UK parliamentary boundary review
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:05:24 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
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
Author Topic: UK parliamentary boundary review  (Read 19805 times)
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 540
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: October 21, 2021, 12:49:54 PM »

I'm not familiar with how Wales looks on the ground, but even I can see how ugly this is. Ceredigion Preseli is probably the worst. Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, Islwyn and Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney are also very strange - why cross into neighbouring valleys instead of drawing them north-south like now? Ugh.

A constituency called Ceredigion and North Pembrokeshire existed from 1983-1997 on similar boundaries though it never stretched as far a St Davids. Due to this arrangement having precedent it was always likely they'd bring it back. As others have said this part of Pembrokeshire is north of the Landsker line making it the much more Welsh speaking part of Pembrokeshire which thus does fit reasonably well with Ceredigion. This arrangement may look ugly but it's much better than extending Ceredigion east into much more culturally 'English' Montgomeryshire.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: October 21, 2021, 01:06:03 PM »

Depends which bit of Ceredigion. There's a case for combining the northern half of the county with Montgomery, with which it has very strong links: human, transport and cultural. The trouble is that the southern half of the county has very few links with points eastward (for basic physical geography reasons: the same issue as with the Trans-Berwyn silliness that everyone who knows the area not at all thinks is a good idea and no one who actually knows it agrees) but, instead, has strong links with both Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: February 08, 2022, 02:36:42 AM »

The comments from the first round of consultation are now available:

England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales

Here is what the Conservative Party think should happen in Calderdale:

(colouring of the two all-Calderdale seats deliberate).
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: February 08, 2022, 02:28:40 PM »

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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: February 08, 2022, 03:11:57 PM »

Had a look over some of the counter-proposals and there's a fairly consistent pattern of Labour proposing cautiously sensible modifications (often ones I'd chose in their shoes) and the Tories proposing egregious gerrymanders (see the map YL posted for an example!) and just plain odd stuff. I'm mildly shocked at how bad some of their submissions are, frankly. This really isn't a thing to respond to with half-arsed amateurism - have they forgotten the '95 Review?
Logged
Secretary of State Liberal Hack
IBNU
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,878
Singapore


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: February 09, 2022, 12:32:27 AM »

Any chance Westmorland and Lonsdale survives the boundary review ?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: February 09, 2022, 03:09:41 AM »

Any chance Westmorland and Lonsdale survives the boundary review ?

Possibly in a heavily modified form.

Unsurprisingly its the Lib Dems whose proposal tries hardest to keep it.  They add the southern end of Copeland district (Millom and surroundings; IIRC this is where one of our posters lives, so perhaps he will comment) to the Barrow constituency, allowing it not to include the Cartmel peninsula (the Grange-over-Sands area, which is only connected to the rest of the proposed Barrow seat by rail, something they repeatedly point out).  So Cartmel can stay in Westmorland & Lonsdale, and they manage to move only two wards into their Morecambe-based seat; all that means it can just expand to the historic county boundary in Eden district, taking in Kirkby Stephen and Appleby-in-Westmorland but not Penrith.  Even this is surely notionally Tory, but the Lib Dems have a local track record in some of the added areas and I think they'd fancy their chances of Farron holding it, particularly if the Tories aren't doing that well nationally.

Elsewhere in Cumbria they propose Whitehaven & Workington and Penrith & Solway seats and support the BCE's Carlisle.  Their partisan motivation is fairly obvious, but IMO their proposal works better than either the Initial Proposals (which the Tories support) or Labour's, which like the Lib Dems' merges Whitehaven and Workington, but unlike the Lib Dems' puts the more rural parts of Copeland district in a seat with the Kendal/Windermere area over the fells.  So the Lib Dems might have a chance here.
Logged
Secretary of State Liberal Hack
IBNU
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,878
Singapore


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: February 09, 2022, 03:19:21 AM »

Any chance Westmorland and Lonsdale survives the boundary review ?

Possibly in a heavily modified form.

Unsurprisingly its the Lib Dems whose proposal tries hardest to keep it.  They add the southern end of Copeland district (Millom and surroundings; IIRC this is where one of our posters lives, so perhaps he will comment) to the Barrow constituency, allowing it not to include the Cartmel peninsula (the Grange-over-Sands area, which is only connected to the rest of the proposed Barrow seat by rail, something they repeatedly point out).  So Cartmel can stay in Westmorland & Lonsdale, and they manage to move only two wards into their Morecambe-based seat; all that means it can just expand to the historic county boundary in Eden district, taking in Kirkby Stephen and Appleby-in-Westmorland but not Penrith.  Even this is surely notionally Tory, but the Lib Dems have a local track record in some of the added areas and I think they'd fancy their chances of Farron holding it, particularly if the Tories aren't doing that well nationally.

