The current boundary review under the old rules

[afleitch]

I’ve decided to re-run the current review under the old rules. One because I am bored, and two to see what the partisan effect would be; would it be more favourable to the Tories than the current review?


The electorate of England was 38,443,481. Divided by the number of seats (533) gives us a quota of 72,127.

PART 1: The Mets.

London.

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 retained the groupings that exist if the numbers required it, or split groupings and created new ones. I have went over the system twice and hopefully haven’t messed up

Havering, Barking – 4

Redbridge  (decoupled) – 3

Waltham Forest (decoupled) - 2

Newham, Tower Hamlets – Coupled – 5 (an increase, collectively of 1)

Greenwich, Bexley – 5

Southwark, Lewisham, Bromley – 8

Lambeth – 3 (decoupled from above group)

Croydon – 3

Sutton – 2

Merton – 2

Wandsworth – 3

Richmond, Kingston – 3

Hounslow – 2

Ealing – 3

Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea – 2

Westminster, City of London – 2

Hillingdon (decoupled) – 3

Camden (decoupled) – 2

Islington – 2

Hackney – 2

Haringey – 2

Enfield – 3

Barnet – 3

Brent, Harrow – 5

So some of the groupings have been broken or shrunk. The only increase that would take place in Greater London is in Newham/Tower Hamlets which together would be entitled to 5 seats, up 1. No part of London would loose seats. Some seats would be up for abolition however as a result of some of the changes. Tessa Jowell’s Dulwich and West Norwood would be a likely casualty. In terms of North West London, the situation in Hillingdon and Camden would return to how it was pre 2005. Likewise in Brent and Harrow (with some changes)

Greater Manchester

Entitled to 27.146 seats = 27 same as last time (though the entitlement is down a notch) There are minor changes to entitlements to each of the boroughs, but when grouped together as they were there is no change to the entitlements

Bolton, Wigan – 6
Bury – 2
Manchester, Salford, Trafford - 6
Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside – 7
Stockport – 3

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)

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

So:

Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield – 11
Doncaster - 3

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.

West Midlands

Entitled to 27 (26.931) seats. This is a reduction of 1 seat. The question is, where is this seat to be lost from?

Birmingham (10.145) would be entitled to 10 seats as at present. Coventry would be entitled to 3 so also steady. Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton were grouped at the last review. Doing so again would entitle them to 9 seats (8.792), 1 less than was allocated at the last review. Indeed, Sandwell (3.046) could be granted 3 full seats on it’s own. So the loss would be one of the Wolverhampton/Dudley seats. Solihull would be entitled to 2 seats and Wallsall to 3 seats.

So

Birmingham – 10
Coventry – 3
Wolverhampton, Dudley – 6
Sandwell – 3
Wallsall - 3
Solihull - 2

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.

Gateshead would get 2 (2.043) and Sunderland 3 (3.003). Newcastle would be entitled to 2.681 which if combined with North Tyneside would give 5 seats (4.883) The awkward borough is South Tyneside, entitled to 1.604. Two seats would be far under quota. There is no where else for it to expand. Sunderland is bang on quota. North Tyneside is across a natural boundary. The only option is to continue it’s linkage with Gateshead giving the grouping an entitlement of 3.647 or 4 seats.

So

Newcastle, North Tyneside – 5
Gateshead, South Tyneside – 4
Sunderland - 3

[afleitch]

Count me very much IN to this thread.

Thanks The electorate in England has jumped significantly since the last review meaning that the average electorate (n/533) would be higher today at any post-war review IIRC. My feeling is that depending on how some of the seats were drawn and given how stark the result was in som, growing parts of the countrry, the Tories could have a stronger advantage under the old system than they do under the new.

For example;

East of England, South East

Bedfordshire – If treated as a preserved county - 5.991 – 6 seats
Hertfordshire – 11.25 – 11 seats
Cambridgeshire – If treated as a preserved county – 7.799 – 8 seats (+1)
Norfolk – 9.027 – 9 seats
Suffolk – 7.521 – 8 seats (+1)
Essex – If treated as a preserved county – 17.75 - 18 seats

Berkshire – 8.439 – 8 seats
Buckinghamshire - If treated as a preserved county – 7.502 – 8 seats (+1)
East Sussex - If treated as a preserved county – 8.169 – 8 seats
Kent - If treated as a preserved county – 17.13 – 17 seats
Hampshire - If treated as a preserved county – 18.203 – 18 seats
Isle of Wight – 1.53 – 2 seats (+1) (Having two seats over one is closer to the electoral quota)
Oxfordshire – 6.591 – 7 seats (+1)
Surrey – 11.470 – 11 seats (11 seats is closer to the quota by 104 electors)
West Sussex – 8.351 – 8 seats

So we have 5 new seats created here, with one being added to the Isle of Wight. Given the patterns of support across the affected counties, particularly at the last election it is possible that all 5 created seats would be notionally Tory. The marginality of other seats would be in question, but not too much given how stark the results were here.

