UK parliamentary boundary review

[beesley]

If I recall, in the last review that went trough, a few seats that were using that regression model said to be Lib Dem seats were easily held by the conservative.  York Outer comes to mind in that regard.

Oh, yes - though to be fair, the Conservative only won by about 2000 or so votes (with some big local LD campaign), and the LDs also lost a nearby seat with a substantial majority. I think the Conservatives doing very well in open seats that election (Dartford, Cannock Chase, Winchester, Carlisle etc.) was a big part of that.

[/quote]

If there was a tool like DRA for the UK we could have some fun drawing maps or hilarious gerrymanders

Sadly, no such tool exists

Gerrymandering in the UK is a lot harder than the US - the building blocks are much bigger (in Scotland, London and Yorkshire especially). So you can probably make a gerrymander by turning safe seats into more marginal ones and pack the others, like the 2016-2020 NC Map, but you would never be able to make the current Maryland Map or seats like TX-21. Still, see how much fun you can have with it.

[beesley]

If there was a tool like DRA for the UK we could have some fun drawing maps or hilarious gerrymanders

Sadly, no such tool exists

Gerrymandering in the UK is a lot harder than the US - the building blocks are much bigger (in Scotland, London and Yorkshire especially). So you can probably make a gerrymander by turning safe seats into more marginal ones and pack the others, like the 2016-2020 NC Map, but you would never be able to make the current Maryland Map or seats like TX-21. Still, see how much fun you can have with it.

Don't be so naive. Countries with population flexibility, unlike the US's strict adherence to equal pop per district, don't need to draw tentacles to gerrymander. In fact a tentacle would do a disservice to the state mappers legitimacy, Instead, one simply has to ensure that the seats which you know from the get go will be won by the opposition have more population per seat than those seats you will be won by the governing party. Another trick is to cut or add seats to the count, depending on if the governments areas are growing compared to the opposition. Cutting seats, like the 600 map, would hurt incumbents, but produced maps more favorable to the Tories.

You're right, but I dispute that any of that makes it easier to gerrymander here, and in any case would be unachievable now due to the principles of the Boundary Commissions.

[beesley]

(remember Mersey Banks?)

Good grief yes. Especially when it was suggested they should name it 'Mersey Banks and Weaver', as if that somehow justifies a seat containing both Ellesmere Port and Widnes.

[beesley]

Local knowledge, hunches, intuition and an awareness of the fact that whatever methods you use; none of them will be perfect.

The other issue with using pure ward numbers is that tactical voting is a big thing; and so you can't assume that a ward that moves from a safe seat to a marginal or vice versa; or from a Labour/Conservative to Lib Dem/Conservative marginal will behave anything like it did in the last election.

I think the best example is some of the proposed SW London seats. If you take away a Labour ward from Putney and add two wards from Richmond Park, suddenly it's a lot better for the Tories because Labour have such a low total in Richmond Park given the Lib Dem strength. But in a GE a big chunk of the new Lib Dem vote would coalesce around the Labour incumbent.

[beesley]

For fun and to see just how badly I get piled upon, here is Wales. For the record I did not pay any attention to what the current constituencies look like though I did take a look at the primary authorities map.

Since you asked for a pile on...

Not the worst attempt but the Valleys are horrific, especially that pink seat with Maesteg and Aberdare. It's best to follow the topography there as much as you can. Additionally it's best to keep as much of the old counties/primary authorities together as much as you can e.g. Ceredigion. But assuming you don't know anything about Wales it could've been much worse. I could see US legislators drawing something like this, though.

Not a criticism of you or anything, just how I'd evaluate that map.

I've been working on a map for the Scottish Parliament myself but this isn't the thread for it.

[beesley]

Yeah, the new boundaries are cumbersome, but they meet the requirements set out, most  of all that ridiculous 5% deviation  threshold they had. 7.5% or ideally 10% allowance while explicitly aiming for no more 5% deviation where reasonable would've been better.

Southampton remains unchanged, thankfully. Basingstoke looks ridiculous but the wards round there were bad anyway. And Fareham and Waterlooville? There must be a way around that. Though (unpopular opinion) I like the new Hedge End seat, but that means either Fareham and some random bits of Winchester District or Waterlooville as Portsmouth and Gosport can't change.

Hampshire is nowhere near as bad as Gloucestershire though. You could've had normal seats with a 10% threshold, but alas.

[beesley]

Cumbria

Carlisle gains the "Border" bit of Penrith & the Border.

Workington and Whitehaven kept separate for some reason.  The latter goes into a horror which for some reason is called "Copeland and the Western Lakes" but stretches as far east as Windermere town.

Barrow & Furness loses some northern areas to the Copeland thing but gains Grange over Sands and Cartmel from the dismembered Westmorland & Lonsdale...

... from which the Kendal and Sedbergh areas join Eden district in "Westmorland & Eden", while the area south of Kendal goes into another absurdly named seat, "Morecambe & South Lakeland", whose closest approach to the actual Lakes is that it grazes the eastern shore of Windermere.  I'm guessing there aren't many fellwalkers working for the BCE at the moment.

A terrible outcome for Tim Farron whose seat is completely dismembered.  Not great for Labour either with all the marginals probably becoming harder to win back.

Maybe the horrible lines in Cumbria are to do with the local authority boundaries? I doubt if Cumbria were one council like Cornwall they keep Workington and Whitehaven separate. Also, Morecambe and South Lakeland weirdly contains the second smallest bit out of South Lakeland district out of the four seats, by the looks of it.

I only just noticed but thank goodness they put Warfield Harvest Ride ward back in Bracknell, that was egregious.

