UK fantasy parliamentary boundaries - population-based apportionment

[YL]

During the debates on the abortive review of parliamentary boundaries in the UK, some people (mostly in the Labour Party) have been arguing that constituencies should be drawn based on total population (presumably from the Census) rather than registered electorate as now.  So let's have a bit of a look at what the effects of doing that might be, using figures from the 2011 Census.

I'll concentrate on England for now.  The population of England on the 2011 Census is 53,012,456, which gives a quota of 99,461 based on 533 constituencies (the current number in England).  I'll use something approximating to the pre-2010 system, where counties [1] are given an allocation based on their electorate [2], and there's no strict criterion for population.  However, I'll generally try to get populations within 10% of the quota, and closer than that in areas where the wards are small enough to make it easy.

2011 Census ward populations can be found from one of the tables on this page or via the Neighbourhood Statistics pages.

Obviously others are welcome to join in...

[1] I'll basically use ceremonial counties, but with a few adjustments to make them easier to work with, e.g. I'll include Wirral with Cheshire as cross-Mersey seats don't seem to be acceptable, and I'll keep Cleveland together as otherwise Stockton would be split between review areas.

[2] I'll use simple rounding, which is a bit harsher than the method traditionally used -- see Warwickshire and Dorset in particular -- but has the advantage of not tending to increase the number of seats every review.

[YL]

Here's the allocation for each "county", together with a comparison of what happens based on electorates (the December 2010 ones).  As can be seen the biggest winner is London, and the losers tend to be rural areas.

Northumberland 3.18 - 3 seats, down 1.

Tyne and Wear 11.11 - 11 seats, down 1.  The one metropolitan area to do badly; the 12th seat might hang on if using electorate.

County Durham (excluding Cleveland unitaries) 6.22 - 6 seats, down 1.  Would keep the 7th seat using electorate.

Cleveland 5.60 - 6 seats, no change.

North Yorkshire 8.01 - 8 seats, no change.

West Yorkshire 22.38 - 22 seats, no change.

South Yorkshire 13.51 - 14 seats, no change.  The 14th seat just holds on using either population or electorate.

East Riding 5.94 - 6 seats, currently has 6 plus part of Brigg & Goole.

Cumbria 5.03 - 5 seats, down 1.  It might just keep the 6th on electorate.

Lancashire 14.69 - 15 seats, down 1.  Would also lose a seat on electorate but much more narrowly.

Lancastrian Merseyside 10.67 - 11 seats, no change.

Greater Manchester 26.97 - 27 seats, no change.

Cheshire and Wirral 13.55 - 14 seats, down 1.  Would also lose a seat on electorate.

Lincolnshire 10.46 - 10 seats, currently has 10 plus most of Brigg & Goole.  11 seats on electorate.

Nottinghamshire 10.97 - 11 seats, no change.

Derbyshire 10.24 - 10 seats, down 1.  Would keep 11 on electorate.

Leicestershire & Rutland 10.23 - 10 seats, no change.

Northamptonshire 6.96 - 7 seats, no change.

Staffordshire 11.03 - 11 seats, down 1.  Would keep 12 on electorate.

Shropshire 4.75 - 5 seats, no change.

West Midlands met county 27.51 - 28 seats, no change.  Would lose a seat on electorate.

Warwickshire 5.48 - 5 seats as I'm being harsh, down 1.  Would keep 6 on electorate.

Worcestershire 5.69 - 6 seats, no change.

Herefordshire 1.84 - 2 seats, no change.

Norfolk 8.63 - 9 seats, no change.

Suffolk 7.32 - 7 seats, no change.  Would gain a seat on electorate.

Cambridgeshire 8.09 - 8 seats, up 1.  Would also gain a seat on electorate but not quite as easily.

Bedfordshire 6.18 - 6 seats, no change.

Essex 17.34 - 17 seats, down 1.  Would keep 18 on electorate.

Hertfordshire 11.22 - 11 seats, no change.

Buckinghamshire 7.58 - 8 seats, up 1.  Would probably also gain on electorate but on the borderline.