Elsewhere in Cumbria they propose Whitehaven & Workington and Penrith & Solway seats and support the BCE's Carlisle.  Their partisan motivation is fairly obvious, but IMO their proposal works better than either the Initial Proposals (which the Tories support) or Labour's, which like the Lib Dems' merges Whitehaven and Workington, but unlike the Lib Dems' puts the more rural parts of Copeland district in a seat with the Kendal/Windermere area over the fells.  So the Lib Dems might have a chance here.
Genrarly how much attention gets paid to party submissions for the boundary review? does any party have a better record in getting the commission to approve their plan ?
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: February 09, 2022, 10:20:20 AM »

Any chance Westmorland and Lonsdale survives the boundary review ?

Possibly in a heavily modified form.

Unsurprisingly its the Lib Dems whose proposal tries hardest to keep it.  They add the southern end of Copeland district (Millom and surroundings; IIRC this is where one of our posters lives, so perhaps he will comment) to the Barrow constituency, allowing it not to include the Cartmel peninsula (the Grange-over-Sands area, which is only connected to the rest of the proposed Barrow seat by rail, something they repeatedly point out).  So Cartmel can stay in Westmorland & Lonsdale, and they manage to move only two wards into their Morecambe-based seat; all that means it can just expand to the historic county boundary in Eden district, taking in Kirkby Stephen and Appleby-in-Westmorland but not Penrith.  Even this is surely notionally Tory, but the Lib Dems have a local track record in some of the added areas and I think they'd fancy their chances of Farron holding it, particularly if the Tories aren't doing that well nationally.

Elsewhere in Cumbria they propose Whitehaven & Workington and Penrith & Solway seats and support the BCE's Carlisle.  Their partisan motivation is fairly obvious, but IMO their proposal works better than either the Initial Proposals (which the Tories support) or Labour's, which like the Lib Dems' merges Whitehaven and Workington, but unlike the Lib Dems' puts the more rural parts of Copeland district in a seat with the Kendal/Windermere area over the fells.  So the Lib Dems might have a chance here.

Of course the "traditional counties" brigade don't like it, but I have long been fairly relaxed about such a thing happening - the links of the area with Furness are maybe more relevant than those of historic Cumberland these days.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: February 09, 2022, 12:08:49 PM »

Genrarly how much attention gets paid to party submissions for the boundary review? does any party have a better record in getting the commission to approve their plan ?

These are both questions the answer to which varies from review to review, but...

I think that in general party submissions get more attention than others and so in turn are more likely to be adopted.  However I think it's pretty rare for a blatant gerrymander to be successful.

In the 1990s review Labour was rather more successful than the Tories.  In the recent aborted reviews, on the other hand, especially the first, I think the Tories did better (though I haven't checked).  I think this reflects the competence of the teams preparing them and not any bias at the BCE, and if Al's post above is a fair reflection (and from a limited read of the proposals in some regions I think it may well be) then the Tories may not do so well this time.  In particular I would be pretty surprised and disappointed if that Tory submission for Calderdale gets through.
Logged
beesley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,140
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: February 09, 2022, 06:47:03 PM »
« Edited: February 09, 2022, 06:53:35 PM by beesley »

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

Quote

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:

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Conservatopia
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,182
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 0.72, S: 8.60

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: February 10, 2022, 04:53:56 AM »

I can understand people being frustrated with local government reorganization (some councils are far worse than their neighbours), but getting that worked up about parliamentary constituencies?  Come on.

My goodness you should have seen the battles over the One Somerset plan though.  I imagine it's equally acrimonious for One Cumbria and the BCP UA.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: February 11, 2022, 01:16:15 PM »

I also saw some people who seemed to think it was going to change their postcode...

Here's another weird one:
Quote
I live in a city and your moving me into a country area! I'm not a farner but a town dweller... who has come up with such a stupid idea! Country areas are rural, town dwellers are townies. I think this idea is absolutely stupid.

(From Parkhall & Warmley ward in South Gloucestershire)
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: February 11, 2022, 01:23:09 PM »

Indeed, genuinely unbelievable.

(that they can't spell "you're", that is)
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: February 12, 2022, 08:02:33 AM »

I found another good one for literacy:

Quote
why shud we have to loose our towns name just because L.C.C.want to move things about Rossendale has always been rossendale.L.C.C . ARE JUST TAKEING THE MICK.WE DONT WANT TO BE SPLIT UP AND JOINED WITH BURNLEY OUR COUNCIL MAY BE USELESS BUT L.C.C.ARE WORSE THAN THAT TAKE ALL OUR COUNCIL TAX AND GIVE NOTHING IN RETURN SO NO WE DONT WANT TO BE PART OF BURNLEY
(sic)

"L.C.C." = Lancashire County Council, I assume.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: October 19, 2022, 03:02:35 AM »

The Boundary Commission for Wales has published its revised proposals today.