[beesley]

Lancashire


Further east, Burnley loses a smallish area in the NE of the town to Pendle, but gains Royston VaseyBacup from Rossendale & Darwen, which shifts west and is renamed "West Pennine Moors" but if anything becomes even worse connected.  Hyndburn loses its Rossendale component and gains part of Whalley from Ribble Valley, but sadly isn't renamed "Accrington".

Sorry to quote you again in such a short space of time, but I thought to add that there isn't any road access between the two halves. The name is also horrible.

Dorset:



Nothing major I can see. Maybe Mid Dorset & Poole North getting an arm to reach around the harbor  is notable?
 

That ward is Wareham, a town that could be in either of the two seats but faces Poole primarily. I guess they didn't want to combine Christchurch with Boscombe or Southbourne and that's why the configuration is the way it is.

More bizarre is that Upwey, a sort of exurb of Weymouth is in West Dorset. It makes no sense to separate the two. If anything I'd reconfigure that area entirely if it were doable.

[beesley]

I'm happy with my area.   I only just manage to stay in my current seat and as noted this seat might be a Labour target now.  I wonder who benefits most from Bath's changes?  Presumably the Tories?

I like the Bristol map and Filton & BS (is that your seat then?) but I'm not so convinced by the leftover bits of Kingswood being put in a seat called "Keynsham & North East Somerset".  It's slightly bizarre to see Bristol West lose three of its easternmost wards and get renamed Bristol Central, but TBH I think that's an acknowledgement that it should have been renamed in the last review.  (I guess it becomes a slightly more plausible Green target?)

Overall I think the South West is not bad, but I'd have tried to do it (indeed I did do it) with fewer county boundary crossings.

Yes I'm in FBS.  I agree that boundary crossing should be avoided but ultimately they have mostly kept similar communities together.

The problem in my view is that the communities with the best links to Bristol (Hanham, Filton, Staple Hill) are all far enough away from each other that you can't  really  keep them together as the Bristol portion of the seat becomes illogical, and then you separate  them from areas like Oldland Common and Patchway. But as a local you might disagree.

[beesley]

The Preston seat is the worst I have seen, I think.

[beesley]

From a purely partisan perspective I was in the Bridgend seat earlier and it's nice its awful MP being drawn out.

[beesley]

Perthshire seems the worst affected, going from being split across 2 constituencies to now 5. As has been mentioned that can be somewhat improved.

In terms of partisan considerations (which I hope Americans here realise are irrelevant in drawing the lines), the Liberal Democrats are probably the worst affected by these initial proposals - I struggle to see them winning North East Fife and Highland North on these boundaries in 2019, given the closeness. If I had to guess that Gordon seat would go Conservative with the loss of north Aberdeen and addition of Turriff, but that's only making up for Moray disappearing.

The main purpose of the exercise is good representation however, and in most areas I can't see better options.

[beesley]

Maps for Norn Iron

At first glance, this looks like another "minimum change" effort with the result that there are some odd little bits tacked on, most noticeably Belfast South extending south into rural County Down and becoming "Belfast South & Mid Down" and Fermanagh & South Tyrone extending into north Armagh.

Strangford would finally include the village of Strangford, but would be renamed "Strangford & Quoile".

Some of the minimum change must be to conform to the new local government districts - the one ward from CC and Glens in East Antrim has been moved to North Antrim, for example. And with Carryduff's wards being the way they are, a bit of Mid Down has to be tacked on.

[beesley]

Once again the people of Swaythling have risen up to defend  our connection with the rest of our city and Eastleigh and against our lack of connection with people near Andover, and I am extremely confident we will be ignored.

[beesley]

It's incredible how many respondents think that their ward is at risk of moving council. For example:

I don't understand why Rowley Regis currently shares an MP with Dudley MBC. I have no objection to joining Smethwick as long as we remain within Sandwell MBC. I would never consent to becoming part if Birmingham. If that were the plan I would prefer Rowley to become part of Dudley MBC! We are part of the Black Country and will never be Birmingham !!!

And other suggestions which are downright bizarre:

Windsor is too far out to vote for any parliamentary elections, which would dissuade people from even voting.
Also, how can an a different constituency mp represent me if I’m in a different borough altogether?

Disgusted to read of Avon, Somerset and Devon in your report.

There is no such place as Avon. Avon as a County Council was only in existence from 1974 to 1996.

You appear to mean Bristol - which is a City AND County

And the incredibly passionate.

Dear Sir/ Madam ,

I make no apology for duplicating the email my family has just emailed to you, as it really is vital for the future well-being of our residents, now and in the foreseeable future.

The proposals as circulated in your recent publication would cause immense harm to the Community in Beaconsfield. The idea of splitting our treasured London End into two, and allocating a huge amount of the Town's heritage and a large amount of its leisure sites, including virtually all our Green belt into a separate Constituency would be legalised piracy. In many ways it would be not too dis-similar to the dismemberment of Parish and Town Councils which followed the disastrous Local Government Act which befell our parents.

There is a more effective way of achieving the Government's wish to keep the electorate in the Constituencies within the headcount required. The current proposal is heartless and badly thought through., quite possibly due to having to conform to a heatless and badly though through brief.

It ignores all those characteristics which our Community cherishes, and I beg you to sit down with our neighbours who I'm certain can come up with an alternative which takes account of the needs and aspirations of all communities in South Bucks.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am also Chairman of the Community and Safety Committee of the Town Council, and Chairman of the South Bucks Association of Local Councils, neither of which have been contacted for their views before this proposal was distributed, and with great respect, I urge you to contact me to avoid breaching the tenets behind the Localism Act.

[beesley]

Whilst I can't say I like the proposals in Hampshire and Berkshire, I think they made the best of them. There will always be areas that have to adjoin onto a smaller town rather than the nearest one. Where counties are crossed they seem to have been done in the least disruptive way e.g. crossing Hampshire and Surrey's border near Farnham and Bordon.