Oxfordshire 6.57 - 7 seats, up 1.  Also gains on electorate.

Berkshire 8.67 - 9 seats, up 1.  Probably just short of gaining on electorate.

Surrey 11.39 - 11 seats, no change.  Closer to gaining on electorate.

Kent 17.37 - 17 seats, no change.

East Sussex 8.04 - 8 seats, no change.

West Sussex 8.11 - 8 seats, no change.

Hampshire 17.69 - 18 seats, no change.

Isle of Wight 1.39 - 1 seat, no change.  Really ought to gain on electorate.

Greater London 82.18 - 82 seats, up 9.  The big winner; would remain with 73 on electorate.

Gloucestershire 8.64 - 9 seats, no change.

Bristol 4.31 - 4 seats, no change.

Somerset 9.13 - 9 seats, no change.  Would gain a seat on electorate.

Wiltshire 6.84 - 7 seats, no change.

Dorset 7.48 - 7 seats (see Warwickshire), down 1.  Would keep 8 on electorate.

Devon 11.40 - 11 seats, down 1.  Would keep 12 on electorate.

Cornwall & Scilly 5.37 - 5 seats, down 1.  Would keep 6 on electorate.

[YL]

Starting, naturally, with where I live, here's South Yorkshire.

Of the current 14 seats, one (Sheffield Central) is overpopulated by over 15%, and three (Sheffield Hallam, Penistone & Stocksbridge and Barnsley Central) are underpopulated by over 10%.  It turns out that it's possible to fix this by just moving three wards between those four constituencies, and leaving the other 10 unchanged:

Sheffield Central (96,394): loses Nether Edge.
Sheffield Hallam (90,024): gains Nether Edge, loses Stannington.
Penistone & Stocksbridge (95,666): gains Stannington, loses Dodworth.
Barnsley Central (95,491): gains Dodworth.

[YL]

The only other area I've had a proper look at so far is West Yorkshire.  It would retain 22 seats, but there are large variations in the populations of the existing constituencies.  Leeds Central is spectacularly overpopulated at 132,877, and Bradford East, Bradford West and Dewsbury are also over 10% above quota, while Pudsey and Leeds North West are more than 10% below quota.

Calderdale is easy: both Halifax and Calder Valley are only slightly above quota and can remain unchanged.

In Bradford, move Wharfedale ward from Shipley to Keighley (108,986).  Shipley then gains the two western wards of Bradford West (Thornton & Allerton and Clayton & Fairweather Green) but loses Windhill & Wrose, becoming Shipley & Bradford West (101,290).  Bradford West loses those two and gains Little Horton, becoming Bradford Central (102,050).  Bradford East (108,581) loses Little Horton and gains Windhill & Wrose; Bradford South (101,545) is unchanged.

In Leeds, remove Hyde Park & Woodhouse from Leeds Central (now an acceptable 106,963).  That goes into Leeds North West (90,531) which becomes a much more urban constituency, also gaining Kirkstall but losing Otley & Yeadon and Adel & Wharfedale.  Those two wards move into the existing Pudsey constituency, but that has to lose its eponymous ward and so becomes Otley & Horsforth (108,110).  Pudsey itself moves into Leeds West (& Pudsey) (93,505) which earlier lost Kirkstall.  Other Leeds seats can (with caveat below) remain unchanged.

The remaining existing constituency outside a 10% range is Dewsbury, rather narrowly so (110,184).  I can't find any way of sorting this out within Kirklees without making things worse elsewhere.  The only simple solution I can find is to move Denby Dale to Wakefield and to extend the split of Wakefield proper by making Wakefield East ward join Wakefield South in Hemsworth (probably renamed Wakefield East & Hemsworth).  I'm not sure that the fairly small gain in population equality is worth doing this.  (Other Kirklees and Wakefield seats would remain unchanged.)  There might be an alternative with knock-on effects through Wakefield and south Leeds, but I haven't found one.

[joevsimp]

are we going by All Usual Residents or Household residents?

