Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies

[overthewater]

I'm having real trouble finding out if the number of seats will be reduced from 650 to 600? Since the last election in May I'm starting to think this will no longer be the case since there isn't a tory maj and more other parties hate the idea

 

[Busaholic]

I'm having real trouble finding out if the number of seats will be reduced from 650 to 600? Since the last election in May I'm starting to think this will no longer be the case since there isn't a tory maj and more other parties hate the idea

The 'Times' newspaper ran a piece in early September saying the plans were being ditched because they were unlikely to get through the Commons as the DUP would not side with the government on this.

 

[overthewater]

Will the boundry changes take place to the current 650 since many are now out of whack?

 

[Verulamius]

The boundary commissions are currently proceeding with their work for 600 constituencies based on the electorate as at 1 December 2015. The English boundary commission is due to publish its revised proposals on Tuesday 17 October 2017.

If the politicians wish to increase the number of constituencies back to 650 this would require primary legislation and the recommencement of the boundary reviews.

 

[HSTEd]

The boundary commissions are currently proceeding with their work for 600 constituencies based on the electorate as at 1 December 2015. The English boundary commission is due to publish its revised proposals on Tuesday 17 October 2017.

If the politicians wish to increase the number of constituencies back to 650 this would require primary legislation and the recommencement of the boundary reviews.

However Parliament must still approve the new proposals.
So given the lack of a majority for said approval - the existing arrangements will continue indefinitely.

 

[overthewater]

So does that mean there can have another review for 650 seats? that could be in place for 2020?

 

[Busaholic]

However Parliament must still approve the new proposals.
So given the lack of a majority for said approval - the existing arrangements will continue indefinitely.

Absolutely right. The commissioners can only make recommendations. Parliament decides, if they ever get to consider those recommendations, of course.

 

[overthewater]

Absolutely right. The commissioners can only make recommendations. Parliament decides, if they ever get to consider those recommendations, of course.

Could there ask for more recommendations but with 650 seats? Since all the data and there know where all the population changes have taken place.

 

[tspaul26]

Could there ask for more recommendations but with 650 seats? Since all the data and there know where all the population changes have taken place.

My understanding is that primary legislation would be needed to amend the districting criteria. A request for different recommendations would simply lead to revised proposals for 600 constituencies.

 

[overthewater]

So the next election will be on current seats.

 

[greatkingrat]

We don't know that.

At present the review is continuing normally, and the recommendations will be published and then voted on by Parliament.

Anything else is just speculation at this stage.

 

[overthewater]

Yet there votes are not there to past it.

 

[tspaul26]

I would not say that is necessarily the case. The Conservatives have a sufficiently large caucus that on a practical level it would require every opposition party plus the independents plus a backbench rebellion to reject the Order in Council in the Commons.

The Lords would probably be more problematical.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming May spends the capital to whip the Tories, which I doubt she will

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect it's more likely than not that the next election will end up getting fought on current boundaries.

The odds are not looking good for getting the current review through Parliament. Even though Conservative MPs are going to like the fact that the new boundaries will favour the Conservatives, many individual MPs will see their seats disappear, which they won't be happy with. Further, this review has particularly onerous requirements for equalizing population between constituencies. While as a principle that sounds like a good thing, it's made it much harder for the boundaries commission to keep communities together, and avoid boundaries running through close communities: That is inevitably going to lead to many more protests about individual new seats than you would normally expect. There's a minor absurdity, that the commission has been legally obliged to keep constituency boundaries aligned with council ward boundaries as they were when the review started - yet some of those boundaries will have already changed before 2020, leading to new mis-alignments. And then of course the real problem - that - as every MP is going to be aware - 10% fewer constituencies will mean 10% more casework for each MP - and many MPs are already completely overloaded with casework.

To get the changes through, somehow, the Government is going to have to sell that to all of it's own MPs AND to the DUP. Personally, I don't rate their chances too highly...

 

[overthewater]

What does everyone think? North East Fife Seat will never go tory now and lid dem could also lose it with Leven being clamped in, Clackmannanshire and Dunfermline is idiotic while Dundee being one seat will its anyone game. The boundrys are bonkers and need scrapped.
,

 

[Qwerty133]

What does everyone think? North East Fife Seat will never go tory now and lid dem could also lose it with Leven being clamped in, Clackmannanshire and Dunfermline is idiotic while Dundee being one seat will its anyone game. The boundrys are bonkers and need scrapped.
,

Scotland currently has a disproportional influence in the house of commons, which especially considering the differences in the political landscape is undemocratic and shouldn't be allowed to continue.

 

[overthewater]

Proposed number of seats for next election

• England: 501 (down from 533 at the moment)
• Scotland: 53 (down from 59)
• Wales: 29 (down from 40)
• Northern Ireland: 17 (down from 18)

Alas because wales, NI and Scotland doesn't have full control over Benefits, defrance, trade, Power industry , data protection, Broadcast so these parts of the UK need to have equal representation in westminster. BUT I agree when it comes to Domestic issues MPs from the three nations should be tell you how to do stuff,

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yet there votes are not there to past it.

