UK parliamentary boundary review 2016-2018
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:04:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  UK parliamentary boundary review 2016-2018
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: UK parliamentary boundary review 2016-2018  (Read 10275 times)
dadge
Rookie
**
Posts: 49
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -4.50

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 26, 2016, 07:38:58 AM »

The review is under way. There is already plenty of discussion in the UK at http://vote-2012.proboards.com/board/2/boundaries and the official website (containing the rules and data) is at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

If you have a feeling of deja vu, it's because the UK had a similar review 5 years ago, but it was eventually shelved.
Logged
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2016, 03:28:07 PM »

This exercise is due to be repeated every five years from now on. It remains to be seen if Parliament will let the boundary review be finished and implemented this time.

Cameron only has a small overall majority. There are far more Conservative MPs who would be adversely affected by the review than would be needed to erase the majority.

As the House of Commons would need to pass a resolution to approve the orders in council, to give effect to the new boundaries, it is not impossible that they would be rejected.
Logged
dadge
Rookie
**
Posts: 49
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -4.50

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2016, 04:04:11 PM »

I've finished my reidstricting plans for Britain https://ukelect.wordpress.com/ The commissions' plans will go online next month.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2016, 01:45:17 AM »

The review is under way. There is already plenty of discussion in the UK at http://vote-2012.proboards.com/board/2/boundaries and the official website (containing the rules and data) is at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

If you have a feeling of deja vu, it's because the UK had a similar review 5 years ago, but it was eventually shelved.
Are the changes in registered voters among the four countries due to actual demographic change, or to the quality of the registration roles.

Change from 2011-2015:

England -3.2%
Wales -5.1%
Scotland -1.1%
Northern Ireland +2.5%
Logged
ObserverIE
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2016, 05:29:48 AM »

England, Wales and Scotland have seen the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration, which has the side effect of reducing the number on the register. Northern Ireland introduced IER about 15 years ago.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2016, 06:03:02 AM »

So they're still going to reduce the House's size to 600? That's terrible.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2016, 12:46:13 PM »

So they're still going to reduce the House's size to 600? That's terrible.

Yes, the reduction in size to 600 was set by the Act passed in 2011 so the proposals will be based on that unless new primary legislation is passed to repeal that bit.

It is possible that the proposals might be rejected again, though.  (In which case the current boundaries will continue to be used.)

We do have another thread on this:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=212480.0
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2016, 10:02:06 PM »

England, Wales and Scotland have seen the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration, which has the side effect of reducing the number on the register. Northern Ireland introduced IER about 15 years ago.
I was looking at these, and am even more confused.

Electoral Statistics for UK

Doing some quick Goo-research it appears that persons on the household register were able to vote in 2015. But the change appeared to occur in 2014 in England and Wales, and 2015 in Scotland.

England (2011-2015): +0.6%, -0.6%, -2.0%, -1.1% = -3.2%
Scotland (2011-2015): +1.1%, +1.1%, +0.2%, -3.4% = -1.1%
Wales (2011-2015): +0.1%, -0.2%, -3.1%, -2.0% = -5.1%

So while Scotland had the smallest drop from 2011-2015, it had the largest drop from 2014-2015. Is this related to the 2014 referendum?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2016, 01:37:11 AM »

So they're still going to reduce the House's size to 600? That's terrible.

Yes, the reduction in size to 600 was set by the Act passed in 2011 so the proposals will be based on that unless new primary legislation is passed to repeal that bit.

Ugh. I hate this type of populist bullsh*t.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2016, 05:01:39 AM »

The initial suggestions by the Boundary Commissions will be published in the week starting September 12th with England starting off (then Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) which will then start a six month response period. It is that period that members of the public can make submissions during (but not before)
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2016, 06:55:35 AM »
« Edited: August 06, 2016, 04:51:35 PM by Kevinstat »

I've finished my reidstricting plans for Britain https://ukelect.wordpress.com/ The commissions' plans will go online next month.

If you're feeling extra adventurous, might I suggest a Devon-Cornwall alternative with a "North Devon and Atlantic Islands" constituency with the North Devon borough + the Isles of Scilly + the Isle of Lundy (the 1 December 2015 electorate breakdown of Clovelly Bay (total 1224) was 21 Lundy, 1203 mainland) and Cornwall "proper" being divided into exactly 5 seats?

The math would be really tight in Cornwall (the maximum allowable constituency electorate is only 62.4 electors above what the "Cornwall proper" average would be), but it might allow for a neater plan in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay (I could tell you weren't happy with some of the things you had to do there).  Of course, taking away Cornwall, Scilly and North Devon (and Lundy) with 6 seats either about average size (ND&AI) or very near the upper limit might make the problem in Devon outside Plymouth worse, unless it somehow allowed you to make the two seats entirely in Plymouth smaller so you had more flexibility in the rest of Devon.  If necessary, you could allow part of North Devon to be in another constituency so you're spreading the electorate shortage from the ideal over one more constituency.
Logged
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2016, 07:22:56 AM »

The reduction in the number of parliamentary seats from 650 to 600 was pretty arbitrary, although for the first time there is going to be a fixed mathematical relationship between the registered electorate and the number of constituencies.

