|
|
Post by islington on Feb 19, 2024 10:31:44 GMT
I am increasingly scandalized about the BCE's efforts in the Initial Review.
As stated in para 11 of the report, it recommends 44 seats with electorates in excess of 70000. Eight of these we already know about: the undivided boroughs exceeding 80000.
I've now tracked down the other 36 - that is, seats between 70000 and 80000 - and you'll never guess what.
31 of them are borough seats, leaving only 5 in counties. And there is not an out-and-out rural seat among these 5: they are all either urban or at least semi-urban in character: Barnet, SE Derbyshire, Finchley, Hornchurch, Stretford. None of them is too far above 70000 - Finchley, the biggest (and therefore the largest non-borough seat in England), comes in at 72750.
Admittedly when the Review was implemented some of this blatant rural bias was mitigated by the addition of the 17 burghal seats but it can't have been more than a partial remedy. All in all I'm finding it less and less to be wondered at the the boundaries adopted in 1950 allowed the Tories to gain an outright majority in 1951 despite winning fewer votes than Labour.
I'll list all 36 later if I get time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 19, 2024 12:25:38 GMT
I am increasingly scandalized about the BCE's efforts in the Initial Review. As stated in para 11 of the report, it recommends 44 seats with electorates in excess of 70000. Eight of these we already know about: the undivided boroughs exceeding 80000. I've now tracked down the other 36 - that is, seats between 70000 and 80000 - and you'll never guess what. 31 of them are borough seats, leaving only 5 in counties. And there is not an out-and-out rural seat among these 5: they are all either urban or at least semi-urban in character: Barnet, SE Derbyshire, Finchley, Hornchurch, Stretford. None of them is too far above 70000 - Finchley, the biggest (and therefore the largest non-borough seat in England), comes in at 72750. Admittedly when the Review was implemented some of this blatant rural bias was mitigated by the addition of the 17 burghal seats but it can't have been more than a partial remedy. All in all I'm finding it less and less to be wondered at the the boundaries adopted in 1950 allowed the Tories to gain an outright majority in 1951 despite winning fewer votes than Labour. I'll list all 36 later if I get time. It may have been a factor but we'd need more info. Three of the five under-represented county seats you mention were won by the Conservatives in 1950 and 1951 (the largest, Finchley, being already Conservative in 1945). What are the 31 borough seats? The main reason the Conservatives were able to win a majority in 1951 was the difference in vote distribution. Labour piles up huge majorities in mining seats, in East London etc with the Conservatives having fewer equivalent monoliths. And of course many of those safest Labour seats (the mining ones) were county seats, most of the safest Conservative seats were borough seats (Kensington South, Bristol West, Brighton Pavilion etc) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 19, 2024 13:09:47 GMT
I am increasingly scandalized about the BCE's efforts in the Initial Review. As stated in para 11 of the report, it recommends 44 seats with electorates in excess of 70000. Eight of these we already know about: the undivided boroughs exceeding 80000. I've now tracked down the other 36 - that is, seats between 70000 and 80000 - and you'll never guess what. 31 of them are borough seats, leaving only 5 in counties. And there is not an out-and-out rural seat among these 5: they are all either urban or at least semi-urban in character: Barnet, SE Derbyshire, Finchley, Hornchurch, Stretford. None of them is too far above 70000 - Finchley, the biggest (and therefore the largest non-borough seat in England), comes in at 72750. Admittedly when the Review was implemented some of this blatant rural bias was mitigated by the addition of the 17 burghal seats but it can't have been more than a partial remedy. All in all I'm finding it less and less to be wondered at the the boundaries adopted in 1950 allowed the Tories to gain an outright majority in 1951 despite winning fewer votes than Labour. I'll list all 36 later if I get time. It may have been a factor but we'd need more info. Three of the five under-represented county seats you mention were won by the Conservatives in 1950 and 1951 (the largest, Finchley, being already Conservative in 1945). What are the 31 borough seats? The main reason the Conservatives were able to win a majority in 1951 was the difference in vote distribution. Labour piles up huge majorities in mining seats, in East London etc with the Conservatives having fewer equivalent monoliths. And of course many of those safest Labour seats (the mining ones) were county seats, most of the safest Conservative seats were borough seats (Kensington South, Bristol West, Brighton Pavilion etc) Here's the full list of 36, in ascending order. Bear in mind this is in addition to the eight boroughs with 80000+ electors, which I listed yesterday.
