|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 14, 2024 20:41:18 GMT
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. No chance that plural voting would have survived at a parliamentary level. Qualifying electors would have had to choose - university or territorial constituency. At a tangent Herbert Morrison waxed lyrical, as a good Londoner, about the City's seat in 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 16, 2024 12:14:14 GMT
One thing that surprises me in the BCE's report under the Initial Review falls in para 12, where it states that the BCE decided that 'large compact urban areas ... could conveniently support electorates in excess of the electoral quota'. So this is a declaration of intent to accept somewhat larger seats in urban areas, and the overall discussion in paras 12 - 15 shows that the BCE well understood that this was the implication.
The reason I am surprised is that the review was conducted under the 1944 Rules, as amended in 1947, and I can't see anything in those Rules that would lead the BCE to such a conclusion. Nor was there precedent for it. The rules for GB at the previous general review (1918) laid down specific numbers for the population that would entitle an area to a seat, or to more than one seat, but these rules were explicitly applied equally to counties and boroughs alike. And the review before that (1885), while it did not specify numbers in the same way, was evidently determined to assign seats in England and Wales to counties and boroughs, taken collectively, strictly in accordance with population.
So the idea of systematically favouring rural areas, compared with large towns and cities, was entirely new. So my question is whether the BCE, at the Initial Review, dreamt up this idea out of its own head.
If so, it was deeply unwise. Such a policy could only have the effect of favouring the Tories at the expense of Labour and one would have thought that the BCE, presumably anxious to establish a reputation for political impartiality, would have sedulously avoided such an approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 16, 2024 14:19:00 GMT
Don't forget the 1946 zombie review. Most of those proposals (plus the debate in parliament regarding the BC process and the correct electorates to use) are now available via the BNA. What's the BNA? |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 16, 2024 14:22:37 GMT
Don't forget the 1946 zombie review. Most of those proposals (plus the debate in parliament regarding the BC process and the correct electorates to use) are now available via the BNA. What's the BNA? British Newspaper Archive |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 16, 2024 15:42:50 GMT
One thing that surprises me in the BCE's report under the Initial Review falls in para 12, where it states that the BCE decided that 'large compact urban areas ... could conveniently support electorates in excess of the electoral quota'. So this is a declaration of intent to accept somewhat larger seats in urban areas, and the overall discussion in paras 12 - 15 shows that the BCE well understood that this was the implication. The reason I am surprised is that the review was conducted under the 1944 Rules, as amended in 1947, and I can't see anything in those Rules that would lead the BCE to such a conclusion. Nor was there precedent for it. The rules for GB at the previous general review (1918) laid down specific numbers for the population that would entitle an area to a seat, or to more than one seat, but these rules were explicitly applied equally to counties and boroughs alike. And the review before that (1885), while it did not specify numbers in the same way, was evidently determined to assign seats in England and Wales to counties and boroughs, taken collectively, strictly in accordance with population.
So the idea of systematically favouring rural areas, compared with large towns and cities, was entirely new. So my question is whether the BCE, at the Initial Review, dreamt up this idea out of its own head. If so, it was deeply unwise. Such a policy could only have the effect of favouring the Tories at the expense of Labour and one would have thought that the BCE, presumably anxious to establish a reputation for political impartiality, would have sedulously avoided such an approach.
The BCE were aware that the disparity of electorates in their 1947 report would raise some questions. They justified the large electorates in the eight boroughs on the grounds that divided seats could lead to claims from other boroughs for an additional seat and 'do little to solve the general problem of equal representation'. This is covered in great depth by David Butler. A case of where do you draw the line. The flip side would be larger county seats and reduced representation but after the hoo-hah in 1946 (especially Herefordshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire) the BCE would not go down that path again. During the debates re the additional 17 seats there were demands from Leyton, West Ham and Plymouth for extra seats. Chuter Ede rebutted these claims. Also Newcastle was awarded a fourth seat following a local inquiry before the 'extra 17'. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 16, 2024 20:32:47 GMT
Clipping from the D Tel, Dec 1947:-   |
|
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 17, 2024 8:39:09 GMT
One thing that surprises me in the BCE's report under the Initial Review falls in para 12, where it states that the BCE decided that 'large compact urban areas ... could conveniently support electorates in excess of the electoral quota'. So this is a declaration of intent to accept somewhat larger seats in urban areas, and the overall discussion in paras 12 - 15 shows that the BCE well understood that this was the implication. The reason I am surprised is that the review was conducted under the 1944 Rules, as amended in 1947, and I can't see anything in those Rules that would lead the BCE to such a conclusion. Nor was there precedent for it. The rules for GB at the previous general review (1918) laid down specific numbers for the population that would entitle an area to a seat, or to more than one seat, but these rules were explicitly applied equally to counties and boroughs alike. And the review before that (1885), while it did not specify numbers in the same way, was evidently determined to assign seats in England and Wales to counties and boroughs, taken collectively, strictly in accordance with population.