I'll have a go at what ever people want to call the part of Greater London that's north of Thames and east of the Lea (surprisingly sticky subject, especially in Havering), then maybe Berkshire where I live now.

are there any estimates on undercount in inner cities and certain groups?

edit; gah! why don't the ward boundaries in Redbridge follow the River Roding, M11 and North Circular Road?

[YL]

are we going by All Usual Residents or Household residents?

The figures I gave are All Usual Residents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Londonised Essex?

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

If you're going to use census figures, you could go much further with equalisation and use output areas as building blocks for constituencies.

[doktorb]

Replying just to bookmark the thread. I'll try to fathom out a 15 seat Lancashire later on .

[doktorb]

Forgive me, my laptop has come back from hospital so most of my files have been removed/lost/damaged.

Can you link me to the ward-level population tables please?

[doktorb]

Oh, there's links in the OP. Never mind.

[doktorb]

This is VERY rough and ready but serves as a basis on which to build proper constituencies later. (Maybe with help from the forum)

1] Blackpool South (95,589). Essentially the "zombie review" seat, I think.
2] Blackpool North and Fleetwood (95,007). The zombie review seat with one or two wards shaken around here and there.
3] North Lancashire (100,266).  The existing Morecambe seat with Lancaster's city centre, hence the name change.
4] Central Lancashire (103,213, i.e. too big). Wyre, north Preston and Lancaster without its city centre.
5] Fylde (96,320). The "zombie review" seat.
6] Preston (110,138, i.e. far too big). The City of Preston without its furthest out bits
7] South Ribble (99,757). The "zombie review" seat with slight modifications
8] West Lancashire (94,797). Essentially the "zombie review" seat.
9] Chorley (107,155, i.e. far too big). The entire Borough
10] Ribble Valley (82,320). The entire borough with little bits added
11] Pendle (89,452). The entire borough.
12] Burnley (87,059). The entire borough.
13] Blackburn (107,246, i.e. far too big). The existing constituency, pre-"zombie review"
14] Rossendale and Darwen (90,987). The existing constituency, give or take a few changes.
15] Hyndburn and Haslingden (97,972). The existing constituency, give or take a few changes.

[YL]

If you're going to use census figures, you could go much further with equalisation and use output areas as building blocks for constituencies.

I think I'd want someone to design a Boundary Assistant/Dave's Redistricing App for the UK with the output area populations before I had a go at that.  (Plus I think it's unlikely that Labour would go for that sort of strict equalisation, for various reasons.)

A not very interesting county: North Yorkshire (including York but not the Cleveland unitaries).

The 8 existing seats are all within 10% of quota; the largest is Richmond (107,301) and the smallest is York Outer (93,692).  Some simple changes could improve population equality a bit.  In York, Acomb ward could move from York Central (now 95,755) to York Outer (up to 102,296).  Richmond isn't that easy to trim in a satisfactory looking way, but perhaps move Tanfield and Leeming wards from Richmond (now 101,936) to Thirsk & Malton (up to 102,314); at least that doesn't leave any small bits of constituencies on the other side of moors and hills from the bulk.  If both those changes are made all constituencies are within 5% of quota.

[YL]

I might try and think about Lancashire at some point, but for now here's a fairly quick attempt at a county which would gain a seat, Buckinghamshire.

The current excess is to a large extent in Milton Keynes, which is nearing 2.5 quotas, with its two seats both over 20% over population quota, though neither is quite at Leeds Central standards.  Aylesbury and Wycombe are also noticeably large, though not over 10%.

Assigning 8 seats to a county with 7.58 quotas means that the county average will be quite low, 94,263.  So it's going to be a bit harder to get all seats within 10%, especially as MK wards are large.  I managed it, but if I were being slighly laxer about that lower limit then I wouldn't have done certain things as I've done them here.

Milton Keynes North (91,640) Loses a number of wards in the core of Milton Keynes: Campbell Park, Middleton, Linford South.  Gains Stony Stratford to balance population.