The five county seats are in italics; all the rest are borough seats. Six (asterisked) did not make it into the final Act because they were in boroughs that received an extra seat. Note that Finchley, Hornchurch and Stretford, although county divisions in the BCE recommendations, were so urban in character that they were designated as borough constituencies in the eventual Act. So as the Review was actually implemented, I think Barnet was the largest CC (as opposed to BC) in England.
70133 Leicester (N)*
70259 SE Derbyshire
70348 Plymouth (Sutton) 70390 Barnet
70393 Wallasey
70410 Nottingham (S)* 70585 Bradford (S)*
70831 Birmingham (Perry Barr)*
70969 Hornchurch
71152 South Shields 71360 Ipswich
71660 Nottingham (E)*
71746 Dagenham 71951 Stretford
72081 Beckenham
72115 Plymouth (Devonport) 72717 Mitcham
72750 Finchley
72866 Bradford (W)*
73053 Halifax
73358 Liverpool (Exchange)* 73850 Hornsey
74019 Hackney (S) 74316 Oxford 74712 Kingston upon Thames
74916 Walsall
75445 St Helens 75933 Wimbledon
76737 Northampton
77371 Edmonton 77473 York
77504 Hackney (N) 78027 Heston & Isleworth
79587 Leyton 79818 Twickenham
79821 Dartford
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 19, 2024 14:14:35 GMT
It may have been a factor but we'd need more info. Three of the five under-represented county seats you mention were won by the Conservatives in 1950 and 1951 (the largest, Finchley, being already Conservative in 1945). What are the 31 borough seats? The main reason the Conservatives were able to win a majority in 1951 was the difference in vote distribution. Labour piles up huge majorities in mining seats, in East London etc with the Conservatives having fewer equivalent monoliths. And of course many of those safest Labour seats (the mining ones) were county seats, most of the safest Conservative seats were borough seats (Kensington South, Bristol West, Brighton Pavilion etc) Here's the full list of 36, in ascending order. Bear in mind this is in addition to the eight boroughs with 80000+ electors, which I listed yesterday. The five county seats are in italics; all the rest are borough seats. Six (asterisked) did not make it into the final Act because they were in boroughs that received an extra seat. Note that Finchley, Hornchurch and Stretford, although county divisions in the BCE recommendations, were so urban in character that they were designated as borough constituencies in the eventual Act. So as the Review was actually implemented, I think Barnet was the largest CC (as opposed to BC) in England. [/div ]
70133 Leicester (N)* 70259 SE Derbyshire
70348 Plymouth (Sutton) 70390 Barnet
70393 Wallasey
70410 Nottingham (S)*
70585 Bradford (S)*
70831 Birmingham (Perry Barr)*
70969 Hornchurch
71152 South Shields 71360 Ipswich
71660 Nottingham (E)*
71746 Dagenham 71951 Stretford
72081 Beckenham
72115 Plymouth (Devonport) 72717 Mitcham
72750 Finchley
72866 Bradford (W)*
73053 Halifax
73358 Liverpool (Exchange)*
73850 Hornsey
74019 Hackney (S) 74316 Oxford 74712 Kingston upon Thames
74916 Walsall
75445 St Helens 75933 Wimbledon
76737 Northampton
77371 Edmonton 77473 York
77504 Hackney (N) 78027 Heston & Isleworth
79587 Leyton 79818 Twickenham
79821 Dartford
Winner in 1951 shown - 15 Labour 14 Conservative (Of these Plymouth Sutton had a different winner in 1950). A number of those Labour seats went Conservative in subsequent elections (SE Derbyshire, Halifax, Hornchurch, Plymouth Devonport (ipswich much later)) and for the most part the others are not ultra safe Labour seats. At a guess I'd say the Conservatives probably won a plurality of votes in this group of seats in 1951 (I might do the maths later if I get bored), at the very least, as a subset it looks to be fairly typical of the nation. I daresay the list of over-represented rural seats might make your point better? |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 19, 2024 14:16:34 GMT