[afleitch]

Here is a re-jigging of Greater Manchester. I've marked out the only change to the Manchester seat; the transferral of one ward. Major changes to the east creating Oldham, Royton and Shaw, Hyde, Stalybridge and a substantial redrawing of the other seats.

[afleitch]

Bristol - 4.221 – 4 seats
Cornwall – 5.807 – 6 seats
Devon - If treated as a preserved county – 12.104 – 12 seats (+1)
Dorset - If treated as a preserved county – 7.978 – 8 seats
Wiltshire - If treated as a preserved county – 6.984 – 7 seats

Note – Avon has ceased to be a preserved county

Gloucestershire – 6.408
South Gloucestershire – 2.796
Combined – 9.204 – 9 seats

Somerset – 5.695 – 6 seats (+1)
Bath and North East Somerset – 1.875
North Somerset – 2.177
Combined – 9.747 – 10 seats

(No change to ‘Avon’ entitlement)

Herefordshire – 1.914 – 2 seats
Worcestershire – 6.046 – 6 seats
Shropshire - If treated as a preserved county – 4.851 – 5 seats
Staffordshire -  If treated as a preserved county – 11.66 – 12 seats
Warwickshire -  5.657 – 6 seats

Derbyshire - If treated as a preserved county – 10.751 – 11 seats
Leicestershire with Rutland -  If treated as a preserved county – 10.466 – 10 seats (closer to the quota than 11 by 141 electors)
Northamptonshire – 7.024 – 7 seats
Nottinghamshire - If treated as a preserved county – 10.942 – 11 seats
Lincolnshire – 7.416 – 7 seats

Cheshire (see Merseyside)
Cumbria – 5.412 – 5 seats (-1)
Lancashire - If treated as a preserved county – 15.414 – 15 seats (-1)

North East and North Lincolnshire – 3.333 – 4 seats
East Riding and Hull – 6.211 – 6 seats
North Yorkshire - If treated as a preserved county – 8.439 – 8 seats

Durham - If treated as a preserved county – 6.71 – 7 seats
Hartlepool – 0.971
Middlesbrough – 1.394
Redcar and Cleveland – 1.461
Stockton on Tees – 1.967
Northumberland – 3.353 – 3 seats (likely to remain divided into 4?)

[afleitch]

If you can give me what you think the quota would be I could try and give you a 15 seat Lancashire

72,127 voters per seat is the national quota. In Lancashire we're looking at seats of about 74,118 voters each. Looking at the map, I think we would see Wyre and Preston North dissappear again. Preston is 13,000 voters short and Blackpool South is 10,000 voters short. So it would be a Tory seat down; however the tranferral of voters elsewhere could hit some of the marginals.

I couldn't model West Yorkshire very well as the wards are so out of date. Leeds Central has an electorate of 81,000 and it's hard to dissipate that anywhere in the Leeds area.

[afleitch]

I always look at this the wrong way

I'm going to use the 2010 boundaries and take it from there. Starting from scratch is always my downfall!

This is my attempt. The only way to do this is to vary the electorates a little. Shifting a few ward around would probably even things out a bit



West Lancashire - 74717
Chorley - 71333
Preston - 72904
South Ribble - 79104
Blackpool South -73611
Blackpool North and Fleetwood - 79864
Fylde - 75956
Morecambe and Lunesdale - 72904
Pendle - 75840
Burnley and Bacup - 75186
Ribble Valley - 66015
Blackburn - 76468
Rossendale and Darwen - 72728
Lancaster and Wyre - 66538
Hyndburn and Ribble -78623

So yeah, two under quota rural seats that could be fixed with a few wards and an interesting extension to Hyndburn...

[afleitch]

Right, I've got stuck in East Lancs but this is what I've got so far:

I found East Lancs a nightmare too. Extending Pendle towards Clitheroe (and having Burnley extend towards Nelson) worked, as did everything else until I got to Blackpool. I see you've divided Preston; that would probably be more welcomed than my Hyndburn seat

[afleitch]

Might just resurrect this given recent...developments.