So the idea of systematically favouring rural areas, compared with large towns and cities, was entirely new. So my question is whether the BCE, at the Initial Review, dreamt up this idea out of its own head. If so, it was deeply unwise. Such a policy could only have the effect of favouring the Tories at the expense of Labour and one would have thought that the BCE, presumably anxious to establish a reputation for political impartiality, would have sedulously avoided such an approach.
Indeed if you look through the numbers the Commission seem to have had a more or less systematic mild over-representation of counties as opposed to boroughs. (The difference still existed in their report.) If using a quota based system then a reasonably standard approach, used by the Commission more recently, is the "harmonic mean" method: to choose the number of seats which gets the average electorate closest to the quota. For the question of 2 or 3 seats, for example, the threshold is 2.4 quotas, as that's the point where the deviation of the average electorate from quota is the same for either choice (the averages being 0.8 quotas with 3 seats and 1.2 quotas with 2 seats). I've been through counties and their associated boroughs alphabetically as far as Lancashire and we can see that the following units are over-represented using that rule: Dorset: 2.32 quotas, 3 seats Berkshire: 3.34 quotas, 4 seats Cornwall: 4.29 quotas, 5 seats Devon: 5.15 quotas, 6 seats Essex: 8.42 quotas, 9 seats Durham: 9.34 quotas, 10 seats Lancashire: 16.41 quotas, 18 seats (NB these are all the Parliamentary Counties, excluding any associated boroughs, so "Devon", for example, excludes Plymouth and Exeter. Only Cornwall of the above had no associated boroughs.) Most of the units which were under-represented using that rule are the ones already discussed at the 1 or 2 threshold. My "as far as Lancashire" sample includes East Ham, Blackburn and Gateshead of those above 80000, and also Dartford and Leyton which were just below 80000 but above the rule's threshold of 79083. One county, Herefordshire as already discussed, was within the 80000 to 90000 range; it of course received two seats, unlike the boroughs in that range. Two larger boroughs were also under-represented by the rule. Plymouth, with 2.40 quotas, was right on the cusp, but it was just on the side where the rule would have given it 3. Perhaps you could argue that giving it two wasn't an outrage, but I'm not sure you'd be so happy when you noticed the allocation of three seats to Dorset, with a smaller electorate. Liverpool had the biggest cause for complaint. It had 8.92 quotas, but was only given 8 seats, one fewer than Essex which had a substantially lower electorate. Something in the text of the report suggests that the initial allocation was done by geographical county (i.e. including county boroughs in their parent county) so in some sense that (and what happened to Blackburn) was the flip side of the over-representation of the Lancashire parliamentary county. Manchester and Bristol were not exactly under-represented by the rule, but both could be seen as a bit hard done by: Manchester had 8.42 quotas like Essex (its actual electorate was very slightly lower) and got 8 seats; Bristol had 5.35 quotas, and got 5 seats, but its electorate was quite a bit larger than that of Devon, which got 6. In both cases it looks pretty clear that a county with their electorate would have got one more seat. Note that Hampshire's electorate was also (slightly) higher than Devon's and it also got only 5 seats; this may be because Devon was in some sense partnered with under-represented Plymouth, whereas Hampshire's partners Portsmouth and Southampton both got the right number of seats. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 17, 2024 12:36:09 GMT
Counting the 1946 proposals (county & boroughs included therein):-
Berkshire 5 seats
Cornwall 4
Devon 10
Dorset 3
Essex 11
Durham 17
There was immediate (and eloquent) hostilty from all the Cornish MPs.
|
|
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 18, 2024 7:47:28 GMT
Counting the 1946 proposals (county & boroughs included therein):- Berkshire 5 seats Cornwall 4 Devon 10 Dorset 3 Essex 11 Durham 17 There was immediate (and eloquent) hostilty from all the Cornish MPs. They should have been threatened with Devonwall  |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2024 7:55:38 GMT
Counting the 1946 proposals (county & boroughs included therein):- Berkshire 5 seats Cornwall 4 Devon 10 Dorset 3 Essex 11 Durham 17 There was immediate (and eloquent) hostilty from all the Cornish MPs. They should have been threatened with Devonwall The rumpus would have been deafening! The arguments were repeated in the mid-60s when the BCE again proposed four seats for the Duchy. The shires were not going to accept reduced representation without a fight. Inevitable that the BCE would return to parliament for guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 18, 2024 8:08:11 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.  Yuck that Wavertree seat is ugly |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2024 9:45:17 GMT
Clipping from the D Tel, Dec 1947:- Does that add up, though?