However the number of seats in the House of Commons, since 1922 when the current UK boundaries were fixed, have varied between 615 (1922-1945) and 659 (1997-2005). For the 2005 general election the number of Scottish seats were reduced (by requiring them to contain similar numbers of electors than those in England, as it was felt that the existence of the Scottish Parliament made the continued over representation of Scotland at Westminster unjustified). The UK total then stood at 646. It was increased to the current 650, by the last set of boundary changes, in effect from the 2010 general election.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2016, 07:12:12 PM »

Are boundary changes likely to be as pro-Conservative as the ones that were ultimately rejected five years ago?

One of the major arguments behind the reform was the fact that, at the time, the boundaries generally benefitted Labour, as the urban seats tended to have fewer voters, and lower turnout, meaning it was relatively easier for Labour to win a majority.

However, post the wholesale loss of Scotland to the SNP, Labour no longer have this advantage, as it has lost 40+ seats that it would have once expected to win.

On the flip side, the "cleaning up" of registrations with the new registration system will have proportionately hit the number of voters in Labour areas harder. Meaning that the Tories could claim that Labour seats still have fewer voters that Tory ones on average.
Logged
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 540
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2016, 09:17:39 PM »
« Edited: August 07, 2016, 10:26:14 AM by vileplume »

The review is under way. There is already plenty of discussion in the UK at http://vote-2012.proboards.com/board/2/boundaries and the official website (containing the rules and data) is at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/

If you have a feeling of deja vu, it's because the UK had a similar review 5 years ago, but it was eventually shelved.

Thanks for posting here are a few points though as some of those suggestions are a complete non starters.

The primary aims of the commission is first and foremost to avoid crossing county line except where they absolutely are forced to (they would spit wards ahead of crossing county lines), for example Northumberland can have exactly three seats so that is what it will get, your plan crosses into Newcastle twice(!) which is simply not allowed.

Secondly the commission prefers to create as minimal disruption as possible so the more seats that can be left alone or only suffer minimal changes the better, redrawing seats when you don't have to is not allowed. For example your plans in West Sussex and Surrey make completely
Oh and crossing regional boundaries is never, ever allowed under any circumstances e.g trying to unnecessary changes when all that needs to happen is a couple of wards shifted here and there. Essentially with Surrey you can leave every seat completely alone except Spelthorne, Runnymede and Weybridge, and Esher and Walton.

When drawing a plan the best way to think to do it is to firstly think how can you avoid crossing county boundaries (sometimes unavoidable) and secondly how can you get all the seats within the quota by making as few changes as possible (this is easier to do in non metropolitan areas due to the wards typically being smaller).
pair bits of Northamptonshire with part of Milton Keynes. The only allowed solution for MK is to transfer 2 wards (probably Bletchley East and Bletchley Park) to Buckingham.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2016, 01:32:19 AM »

As the Commission merrily considered "Mersey Banks" viable, I respectfully suggest that no hard and fast rules truly exist when it comes to dividing up the nation
Logged
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2016, 12:32:14 PM »

The Commission has to do a balancing exercise to take account, as best it can, of various rules. The only rule which (for most constituencies) overrides everything else is the one about having an electorate plus or minus five percent of the average registered electorate as at December 2015. The relevant electorate range for the current review is 71,031 to 78,507.

The Commission starts drafting its proposals by working out the theoretical seat entitlement of each county/unitary authority or metropolitan/London borough (hereafter referred to as areas although that is not official terminology). If an area does not have the right number of electors to comply with the electorate range requirement, then the Commission look for the adjacent area or areas to be grouped together and which will divide neatly into the required size constituencies.

Having worked out how many seats each area or groups thereof are to receive (if more than one) the Commission will then propose the required number of constituencies taking into account the other statutory factors.

The other statutory factors are referred to in the Guide to the 2018 Review, published by the Boundary Commission for England.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2016, 08:52:33 AM »
« Edited: September 05, 2016, 03:42:24 PM by Harry Hayfield »

Updated schedule for release of initial recommendations:
Northern Ireland: September 6th (specifically 0000 BST on the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission website)
England and Wales: September 13th
Scotland: October 8th

After each release there will be a six month consultation period during which public inquiries will be held along with written and online submissions. I will certainly try and attend the public inquiry held in Swansea which will look in detail at the proposals for Powys and Dyfed and either congratulate the Commission or make some alternative suggestions to them
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2016, 06:52:08 PM »

The Provisional Recommendations for Northern Ireland are in, and they're... different.  You can access the report, an interactive map, etc. here.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,975
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2016, 08:36:34 AM »

The Provisional Recommendations for Northern Ireland are in, and they're... different.  You can access the report, an interactive map, etc. here.

