This is a very interesting thread so far, so I'm going to ruin it by nit-picking.
Just some points:
London has specific rules. Boroughs can only be grouped together if the average number of electors per constituency was more than +/- 10,000 of the national quota. The seats should not be greater than the sum of the seats to which each of the paired boroughs were respectively entitled and groupings should not cross the Thames below the Borough of Richmond.
I don't think this was a Rule but was the Commission's policy. Same effect unless a blindingly good reason is evidenced to breach it.
Newham, Tower Hamlets – Coupled – 5 (an increase, collectively of 1)
I don't have the numbers to hand but the fact the two Tower Hamlets seats are in the 72,810-80,473 range suggests this would mean probably only one Tower Hamlets ward in a West Ham seat. This would be a bit daft and I suggest in practice the link would be broken and Newham given three seats, and the larger disparity accepted.
Southwark, Lewisham, Bromley – 8
Commission's policy was to pair London boroughs but not group. The exception was City/K&C/Westminster in 1995 but the City was too small to count as a borough; somewhere I have the Fourth Periodic Report and will see what the justification was. I'd bet it was something on the lines that for Parliamentary representation the City was effectively an added-on ward of Westminster now.
If you look at the Assistant Commissioner's Report for Islington last time, he rejected the Tory plan to link Islington/Hackney/Tower Hamlets, largely on the grounds you couldn't group three boroughs.
Merseyside and Cheshire
Merseyside’s entitlement would be 14.01; down 1 seat since the last review.
Wirral would have an entitlement of 3.32 seats giving it 3 seats with an average electorate of 79,800. The rest of Merseyside has a quota of 10.694. Ideally, a constituency could cross the Wirral to ensure that the Wirral seats are not too large. However despite transport links, such a proposal would not be welcomed. The alternative would be for the first time since reorganisation, combining the Wirral with Cheshire. Doing so would give Cheshire/Wirral a quota of 14 seats exactly.
So;
Merseyside less Wirral – 11
Cheshire, Wirral – 14 (collectively down 1)
Haven't got the old rules to hand but pretty sure you can't cross a met county boundary. Wirral would just have to go down to three.
South Yorkshire
South Yorkshire would be entitled to 13.51 seats, down a little since the last review. It would be entitled to 14 seats, so no change. What makes this difficult is that while Doncaster is entitled to 3 seats (with a quota of 3.056), the remainder of the old Met is entitled to 10.454 seats which is technically below the Commissions ‘rounding up point’ (10.476). So the whole Met would loose a seat. I doubt that they would adopt this approach and would plump for having below quota seats
You're right to doubt; if I remember right, it wouldn't work like that. The county is entitled to 14 so 14 it gets, regardless of whether the individual borough entitlements add up to something else.
West Yorkshire
Last time, the old met was allocated 22 seats (though an argument was made that it should be 23) The electorate has now fallen (21.856) giving an entitlement of 22 seats. Treating each borough separately and rounding up would give the whole area 23 seats
Bradford’s electorate has fallen, going from an entitlement of 4.95 to just 4.58. Calderdale would be entitled to exactly 2 seats. Continuing to pair Leeds and Wakefield gives 11 seats. By reviewing Bradford and Kirklees together (although they could be looked at separately if you follow the rounding up rule), you get an entitlement of 8.798 or 9 seats giving 22 seats.
So
Leeds, Wakefield – 11
Bradford, Kirklees – 9
Calderdale - 2
The Bradford, Kirklees pairing depends on what constituencies can be created.
Do you have the individual borough entitlements? I wonder if it's possible to take Leeds down to 7 and restore the Wakefield/Kirklees link, and leave Bradford alone.
Tyne and Wear
This is probably one of the most difficult
Tyne and Wear would be entitled to 11.483 seats. Last time the area was allocated 12 seats. Allocating 12 again is closer to the quota than allocating 11 but only by 63 electors. In situations like these, there is some discretion awarded to the commission; how can they best create a pattern of 12 seats? If treated separately, the combined boroughs would also have 12 seats.
11.483 is above the harmonic mean, so they have discretion to keep it at 12, and as leaving it at 12 allows no change (and avoids having to bring back Tyne Bridge). I'd lay odds that if they were faced with this in reality they might try for a complete no change in Tyne & Wear.