The Initial Review, as it eventually took effect in 1950, resulted in 625 seats, all territorial. This figure includes the 17 additional seats in English boroughs.
If that story covers the BCs' final reports under the Initial Review, then it should provide for a House of 621, not 620: the 608 seats proposed by the BCs, plus 12 university seats (which were not the subject of BC reviews), plus the City (also not subject to BC review). 608 + 12 + 1 = 621.
The eventual Act got rid of the University seats and the City but added 17 in English boroughs so that gives us 608 as proposed by the BCs, subject to a few tweaks maybe, plus the additional 17 to make 625. But if the figure of 608 in the Telegraph report is correct (489 + 71 + 36 + 12) then removing the City would leave us one short (607 + 17 = 624).
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2024 11:22:11 GMT
Yes, good point. Suggestions of the business vote being abolished in October 1947. The Evening Standard 'assumes' that the City will be reduced to one seat.
1946 Review - scrapped - Montgomery & Merioneth proposed at that review. Newcastle was awarded four seats at that stage.
1947 Provisional recs throughout the year - initially 607 GB seats - Newcastle awarded three seats in the June but increased to four following local inquiry and that's the number proposed in the Oct 1947 report (published in December). Montgomery and Merioneth proposed as individual seats in the Welsh report (can't locate any provisional recommendation). The City isn't mentioned in the BCE report bar a brief note regarding their calculations - 485 seats (less one for the City) so 484 as the divisor (489 awarded).
There could be more in the bundle that I forwarded.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2024 11:27:52 GMT
Provisional recommendation for Northumberland, June 1947:-  ES clipping, October 1947:-  |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 18, 2024 13:01:22 GMT
Just like to thank the participants here for another fascinating discussion. I knew nothing previously about the post war redistributions, other than that they had happened.
What was the history of the Boundary Commission? It seems to have worked in pretty much the same way as it still does.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 18, 2024 13:21:58 GMT
ES clipping, October 1947:- ”his” … “one man”. *cringe |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2024 13:32:59 GMT
Just like to thank the participants here for another fascinating discussion. I knew nothing previously about the post war redistributions, other than that they had happened. What was the history of the Boundary Commission? It seems to have worked in pretty much the same way as it still does. Recommend David Butler's Electoral System in Britain since 1918 and The Boundary Commissions by Rossiter, Johnston & Pattie. There are more books but none are cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 18, 2024 13:35:56 GMT
One thing that surprises me in the BCE's report under the Initial Review falls in para 12, where it states that the BCE decided that 'large compact urban areas ... could conveniently support electorates in excess of the electoral quota'. So this is a declaration of intent to accept somewhat larger seats in urban areas, and the overall discussion in paras 12 - 15 shows that the BCE well understood that this was the implication. The reason I am surprised is that the review was conducted under the 1944 Rules, as amended in 1947, and I can't see anything in those Rules that would lead the BCE to such a conclusion. Nor was there precedent for it. The rules for GB at the previous general review (1918) laid down specific numbers for the population that would entitle an area to a seat, or to more than one seat, but these rules were explicitly applied equally to counties and boroughs alike. And the review before that (1885), while it did not specify numbers in the same way, was evidently determined to assign seats in England and Wales to counties and boroughs, taken collectively, strictly in accordance with population.
So the idea of systematically favouring rural areas, compared with large towns and cities, was entirely new. So my question is whether the BCE, at the Initial Review, dreamt up this idea out of its own head. If so, it was deeply unwise. Such a policy could only have the effect of favouring the Tories at the expense of Labour and one would have thought that the BCE, presumably anxious to establish a reputation for political impartiality, would have sedulously avoided such an approach.