I have Sinn Fein winning seven seats (although four could be won by Unionists if there were a single candidate), the DUP win seven, the SDLP two and Lady Hermon holds North Down.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2016, 01:17:30 PM »

Nicholas Whyte's take:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-37280113

Three Belfast seats.  East better for Alliance than the current seat, SW safe Sinn Féin, NW marginal but commentators seem to be favouring Sinn Féin.

Four County Down seats (the six counties seem to have been the template for much of this).  "Strangford", South Down and North Down little changed and likely to be safe for their current incumbents, and a new West Down seat containing parts of the existing Lagan Valley and Upper Bann plus some Belfast fringe, which would be a DUP seat.  Said Belfast fringe is uglily split between West Down and Strangford.

Newry & Armagh little changed, safe SF.  Upper Bann extends into Tyrone, taking most of Dungannon, and becomes Upper Bann & Blackwater; Whyte gives this to the DUP but it may be close with SF.

In the west Fermanagh & South Tyrone contains further west bits of Tyrone than currently and will presumably still be close although a bit better for SF.  The rest of West Tyrone takes in bits of Mid Ulster, which is abolished, and becomes North Tyrone, still safe SF.  Foyle is little changed so still presumably SDLP, and East Londonderry loses Coleraine, gains Magherafelt, presumably flipping it to SF, and becomes "Glenshane", named after the pass on the A6 Belfast-Derry road.  (This name also appeared in the zombie review.)

Coleraine merges with most of North Antrim minus Ballymena to become "Dalriada"; who knows how David Dimbleby will pronounce that, but it's still DUP.  East Antrim moves back southwards towards Belfast, South Antrim also moves south taking in the Antrim parts of Lisburn, and a new West Antrim appears containing Ballymena and areas to its south.  The UUP probably lose out here, with South Antrim flipping back to the DUP.
Logged
ObserverIE
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,824
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -1.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2016, 09:13:16 PM »
« Edited: September 06, 2016, 09:19:35 PM by ObserverIE »


Coleraine merges with most of North Antrim minus Ballymena to become "Dalriada"; who knows how David Dimbleby will pronounce that, but it's still DUP.

Should be [dal'ri:ədə], but then Belfast should be [bɛl'fa:st].
Logged
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2016, 01:21:25 AM »


Coleraine merges with most of North Antrim minus Ballymena to become "Dalriada"; who knows how David Dimbleby will pronounce that, but it's still DUP.

He won't have to, he isn't going to be presenting the 2020 election.
Logged
joevsimp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 482


Political Matrix
E: -5.95, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2016, 07:05:12 AM »
« Edited: September 11, 2016, 01:18:15 PM by joevsimp »

So my thoughts as an outside observer: a lot of the new boundaries cut snugly around the borders of major towns rather than having them at the centre and I think that there will be some big differences once the review is complete.

(In the order listed on the BBC website)

1. Foyle. Hardly any change and not much you could've done with it anyway.

2. Glenshane. I doubt that the name will survive but nothing else wrong with it really. How far into Tyrone does it extend?

3. North Tyrone. Inelegant but not a massive problem,western end is very untidy. I expect it will be dismembered to fix problems elsewhere though.

4. Dalriada. Name will have to go but nothing else wrong with it, apart from excluding Ballymena and including Coleraine by very tight margins

5, 6 & 7. East, West and South Antrim. Newtonabbey's built up area is split between these three and Belfast NW. I'd expect a lot to change during the review and I'm not too sure about Lisburn being included either.

8, 9, 10. NW, SW and East Belfast. I can see why the DUP don't like it but can't see any other way. The eastern suburbs and remains of Castlereagh are carved up horribly though between the next three. But that's more down to the new district boundaries.

11. North Down. Same as Foyle

12. Strangford. Not bad but I hope to will lose its bits of Castlereagh and Carryduff.

13. West Down. Don't like it but not the worst.

14. South Down. Practically unchanged. I had expected something more like the old Newry and Mourne district to be proposed.

15. Newry and Armagh. Trimmed very tight around Armagh city. Not too bad though.

16. Upper Bann and Blackwater. Named after two rivers, what is this? France? Good luck to the assistant commissioner defending this one. Redeemed by mostly being linked by motorway though.

17. Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Seems like an afterthought but in itself isn't too bad.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2016, 11:30:43 AM »


Coleraine merges with most of North Antrim minus Ballymena to become "Dalriada"; who knows how David Dimbleby will pronounce that, but it's still DUP.

He won't have to, he isn't going to be presenting the 2020 election.

😥
Logged
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 540
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2016, 07:56:11 AM »

Boundary commission recommending Corbyn's seat of Islington North to get the chop apparently.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-islington-north-seat-to-vanish-from-map-under-tories-planned-boundary-changes-a3342936.html
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.