The Economist article (written by David Butler?) about the 1950 results:- archive.org/details/sim_economist_1950-03-04_158_5558/page/462/mode/2up?view=theaterIt does address the bias in the electoral system and the breakdown of cube law. Labour were piling up the votes in clustered areas and it's very difficult to see how a redrawn map could have eliminated that bias. The initial review had reduced the Gini inequality count in England from 19.2 in 1945 (that's with the 25 new seats, previously 14.2 on dated boundaries in 1935) to 8.5, which was a huge step towards equal electorates. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 19, 2024 14:21:36 GMT
The incomplete tallies (in England) for the abandoned 1946 review. A decrease of 28 seats in comparable areas (Dudley was shifted from Worcs to Staffs). I assume that the BCE was aiming for a HoC of 615 members or thereabouts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 19, 2024 14:29:44 GMT
Here's the full list of 36, in ascending order. Bear in mind this is in addition to the eight boroughs with 80000+ electors, which I listed yesterday. The five county seats are in italics; all the rest are borough seats. Six (asterisked) did not make it into the final Act because they were in boroughs that received an extra seat. Note that Finchley, Hornchurch and Stretford, although county divisions in the BCE recommendations, were so urban in character that they were designated as borough constituencies in the eventual Act. So as the Review was actually implemented, I think Barnet was the largest CC (as opposed to BC) in England. [/div ]
70133 Leicester (N)* 70259 SE Derbyshire
70348 Plymouth (Sutton) 70390 Barnet
70393 Wallasey
70410 Nottingham (S)*
70585 Bradford (S)*
70831 Birmingham (Perry Barr)*
70969 Hornchurch
71152 South Shields 71360 Ipswich
71660 Nottingham (E)*
71746 Dagenham 71951 Stretford
72081 Beckenham
72115 Plymouth (Devonport) 72717 Mitcham
72750 Finchley
72866 Bradford (W)*
73053 Halifax
73358 Liverpool (Exchange)*
73850 Hornsey
74019 Hackney (S) 74316 Oxford 74712 Kingston upon Thames
74916 Walsall
75445 St Helens 75933 Wimbledon
76737 Northampton
77371 Edmonton 77473 York
77504 Hackney (N) 78027 Heston & Isleworth
79587 Leyton 79818 Twickenham
79821 Dartford
One interesting thing to note (apropos of nothing but will be appreciated by rockefeller amongst others), is that if you worked out who would have won the above seats in 2019, the Conservatives would have won more of the seats won by Labour in 1950/51 than those won by the Conservatives.. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 19, 2024 16:34:57 GMT
Winner in 1951 shown - 15 Labour 14 Conservative (Of these Plymouth Sutton had a different winner in 1950). A number of those Labour seats went Conservative in subsequent elections (SE Derbyshire, Halifax, Hornchurch, Plymouth Devonport (ipswich much later)) and for the most part the others are not ultra safe Labour seats. At a guess I'd say the Conservatives probably won a plurality of votes in this group of seats in 1951 (I might do the maths later if I get bored), at the very least, as a subset it looks to be fairly typical of the nation. I daresay the list of over-represented rural seats might make your point better? I didn't get bored but I remembered I created some spreadsheets of old general election results after the Keele site went down, so it only took a few minutes 1950 (comparison with national vote share) seats | Lab | 839686 | 46.4% | +0.3 | 16 | | Con | 796769 | 44.0% | +0.7 | 13 | | Lib | 167283 | 9.2% | +0.1 | | | Com | 5182 | 0.3% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1951 seats | Lab | 881385 | 49.0% | +0.2 | 15 | | Con | 879873 | 49.0% | +1.0 | 14 | | Lib | 34098 | 1.9% | -0.6 | | | Com | 1744 | 0.1% | 0 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
So they didn't, but my fundamental point is vindicated. No bias here |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 20, 2024 19:10:04 GMT
Below is a list of county divisions from the 1947 report with electorates below 50,000 in the report. Those below 45,000 are bolded. The results in these 59 seats were Con 43, Lab 13, Nat Lib & Con 3.
