Boundary Commission Proposals

[marpleexile]

Pure speculation on my part, Melancholy, but proposals from the Electoral Commission still have to be submitted to Parliament for approval.  The likely changes are said to mainly favour the Tory party. But as the government has no majority, they could easily be voted down.

I thought that the changes had already been approved, and just assumed that they didn't take affect for this election because it was a "snap" one.

[Dave]

Pure speculation on my part, Melancholy, but proposals from the Electoral Commission still have to be submitted to Parliament for approval.  The likely changes are said to mainly favour the Tory party. But as the government has no majority, they could easily be voted down.

[Melancholyflower]

How likely is probably?

I thought the Boundary Commission operated outside of regime change but happy to be corrected

[Dave]

There will of course be a great deal of fallout from last week's unexpected election result.  One aspect - not much mentioned as yet - is that these proposed changes to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies will probably be binned, thank goodness! 

[Dave]

Just looked it up on Wikipedia, Melancholy, and found this:

The boundary commissions are required to apply a set series of rules when devising constituencies.

Firstly, each proposed constituency has to comply with two numerical limits:

the electorate (number of registered voters) of each constituency must be within 5% of the United Kingdom electoral quota. The electoral quota is the average number of electors per constituency, defined as the total mainland electorate divided by the number of mainland constituencies, where "mainland" excludes four island constituencies: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Western Isles), and two on the Isle of Wight.

The use of the word 'required' implies that the +/- 5% range was imposed upon the commission by parliament.

[Melancholyflower]

Corium is right of course - such extreme differences in the size of constituency electorates need to be addressed, if that is possible within the bounds of commonsense.  But where they have gone wrong, I think, is to insist on an unrealistically narrow band of electorate sizes.  A range of 71K to 78K is only +/- 4%. 

In the consultation documents, the Boundary Commission summarise their objectives like this:

In general, we aim to:
Design as many constituencies as practicable that do not cross a council area boundary.
Recognise existing community ties.
Take into consideration local geography (for example transport links, other electoral boundaries, administrative boundaries and natural features).
Consider special geographical considerations where appropriate.


So they haven't done very well, have they!  If they were serious about that they would have allowed a wider range of electorate sizes.  65K - 85K would not be unreasonable, and might have enabled the commission to actually achieve some of the above aims!

On the other hand if PR - specifically STV - was introduced, we wouldn't be having this debate. The votes would be awarded equally and the party list system would come into play, thus in theory allowing for more flexibility in constituency sizes, and candidates all being locally chosen.   

Did the Commission set the sizes, Dave, or were they ordered to work within those parameters?

[Dave]

Corium is right of course - such extreme differences in the size of constituency electorates need to be addressed, if that is possible within the bounds of commonsense.  But where they have gone wrong, I think, is to insist on an unrealistically narrow band of electorate sizes.  A range of 71K to 78K is only +/- 4%. 

In the consultation documents, the Boundary Commission summarise their objectives like this:

In general, we aim to:
Design as many constituencies as practicable that do not cross a council area boundary.
Recognise existing community ties.
Take into consideration local geography (for example transport links, other electoral boundaries, administrative boundaries and natural features).
Consider special geographical considerations where appropriate.


So they haven't done very well, have they!  If they were serious about that they would have allowed a wider range of electorate sizes.  65K - 85K would not be unreasonable, and might have enabled the commission to actually achieve some of the above aims!

[corium]

I haven't looked up the details of the proposed situation as they aren't so easy to find but the current (UK, not England) situation where it seems that constituencies sizes range from approximately 20k to 100k electors isn't really defensible

[Dave]

Any system that works on the basis of electing members of the legislature based on which party they belong to is inherently anti-democratic....  electing an individual (not a party) for the smallest practical constituency (not a large, multi-member one) is an absolute essential for a reprentative democracy.

Almost all democratic countries throughout the world operate a system of representative democracy based on political parties.  Condate's notion of non-partisan democracy is almost non-existent. I just looked it up, to find where in the world such a democratic system exists, and the answer is that it exists almost nowhere. The only countries I could find which operate such a system are tiny ones: Saint Helena, Nauru, Micronesia, Pitcairn etc.