Milton Keynes South (91,469) Exchanges wards with MK North as above.  Loses a block of six southern wards: Bletchley & Fenny Stratford, Denbigh, Eaton Manor, Emerson Valley, Furzton, Whaddon.  They go to...

Bletchley & Ivinghoe (92,176) Those six wards from MK South, plus a rural area in the east of Aylesbury Vale district currently in Buckingham: Great Horwood, Stewkley, Wingrave and everything to the east of those.  Over two thirds of the population is in Milton Keynes borough.

Buckingham (95,362) Loses territory in the NE to the new seat as above, also Weedon (see below), then expands further into Wycombe district, gaining all wards from that district currently in Aylesbury and also Hambleden Valley and Chiltern Rise.  Might need a name change to reflect it going so far south: "West Buckinghamshire"?

Wycombe (99,918) Trimmed in the NW by losing those two wards to Buckingham.

Aylesbury (91,517) Annoyingly, removing all Wycombe district wards takes it just beyond the lower 10% threshold.  Adding Weedon from Buckingham solves this, so wholly within Aylesbury Vale district.

Chesham & Amersham (92,635) Unchanged.

Beaconsfield (99,387) Unchanged.

Edit: made a few changes to solve the Aylesbury problem in a hopefully better way.

[YL]

This is VERY rough and ready but serves as a basis on which to build proper constituencies later. (Maybe with help from the forum)

1] Blackpool South (95,589). Essentially the "zombie review" seat, I think.
2] Blackpool North and Fleetwood (95,007). The zombie review seat with one or two wards shaken around here and there.
3] North Lancashire (100,266).  The existing Morecambe seat with Lancaster's city centre, hence the name change.
4] Central Lancashire (103,213, i.e. too big). Wyre, north Preston and Lancaster without its city centre.
5] Fylde (96,320). The "zombie review" seat.
6] Preston (110,138, i.e. far too big). The City of Preston without its furthest out bits
7] South Ribble (99,757). The "zombie review" seat with slight modifications
8] West Lancashire (94,797). Essentially the "zombie review" seat.
9] Chorley (107,155, i.e. far too big). The entire Borough
10] Ribble Valley (82,320). The entire borough with little bits added
11] Pendle (89,452). The entire borough.
12] Burnley (87,059). The entire borough.
13] Blackburn (107,246, i.e. far too big). The existing constituency, pre-"zombie review"
14] Rossendale and Darwen (90,987). The existing constituency, give or take a few changes.
15] Hyndburn and Haslingden (97,972). The existing constituency, give or take a few changes.

After a bit of playing I have a Lancashire with all seats within 10%.  But I did the most awful thing: it's called "Preston South and Clitheroe".  So I guess I'll leave Lancashire to you...

(More details: Lancaster & Morecambe urban core, leftover North Lancashire, two Blackpool seats one with Fleetwood, Fylde, Preston North, monstrosity, then the rest more or less much unchanged except Burnley taking a couple of Pendle wards, with Pendle expanding into Ribble Valley.)

[doktorb]

I'd love to know where you got Preston South and Clitheroe from!!

[YL]

I'd love to know where you got Preston South and Clitheroe from!!

It's basically the existing Ribble Valley, shorn of the rural areas east of Clitheroe and around Bowland, plus parts of Preston near the river.  So it ends up as parts of Preston, the Bamber Bridge area, and a strip up the Ribble to include Clitheroe.

Lancashire does seem to have some awkward geography which leads to ugly constituencies.  After all, the last review produced Lancaster & Fleetwood, and we've been stuck with Rossendale & Darwen for 30 years.

[doktorb]

Aah, okay. I'd call it "Preston and Ribble Valley", then hope nobody notices

Lancashire is oddly shaped, that's true. It's best.dealt with by treating it in two halves, and not let east mix with west too often..

[YL]

Probably the last two counties I'm going to bother with.  Both begin with C, one is a winner and one is a loser, and one is flat and the other is not.