The Tories have an effective majority. These proposals are gerrymandering in favour of the Tories. There won't be a backbench rebellion.

 

[takno]

The Tories have an effective majority. These proposals are gerrymandering in favour of the Tories. There won't be a backbench rebellion.

They involve abolishing a whole bunch of seats which are held by Tories, who will effectively be out of a job as a result of the changes. Top to bottom they aren't showing any signs of putting the party before their own careers just now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They involve abolishing a whole bunch of seats which are held by Tories, who will effectively be out of a job as a result of the changes.

But they will be compensated for that by the changes that will parachute a Tory into a traditional Labour area (e.g. just look at what they're up to in Northumberland).

 

[Busaholic]

The Tories have an effective majority. These proposals are gerrymandering in favour of the Tories. There won't be a backbench rebellion.

I haven't found one professional political commentator who agrees with your assessment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong! There is, however, such local opposition to some of the changes e.g. Isle of Wight, Devon/Cornwall border, and almost all in current Tory seats, that the incumbent MPs will NOT vote in favour, I can guarantee you, which will be enough to ensure the changes will not be voted through. The proposals can't be amended, don't forget, only approved or rejected.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Plenty of political commentators have pointedly mentioned that these changes, had they applied in the spring, would have given the Tories an absolute majority. It's the most blatant case of gerrymandering I've ever seen. Some of the contortions they've made to bury a Labour town into a Conservative safe seat are embarrassing.

As for the backbenchers' backbiting, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Parachute them into the new seats and they'll back it; use it as a way of getting people out and they really won't.

 

[dcsprior]

Scotland currently has a disproportional influence in the house of commons, which especially considering the differences in the political landscape is undemocratic and shouldn't be allowed to continue.

I thought more sparsely populated constituencies generally had disproportional influence (i.e. had fewer constituents per MP) wherever they were in the UK.

This should either be tackled UK-wide, or the effect it has on Scotland should be tolerated (though I'm unsure if this accounts for all of Scotland's over-representation.)

An off-the-wall alternative would be for parliamentary votes to be weighted according to how many constituents each MP had - that way we could keep local representation for rural areas and have constituencies which followed natural-feeling boundaries, without some areas being over-represented.

 

[Busaholic]

Plenty of political commentators have pointedly mentioned that these changes, had they applied in the spring, would have given the Tories an absolute majority. It's the most blatant case of gerrymandering I've ever seen. Some of the contortions they've made to bury a Labour town into a Conservative safe seat are embarrassing.

As for the backbenchers' backbiting, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Parachute them into the new seats and they'll back it; use it as a way of getting people out and they really won't.

Well, if the sainted Theresa hadn't called that election then the measure would have sailed through, so the Tories are hoist by their own petard (keep on hoisting, I say)

 

[overthewater]

Plus the DUP dont like the changes either.

 

[Busaholic]

Plus the DUP dont like the changes either.

One fewer seat?

 

[overthewater]

Were talking about the DUP here...

 

[furnessvale]

The Tories have an effective majority. These proposals are gerrymandering in favour of the Tories. There won't be a backbench rebellion.

That infers that the boundary commission is corrupt.
The purpose of the change is to equalise (as far as possible) the number of voters per constituency, surely a laudable democratic aim.
I presume if the changes had benefited Labour there would have been equal objections to their implementation?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's the most blatant case of gerrymandering I've ever seen.

That infers that the boundary commission is corrupt.
The purpose of the change is to equalise (as far as possible) the number of voters per constituency, surely a laudable democratic aim.

I'm pretty certain that the boundary commission is not corrupt: It has followed its legal duties to the best of its ability. But I would also argue that the instructions that the Government gave the boundary commission do amount to gerrymandering.

The reason is this: A few years ago, the Government replaced the household electoral registration system with the individual voter registration system. I think it's fairly widely accepted that this change immediately caused large numbers of people to fall off the electoral register because for whatever reason they didn't follow the new procedures to register - adapting to new procedures takes time and some people wouldn't have been sufficiently aware of them. And there are reasons to believe the people who dropped off were likely to be disproportionately young, or poor - which implies, more likely to be Labour voters than Conservative voters.

The Government then instructed the electoral commission to equalise populations - but not based on actual populations: Constituencies were instead to be equalised based on the numbers on the electoral register on a date that just happened to be very soon after the point at which large numbers of voters (plausibly likely to be mainly in Labour areas) had dropped off the register. That of course is not really equalising constituency sizes; rather, it appears to be a way of making sure that, on average, constituencies in Labour areas are likely to contain slightly larger populations than constituencies in Conservative areas, thus favouring the Conservatives. (While still being able to falsely claim that you are equalising the constituencies).