All major democratic countries elect members of the legislature based on which party they belong to. That's democracy.  Suggesting that  democracy is anti-democratic is a contradiction in terms. 

But I agree with Condate here:

constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation.  The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.

[Melancholyflower]

The essence of Parliamentary democracy is that each distinct local area elects a man or woman to represent them in Parliament. They don't vote for a party, they vote for a person to represent the interests of the area. For that to work, constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation.  The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.

Do you truly believe that everyone who votes in a first-past-the-post election does so to elect someone to represent the interests of their area? In all 650 seats?

[Condate]

Many other countries have PR (most EU countries , Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand etc etc) and many of these are, if anything, more (not less) democratic than the UK.

Any system that works on the basis of electing members of the legislature based on which party they belong to is inherently anti-democratic. Some PR systems are worse than others and there are some (the German for example) where at least some members are elected individually. However, electing an individual (not a party) for the smallest practical constituency (not a large, multi-member one) is an absolute essential for a reprentative democracy.

[Condate]

Reading briefly through the comments, it is clear that a lot of people are missing the point and don't understand the process of a consultation.  Most either complain against why the Review has been done in the first place - which is completely pointless - or just complain about the proposal to twin with Hyde. They do not come up with any practical objections to it that would be worth considering.

The essence of Parliamentary democracy is that each distinct local area elects a man or woman to represent them in Parliament. They don't vote for a party, they vote for a person to represent the interests of the area. For that to work, constituencies must reflect logical local areas. If they don't and the proposed consituency doesn't, then is makes a nonsense of the democratic process. Sadly, what we have at the moment is a fake consultation.  The real arguments; that we should not be having fewer MPs and that coherent, logical constituencies are more important than equality of electorate, are outside the scope of the so called consultation.

[Dave]

If Labour were benefitting from this more than other parties then that is irrelevant.

Labour will not benefit from the boundary review - they will lose out.  But that's not my problem with it. Local authorities have been steadily downgraded and stripped of their powers and responsibilities for thirty years or more, as central government has grabbed ever more control. Removing the link between local and national government can only weaken local government even more than it is now. Maybe that's why the government is doing it.......

The present Hazel Grove constituency consist of six Stockport wards:  Bredbury and Woodley, Bredbury Green and Romiley, Hazel Grove, Marple North, Marple South, and Offerton. The eighteen councillors for these wards can be (and are) in frequent touch with our MP over matters of mutual local interest and concern, and I believe this works well.

If Marple, Romiley and Hyde are forced together in this shotgun marriage, the Stockport issues will be quite different from the Tameside issues, and that can only impede teamwork and a sense of community and common purpose.  The Romans called it 'divide and rule.'

PR would eliminate democracy at a stroke.

Many other countries have PR (most EU countries , Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand etc etc) and many of these are, if anything, more (not less) democratic than the UK. 

[Condate]

PR would eliminate most of these issues at a stroke.

PR would eliminate democracy at a stroke.

[Melancholyflower]

Reading briefly through the comments, it is clear that a lot of people are missing the point and don't understand the process of a consultation.  Most either complain against why the Review has been done in the first place - which is completely pointless - or just complain about the proposal to twin with Hyde. They do not come up with any practical objections to it that would be worth considering.

"And when the whole process is done and dusted, there will still be some exceptions - the Isle of Wight and some Scottish islands will still have electorates  that are not within the 'magic' range of 71,000 - 78,000. So it will be OK for the Isle of Wight to have two constituencies with about 55,000 voters in each, but it's not OK for Hazel Grove to have 62,000 voters."

The new review will ensure there will be far less exceptions than there were before, so any improvement on this is fine by me.  The only "Grubby politics" on electoral boundaries is the over-arching fact that we've been saddled with an outdated electoral system which hasn't been fit for purpose for nearly half a century. So if we must continue to have it, any improvement on the disparity of seats versus actual votes is fine by me. If Labour were benefitting from this more than other parties then that is irrelevant.

PR would eliminate most of these issues at a stroke.