Cumbria would lose a seat, and proposals for the aborted review can pretty much be carried over.  So I'll suggest Westmorland (94,128) following the historic borders except where they cut across wards, Barrow & Furness (101,683) consisting of the rest of South Lakeland and all of Barrow, Whitehaven & Workington (97,110) consisting of Workington town and all of Copeland, Carlisle (103,303) consisting of Carlisle district minus a couple of wards, and Penrith & Cockermouth (103,634) containing everything else.

Cambridgeshire would gain a seat, and the existing constituencies are all on the big side, especially NW Cambridgeshire.  Starting in Peterborough, transfer the two Bretton wards from Peterborough to NW Cambs, then removing all but two Huntingdonshire district wards from the latter.  At this point I'm inclined to recognise in the names that we have two Peterborough seats, and go for Peterborough West (94,370) and Peterborough East (102,969).  Further meddling in Peterborough can give a cleaner east-west split (along the railway) and in fact better population equality, but isn't really necessary.  Huntingdon (100,551) then needs to take over all that territory lost by NW Cambs/Peterborough W, and so in turn loses the towns of St. Neots and St. Ives, plus a handful of extra more rural wards.

In the Cambridge area, the Cambridge constituency has to exclude two city wards (rather than one as now).  I'm inclined to try to put these with urban extension areas outside the city boundary, and the main concentration of these is to the north: Girton (which of course even has a college), Histon, Milton.  So combine those places, two north Cambridge wards (which ones is up for debate) and the Ely area to make Ely and Cambridge North (100,493), and the rest of Cambridge makes Cambridge (105,320).  This is probably functionally a Lib Dem gerrymander, and in practice I suspect the Commission would keep two southern wards out instead.  Then we have South West Cambridgeshire (100,524; suggestions for better names welcome) containing eastern Huntingdonshire and the area west of Cambridge, and South East Cambridgeshire (96,976) containing the areas south and east of Cambridge, north to Soham.  Finally North East Cambridgeshire (103,638) loses Littleport to the Ely seat.

[doktorb]

YL, this is something Pete over at VoteUK has attempted. Indeed I think there's a thread about this somewhere from him over on that site.

[stepney]

I think Ullswater is the only ward in Cumbria which crosses a Cumberland/Westmorland/Lancashire boundary.

[afleitch]

Would you guys be interested in doing seats based on the current rules but based on the old ore 74 counties?

[YL]

Would you guys be interested in doing seats based on the current rules but based on the old ore 74 counties?

Historic counties (as in 19th century) would be a curiosity, though you'd have to deal with their boundaries splitting wards; there'd be a lot of estimating of electorates.  You'd also have lots of little exclaves, especially in the Worcestershire seats.  However, I quite like the idea of the Beauchief & Dronfield division of Derbyshire.

1974 counties wouldn't be different enough from what the Commission actually did last time to be interesting, IMO.

[afleitch]

1974 counties wouldn't be different enough from what the Commission actually did last time to be interesting, IMO.

Certainly in the north they would be. Bear in mind that not only have you the differing county boundaries, you have boroughs and districts which to some extent are different in feel from what we have today. I'll see if I can pull something together for Lancashire for example.

[stepney]

For the apportionment by county, are we looking at the immediate pre-1974 counties (so, for example - including Huntingdon & Peterborough; Cambridgeshire & Isle of Ely; Dudley transferred to Staffordshire; Smethwick transferred to Worcestershire; Greater London being in existence, etc) or boundaries further back? And within these 'new' old counties, are we looking at administrative boundaries within them as they are now, or as they might have existed at some previous date?

[minionofmidas]

For the apportionment by county, are we looking at the immediate pre-1974 counties (so, for example - including Huntingdon & Peterborough; Cambridgeshire & Isle of Ely; Dudley transferred to Staffordshire; Smethwick transferred to Worcestershire; Greater London being in existence, etc) or boundaries further back? And within these 'new' old counties, are we looking at administrative boundaries within them as they are now, or as they might have existed at some previous date?

I'd go with the boundaries as existed (virtually) unchanged from the farreaching reforms in the 30s on to the mid-sixties changes (in Teesside and Shropshire, apart from the things you listed, possibly elsewhere that I'm forgetting); also for the next level in so far as available.