Newbury
Wokingham
Aylesbury
Runcorn
Bodmin
North Cornwall
St Ives
Whitehaven
Workington
Bolsover
West Derbyshire
North Devon
Tavistock
Tiverton
Torrington
East Dorset [1]
West Dorset
Blaydon
Maldon
Thurrock
Hereford
Leominster
South West Hertfordshire
Ashford
Folkestone & Hythe
Clitheroe
Darwen
Lancaster
North Fylde
Widnes
Rutland & Stamford
Gainsborough
Horncastle
Louth
Brentford & Chiswick
Central Norfolk
South Norfolk
South West Norfolk
Great Yarmouth
South Northamptonshire
Berwick upon Tweed
Hexham
Morpeth
Ludlow
Oswestry
Shrewsbury
The Wrekin
Chertsey
Dorking
Farnham
Rugby
Solihull
Stratford
Devizes
Salisbury
Swindon
Normanton
Ripon
Shipley
[1] Renamed North Dorset in the final Act
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 20, 2024 19:17:41 GMT
There were of course some other small seats. 14 undivided units (12 boroughs and 2 counties) also had electorates under 50,000. As can be seen these were much more Labour: Lab 10, Con 3, Nat Lib & Con 1.
Eton & Slough
Carlisle
Stockton on Tees
Bromley
Ashton under Lyne
Lincoln
Bermondsey
Bethnal Green
Poplar
Hayes & Harlington
Ruislip-Northwood
Uxbridge
Huntingdonshire
Westmorland
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 20, 2024 19:22:39 GMT
And there were also 14 divisions of boroughs which were under 50,000. Most of them were of two member boroughs with electorates around 100,000, where this was inevitable, but Hull was a four member borough. This group were Lab 8, Con 6.
Derby North
Walthamstow East
Walthamstow West
Rochester, Gillingham [1]
Bootle & Crosby, Waterloo [2]
Fulham East
Fulham West
Lambeth, Vauxhall
Enfield East
Enfield West
Harrow West
Wembley North
Hull North
Huddersfield East
[1] Just Gillingham in the final act
[2] Renamed Crosby in the final Act
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 21, 2024 10:05:21 GMT
The remaining part of the piece would be to look at the boroughs over 80000, each of which was initially proposed as a single-member seat and each of which was in the final proposals divided into two (or its existing division into two seats was continued). In 1950, those split 13 Labour 3 Conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 21, 2024 16:36:51 GMT
My problem with the BCE's proposals under the Initial Review centres not so much on a Tory bias, although that would be bad in itself, but on the favouring of rural areas at the expense of urban; or, to put it another way, a decision to assign a greater value to the vote of rural electors compared with those in big towns.
I've crunched some more numbers on this.
At the enumeration date, England's electorate, excluding the University seats and the City, was 28706999. Of these, by my (WARNING: unchecked) calculation, areas designated as PBs by the BCE accounted for 16527813, the remaining 12179186 therefore in the counties. The PBs collectively received 269 seats under the BCE's scheme, i.e. a ratio of 1:61442; whereas the counties got 220, or 1:55360. Had the county ratio of 1:55360 been applied throughout the PBs would have received 299, i.e. 30 additional seats. So even the highly controversial award of 17 extra seats was not enough to eliminate completely the bias against the boroughs. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 21, 2024 17:03:06 GMT
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 I've checked the remaining counties and you can add:
Norfolk: Q 4.85, 6 seats Northumberland: Q 2.35, 3 seats Salop: Q 3.25, 4 seats Surrey: Q 9.26, 10 seats Wilts: Q 4.22, 5 seats Yorks WR: Q 13.05, 14 seats
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 21, 2024 20:11:19 GMT
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 I've checked the remaining counties and you can add: Norfolk: Q 4.85, 6 seats Northumberland: Q 2.35, 3 seats Salop: Q 3.25, 4 seats Surrey: Q 9.26, 10 seats Wilts: Q 4.22, 5 seats Yorks WR: Q 13.05, 14 seats
And to the list of underrepresented multi-seat boroughs we can add Birmingham (12.81 quotas, 12 seats), Bradford (3.60 quotas, 4 seats), Nottingham (3.51 quotas, 4 seats), Leicester (3.50 quotas, 4 seats) and Hackney & Stoke Newington (2.55 quotas, 2 seats); the last didn't get an extra seat from the Government. Overall, of the nine large boroughs which got an extra seat, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Leicester all merited them on the harmonic mean, Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol didn't quite, but given what happened with the counties they seem fair enough, and Leeds was a bit lucky. Curiously East Sussex only got 4 seats, in spite of being right on the cusp of deserving 5 on the harmonic mean rule and having considerably more electorate than Cornwall or Wiltshire which both did get 5 (and less than half a quota less than Norfolk, which got 6). I wonder what it did to offend the Commission. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 21, 2024 20:19:30 GMT