The BCE were aware that the disparity of electorates in their 1947 report would raise some questions. They justified the large electorates in the eight boroughs on the grounds that divided seats could lead to claims from other boroughs for an additional seat and ' do little to solve the general problem of equal representation'. This is covered in great depth by David Butler. A case of where do you draw the line. The flip side would be larger county seats and reduced representation but after the hoo-hah in 1946 (especially Herefordshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire) the BCE would not go down that path again. During the debates re the additional 17 seats there were demands from Leyton, West Ham and Plymouth for extra seats. Chuter Ede rebutted these claims. Also Newcastle was awarded a fourth seat following a local inquiry before the 'extra 17'. This strikes me as a poor show by the BCE, frankly.
First of all, they adopt an approach of accepting larger seats in urban areas as against rural county seats: something that has, so far as I see, no basis in the 1944 Rules (as amended) and for which there is no precedent in either of the two previous general reviews (1885 and 1918). And then they rebut likely criticism with the bland assurance in bold above, which is, if I may use technical language, a load of tripe.
The evidence is in their own report. They assure us that they propose no seats below 40000, and the smallest I can see (bearing in mind that they were not required to consider the City of London) is Leominster with 41116. The only seats they propose that are in excess of 80000 are the eight undivided boroughs, which have electorates of (in ascending order): Gateshead 82218, Battersea 82675, Reading 84068, Blackburn 84641, Hammersmith 84887, Norwich 86406, E Ham 86665, Paddington 87032. Even the smallest of these, Gateshead, offers a little leeway above 80000 so it should be possible to divide all eight boroughs into seats exceeding 40000 (although I'm not sure whether this was actually achieved when these boroughs were divided in the eventual Act). Therefore, dividing the seats over 80000 significantly lowers the ceiling at the top end without necessarily lowering the floor by anything more than a very small margin. So how can they claim with a straight face that 'it does little' to equalize representation?
This means that the eventual Act probably created seats, in England anyway, that were all - or virtually all - between 40000 and 80000 in terms of their electorates on the enumeration date for the Initial Review (15 Oct 1946). At the bottom end the only exception would be if one of the divisions of the eight boroughs fell below 40000; and at the top end, I think the government must have created a single exception because Westminster's electorate, 77411, must have been nudged above 80000 when the City of London was added to it (even after discounting the business vote).
Edited to add: Sorry, I find that after all I have got the numbers for the 17 extra seats (I think) - in which case Hammersmith N, with 40410, was the smallest seat in England, still above 40000. So that leaves Cities of London & Westminster as likely the only English seat outside the 40000 - 80000 range, but I don't know the exact number because I can't find the CoL's electorate (excluding the business vote) at the enumeration date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Feb 18, 2024 13:44:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 18, 2024 14:01:00 GMT
[/quote] This strikes me as a poor show by the BCE, frankly. First of all, they adopt an approach of accepting larger seats in urban areas as against rural county seats: something that has, so far as I see, no basis in the 1944 Rules (as amended) and for which there is no precedent in either of the two previous general reviews (1885 and 1918). And then they rebut likely criticism with the bland assurance in bold above, which is, if I may use technical language, a load of tripe. The evidence is in their own report. They assure us that they propose are no seats below 40000, and the smallest I can see (bearing in mind that they were not required to consider the City of London) is Leominster with 41116. The only seats they propose that are in excess of 80000 are the eight undivided boroughs, which have electorates of (in ascending order): Gateshead 82218, Battersea 82675, Reading 84068, Blackburn 84641, Hammersmith 84887, Norwich 86406, E Ham 86665, Paddington 87032. Even the smallest of these, Gateshead, offers a little leeway above 80000 so it should be possible to divide all eight boroughs into seats exceeding 40000 (although I'm not sure whether this was actually achieved when these boroughs were divided in the eventual Act). Therefore, dividing the seats over 80000 significantly lowers the ceiling at the top end without necessarily lowering the floor by anything more than a very small margin. So how can they claim with a straight face that 'it does little' to equalize representation? This means that the eventual Act probably created seats, in England anyway, that were all - or virtually all - between 40000 and 80000 in terms of their electorates on the enumeration date for the Initial Review (15 Oct 1946). At the bottom end the only exception would be if one of the divisions of the eight boroughs fell below 40000; and at the top end, I think the government must have created a single exception because Westminster's electorate, 77411, must have been nudged above 80000 when the City of London was added to it (even after discounting the business vote).
[/quote] I assume that the BCE had concerns that awarding another eight seats would move further away from the intended total BUT an 87,000 Paddington seat et al is not defensible. Churchill was to make great play that the additional seats created a new divisor and hence proposed more seats. The government initially proposed adding the City to Shoreditch but, as you would expect, that was not greeted with warmth. |
|