I haven't really had a proper look yet, but the weird peni-exclave of the Rhondda constituency is attracting comment.

Also they apparently ignored a lot of the Assistant Commissioners' recommendations.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: October 19, 2022, 06:04:30 AM »

Genuinely hard to describe that abortion of a map as anything other than a professional disgrace. It's not just the obvious horrors like whatever they've done with the Rhondda, but little details: have a look at Llangollen and try not to scream.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: October 19, 2022, 06:32:23 AM »

Basically they've put far too much weight on trying to preserve existing constituencies in some form rather than accepting that the new rules and the seat reduction combine to necessitate an entirely new map. And that horror show, that fiasco, that embarrassment, is the result. The hideous Monmouthshire map could have been avoided by accepting that Newport is not big enough, under the new rules, for two constituencies, for instance.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: October 19, 2022, 06:35:30 AM »

Genuinely hard to describe that abortion of a map as anything other than a professional disgrace. It's not just the obvious horrors like whatever they've done with the Rhondda, but little details: have a look at Llangollen and try not to scream.

Costa Geriatrica LIVES
Logged
Conservatopia
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,182
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 0.72, S: 8.60

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: October 19, 2022, 06:55:41 AM »

What an utterly hideous map. The valleys were obviously going to be tricky but is there really any excuse for what's going on in the Greater Swansea area?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: October 19, 2022, 11:15:13 AM »

Basically they've put far too much weight on trying to preserve existing constituencies in some form rather than accepting that the new rules and the seat reduction combine to necessitate an entirely new map. And that horror show, that fiasco, that embarrassment, is the result. The hideous Monmouthshire map could have been avoided by accepting that Newport is not big enough, under the new rules, for two constituencies, for instance.

Yeah, it looks like the modus operandi was essentially to try to identify 31 of the existing constituencies for retention and to then carve up the remaining eight between them, with a few knock-on effects on top of that.  That's always liable to produce a mess, with areas added to constituencies they have no business being in and awkward boundaries where the carve ups didn't work very well with the numbers.  The carve up of Clwyd South is particularly messy.

Not that that explains the general weirdness around Swansea, which is the one area where they actually have done something more radical: "Swansea Central & North" isn't an obvious successor to any existing constituency. 
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: October 23, 2022, 02:10:05 PM »

What's the likelihood these don't get made into law and Labour is in power next time a redistribution is done?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: October 23, 2022, 02:25:53 PM »

What's the likelihood these don't get made into law and Labour is in power next time a redistribution is done?

Under the current law they will pass automatically once all four Commissions have completed their reports, next summer.

If somehow there's a General Election before then, it will take place on the existing boundaries, but unless legislation is passed to cancel this review then these boundaries would still come into effect for the following General Election.  I don't know the chances of a Labour government passing such legislation is; my own view is that (barring the Commissions collectively making what I believe is known as a complete Neath & Swansea East of things) they should not; I don't believe there is intrinsic bias in the current rules, the existing boundaries are now quite out of date, and for the most part I think the Commissions have worked out how to produce reasonably acceptable constituencies under these rules.  (There have always been some unsatisfactory constituencies.)  I do think that it would make some sense to set up a process to look at what the rules should be for future reviews.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: October 23, 2022, 02:46:48 PM »

What's the likelihood these don't get made into law and Labour is in power next time a redistribution is done?

Under the current law they will pass automatically once all four Commissions have completed their reports, next summer.

If somehow there's a General Election before then, it will take place on the existing boundaries, but unless legislation is passed to cancel this review then these boundaries would still come into effect for the following General Election.  I don't know the chances of a Labour government passing such legislation is; my own view is that (barring the Commissions collectively making what I believe is known as a complete Neath & Swansea East of things) they should not; I don't believe there is intrinsic bias in the current rules, the existing boundaries are now quite out of date, and for the most part I think the Commissions have worked out how to produce reasonably acceptable constituencies under these rules.  (There have always been some unsatisfactory constituencies.)  I do think that it would make some sense to set up a process to look at what the rules should be for future reviews.
Ah. I was not aware of changes to redistribution law.
It seems the Welsh "seat bonus" is probably gone for good.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: October 23, 2022, 04:13:01 PM »

What's the likelihood these don't get made into law and Labour is in power next time a redistribution is done?

Under the current law they will pass automatically once all four Commissions have completed their reports, next summer.

They will pass automatically after the government submit an Order to give effect to the recommandations. They have 4 months from the day the last report has been accepted as received by the Speaker to do so, so that may be postponed to late 2023.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15  
« 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 0.063 seconds with 11 queries.