2020s we have to get within 5%. There's also Representation of the People Act 1948 which is where the constituencies actually used in 1950 were set. Note: - This includes the abolition of the City of London as a separate constituency and the introduction of Cities of London & Westminster. - This also defined constituencies individually as county and borough constituencies rather than, as had been the previous practice right up to the Commission's reports, defining Parliamentary Counties and Parliamentary Boroughs and then dividing them up. - It also includes the abolition of the University constituencies: "there shall be county and borough constituencies, each returning a single member, which are described in the First Schedule to this Act, and no other constituencies". Ironically, if the Attlee govt had preserved the university seats they would now be rock-solid Labour, except for possibly the occasional challenge from the Greens. The Tories wouldn't stand an earthly chance. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 19:17:44 GMT
In my random meanderings around the internet I stumbled across this - the 1917 Boundary Commission's proposals for Liverpool. I think these boundaries were adopted in the form shown here.  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Feb 14, 2024 19:26:58 GMT
The formal distinction between Parliamentary Boroughs and Parliamentary Counties, once so fundamental, had lost most of its significance in 1918 when voting rights were equalized, but I had been wondering when it received its official quietus. So thanks for answering that question.
I did wonder whether the change might have subtly influenced the possibility of major boundaries being crossed. In the 1940s, there was a Parliamentary Borough of Bristol, whose boundaries would be set to be the same as those of the city, and the only question was whether it should be divided into five or six divisions. In the 1950s, on the other hand, there were simply six Borough Constituencies with Bristol in their names, which might have made it feel easier to tack Mangotsfield and Kingswood UDs onto two of them in 1955. However, the tacking on of those two EDs seems like a fairly egregious breach of the rules as they existed at the time, which indicated that county and county borough boundaries should not be crossed, and while they did allow for exceptions for reasons of electoral equality that seems an unlikely justification given that Bristol's electorate was large enough that it could certainly be divided into whole constituencies within a 10% tolerance, never mind the 25% tolerance abandoned in the 1940s. I suspect that either (a) it was a messy compromise to ensure that Bristol retained its sixth seat, or (b) the BCE had got wind of a plan to annexe the two UDs to Bristol and was taking account of that. Of course if (b) is correct the annexation never happened, but the 1947 report included Haltemprice in the Parliamentary Borough of Kingston upon Hull, apparently for that reason, and the annexation never happened there either. Topically enough, in the Second Review Bristol lost its sixth seat, with Central being abolished, and the two UDs formed the core of the new Kingswood constituency. Speaking of Bristol Central, Wikipedia claims that the revived constituency's boundaries "are completely different to those of the 1918–74 Bristol Central, sharing no common territory with one another". This seemed most implausible, given that the new constituency contains the city centre, and checking parlconst's maps suggest that it is indeed wrong: the 1918-45 one is almost entirely contained within the new one, and the 1955-74 one, though a little oddly named, still had a considerable overlap in the city centre, St Paul's and St Werburgh's. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 14, 2024 19:41:37 GMT
Ironically, if the Attlee govt had preserved the university seats they would now be rock-solid Labour, except for possibly the occasional challenge from the Greens. The Tories wouldn't stand an earthly chance. I'm not sure it's that simple. Labour led 39-34 amongst graduates in 2019, certainly not rock-solid. I suspect that Oxbridge graduates would be more likely to vote Conservative than the average graduate as well. Also, if they still used STV, the seats would likely be split anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 19:55:39 GMT
The formal distinction between Parliamentary Boroughs and Parliamentary Counties, once so fundamental, had lost most of its significance in 1918 when voting rights were equalized, but I had been wondering when it received its official quietus. So thanks for answering that question.
I did wonder whether the change might have subtly influenced the possibility of major boundaries being crossed. In the 1940s, there was a Parliamentary Borough of Bristol, whose boundaries would be set to be the same as those of the city, and the only question was whether it should be divided into five or six divisions. In the 1950s, on the other hand, there were simply six Borough Constituencies with Bristol in their names, which might have made it feel easier to tack Mangotsfield and Kingswood UDs onto two of them in 1955. However, the tacking on of those two EDs seems like a fairly egregious breach of the rules as they existed at the time, which indicated that county and county borough boundaries should not be crossed, and while they did allow for exceptions for reasons of electoral equality that seems an unlikely justification given that Bristol's electorate was large enough that it could certainly be divided into whole constituencies within a 10% tolerance, never mind the 25% tolerance abandoned in the 1940s. I suspect that either (a) it was a messy compromise to ensure that Bristol retained its sixth seat, or (b) the BCE had got wind of a plan to annexe the two UDs to Bristol and was taking account of that. Of course if (b) is correct the annexation never happened, but the 1947 report included Haltemprice in the Parliamentary Borough of Kingston upon Hull, apparently for that reason, and the annexation never happened there either. Topically enough, in the Second Review Bristol lost its sixth seat, with Central being abolished, and the two UDs formed the core of the new Kingswood constituency. Speaking of Bristol Central, Wikipedia claims that the revived constituency's boundaries "are completely different to those of the 1918–74 Bristol Central, sharing no common territory with one another". This seemed most implausible, given that the new constituency contains the city centre, and checking parlconst 's maps suggest that it is indeed wrong: the 1918-45 one is almost entirely contained within the new one, and the 1955-74 one, though a little oddly named, still had a considerable overlap in the city centre, St Paul's and St Werburgh's. Well, I agree that in theory Parliamentary Boroughs, when they still existed, were defined first; and only then, if they required more than one seat, were they split into the appropriate number of divisions.
However, there were cases in 1918 and even in 1885 where it seems likely that the constituency was defined first, essentially based on numbers, and the PB status then attached to it. I'd cite Newcastle under Lyme in 1885, and Batley & Morley in 1918, as examples of this approach - although I accept they were the exception rather than the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 14, 2024 19:56:21 GMT
Ironically, if the Attlee govt had preserved the university seats they would now be rock-solid Labour, except for possibly the occasional challenge from the Greens. The Tories wouldn't stand an earthly chance. I'm not sure it's that simple. Labour led 39-34 amongst graduates in 2019, certainly not rock-solid. I suspect that Oxbridge graduates would be more likely to vote Conservative than the average graduate as well. Also, if they still used STV, the seats would likely be split anyway. All perfectly valid points. |
|