I've checked the remaining counties and you can add: Norfolk: Q 4.85, 6 seats Northumberland: Q 2.35, 3 seats Salop: Q 3.25, 4 seats Surrey: Q 9.26, 10 seats Wilts: Q 4.22, 5 seats Yorks WR: Q 13.05, 14 seats
And to the list of underrepresented multi-seat boroughs we can add Birmingham (12.81 quotas, 12 seats), Bradford (3.60 quotas, 4 seats), Nottingham (3.51 quotas, 4 seats), Leicester (3.50 quotas, 4 seats) and Hackney & Stoke Newington (2.55 quotas, 2 seats); the last didn't get an extra seat from the Government. Overall, of the nine large boroughs which got an extra seat, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Leicester all merited them on the harmonic mean, Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol didn't quite, but given what happened with the counties they seem fair enough, and Leeds was a bit lucky. Curiously East Sussex only got 4 seats, in spite of being right on the cusp of deserving 5 on the harmonic mean rule and having considerably more electorate than Cornwall or Wiltshire which both did get 5 (and less than half a quota less than Norfolk, which got 6). I wonder what it did to offend the Commission. Were East and West Sussex definitely classed as two separate counties here? |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 21, 2024 20:26:42 GMT
And to the list of underrepresented multi-seat boroughs we can add Birmingham (12.81 quotas, 12 seats), Bradford (3.60 quotas, 4 seats), Nottingham (3.51 quotas, 4 seats), Leicester (3.50 quotas, 4 seats) and Hackney & Stoke Newington (2.55 quotas, 2 seats); the last didn't get an extra seat from the Government. Overall, of the nine large boroughs which got an extra seat, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Leicester all merited them on the harmonic mean, Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol didn't quite, but given what happened with the counties they seem fair enough, and Leeds was a bit lucky. Curiously East Sussex only got 4 seats, in spite of being right on the cusp of deserving 5 on the harmonic mean rule and having considerably more electorate than Cornwall or Wiltshire which both did get 5 (and less than half a quota less than Norfolk, which got 6). I wonder what it did to offend the Commission. Were East and West Sussex definitely classed as two separate counties here? They were certainly separate administrative counties and were listed separately as Parliamentary Counties. However it's possible that the allocation may have been based on treating Sussex as a whole, including both East and West and the boroughs of Brighton, Hove and Worthing; that area had 11.20 quotas and received 11 seats (East 4, West 3, Brighton 2, Hove and Worthing 1 each). |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 22, 2024 8:29:39 GMT
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 I've checked the remaining counties and you can add: Norfolk: Q 4.85, 6 seats Northumberland: Q 2.35, 3 seats Salop: Q 3.25, 4 seats Surrey: Q 9.26, 10 seats Wilts: Q 4.22, 5 seats Yorks WR: Q 13.05, 14 seats
Yes but the BCE had proposed reductions in some of those counties in 1946 and the proposals had gone down like a lead balloon hence the return to the HoC (upon the Speaker's instigation) for clearer guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Feb 22, 2024 8:38:14 GMT
Another D Tel clipping:-   The Conservatives were suspicious of government intentions (especially re the 'nine' extra) and Labour probably did hope for some advantage but more hope than demand given the BCE's independence. (The Birmingham Tories were said to be cock-a-hoop when the city map was redrawn for the additional seat). |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 22, 2024 13:31:39 GMT
Another D Tel clipping:- The Conservatives were suspicious of government intentions (especially re the 'nine' extra) and Labour probably did hope for some advantage but more hope than demand given the BCE's independence. (The Birmingham Tories were said to be cock-a-hoop when the city map was redrawn for the additional seat). * cringe * One of my pet hates is that old newspapers in those days often wrote “Socialist” instead of “Labour” |
|
