Am sat at my desk avoiding doing work that I ought to.

I like political stats. Much easier to get my head around than all that policy knobbishness.

Currently we have 650 parliamentary seats and roughly 45million electorate, nominally c.70k electorate per seat.

The sixth boundary change review was due to take place in 2013, started in 2011, and killed off by the Libdems in the Lords. The proposal was to reset boundaries to be within 5% of target constituency number, and reduce seats to 600.

i.e. 75,000 +/- 3,750

There are some geographical outliers which would probably remain at the margins (western isle: 21k. Isle of Wight: 110k).

The tendency of party bias is laid out here:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/electoral-bias/

very briefly – shrinking population Laboury in north constituencies, growing population in Conservativey south constituencies = Labour bias at parliament.
As the article emphasises, this is not the same as the FPTP / proportionality argument.

I was wondering what that bias looked like. So graph…

ignoring the outliers (say <60k & >80k) there is, visually at least, a clear tendency towards blue in the larger constituencies and red/yellow in the smaller ones. Of the 650 constituencies, roughly 200 are smaller than 70k-5% and 200 are larger than 70k+5%. That’s a long way from being neutral. I think it’s inevitable that the government will move on with the boundary review. It’s a pity they wont take the opportunity to bring in a STV PR too.

TBH I don’t think it’s a matter for the government, these things should all be further removed… But yes, I reckon there is a problem at the moment. The tories’ll get slated for changes because it’ll be mostly them that benefits but that’s not really the point imo (but is another reason why it should be independent)

The real question will be whether they can resist the urge to gerrymander, or whether just making it fair will be enough for them. I’ll be surprised if they stop at fair, tbh.

I don’t think it’s as simple as headcount- some areas have greater needs because of geography, having an MP try to represent 20000 people in the isles frinstance is harder than 60000 in a city, very distributed, different demands and needs not to mention pure logistical issues (my MP can walk round his constituency, out there you’d need a helicopter to do that). But like for like, it should be pretty comparable I reckon.

the exercise is overseen by the Boundary Commission. They are independent.

The implementation and timing of the boundary change and acts gets faffed with by parliament/lords, but they dont have any bearing on the boundaries themselves.

It looks like one of those rainbow carpets we had in the 70’s

There is a fairness point re size but there are also other issues

1. geographical boundaries have to be respected which also include historical boundaries.
2. It has to be done independently as anything will be seen as gerrymandering
3. it seems daft to use an unfair system like FPTP and they tweak it to be proportional
4. The north [ and Scotland] already think we are ignored due to a westminster/south bias. Changing things to make this even more so [ and favouring Tories] wont help this perception and may fuel further union break up/federalism

One of those do we want a senate type thing where each area gets x number of seats irrespective of size or a constituency approach based on size/voter number.

Basically its like council tax we all know its crap but any solution is crap as well so its probably best to avoid it for a bit – the tories wont though as it helps them stay in power so some will shout bias

It is independent, Boundary Commission

Geography and need could be addressed by properly funding a constituency staff to assist MP’s (need and Geography)

trying to represent 60000 in a deprived crime ridden city may be harder than representing a widly distributed rural poulation of 20000

3. it seems daft to use an unfair system like FPTP and they tweak it to be proportional

it’s not about being proportional. The seats are not proportional to anything. The seats are to be allocated on the basis of fairness in terms of electorate, not votes.

Basically its like council tax we all know its crap but any solution is crap as well so its probably best to avoid it for a bit

or rather any solution that’s rational upsets the left 😉

4. The north [ and Scotland] already think we are ignored due to a westminster/south bias. Changing things to make this even more so [ and favouring Tories] wont help this perception and may fuel further union break up/federalism

pleading for special treatment is hardly democratic.

(going solely on visual impression)

there’s a fairly flat trend already. it would take a lot of messing around just to make it slightly more flat

there’s a fairly flat trend already. it would take a lot of messing around just to make it slightly more flat

except that the standard deviation is over twice the target of 3,750 at 7,500.

there’s a fairly flat trend already. it would take a lot of messing around just to make it slightly more flat

This ^

Fair enough, I was under the impression that the boundary commission make recommendations but parliament decides how they’re implemented (that’s the phraseology they use themselves, it’s always “recommendations”)

The seats are to be allocated on the basis of fairness in terms of electorate, not votes

FPTP is the barrier to people being fairly represented in Parliament. Changing the size of constituencies is just turd polishing.

It will result in less MP’s though so some public purse savings.

The seats are not proportional to anything.

well they are trying to make them equal in size of electoral voters hence proportional is a fair description of this attempt ie 100,000 = 1 MP

or rather any solution that’s rational upsets the left

I think , with council tax, the rich will be more upset than the poor

pleading for special treatment is hardly democratic.

Ignoring a sector of your society/country/union is then 😕
Is the US senate* “pleading and undemocratic” [ lets not just do punchline here eh 😉 ] or is it recognising that fairness may not just be about simple numbers?

It wont help save the union or form One nation

As others note its fairly flat and that SD is somewhat ambitious if you are going to keep the IOW and the Scottish Highlands.

Stands corrected re independence by numerous posters.

* 2 senators per state irrespective of size of the voting cohort. The difference is millions of voters between the largest and the smallest iirc

is that the definition of “ignoring” that includes returning more elected members of parliament per member of the electorate than everywhere else, or a different definition?

It’ll be interesting to see how many seats Northern Ireland ends up with and where the boundaries are…

That graph needs adjusting. Start the Y axis at 40,000 for more impact.

It will result in less MP’s though so some public purse savings.

AIUI The Tories are dropping this suggestion and sticking with 650 and just tweaking the boundaries.

AIUI The Tories are dropping this suggestion and sticking with 650 and just tweaking the boundaries.

Your understanding is wrong.

Ok you win they will be over the **** moon with changes to the electoral system that gives the UK more tory MPs and gives them less MP’s and will simply apologise for having pleaded for special treatment. They will love the union more for this and they wont see it as a further example of the Tory westminster elite further eroding their FREEDOM

Whether this response is reasonable or unreasonable is a different debate to whether it will happen.

Your understanding is wrong.

I’m sure I read somewhere only this week that they were going to stick with 650 so as not to upset back benchers who might lose their seat.

EDIT It was the Sunday Times this week

The prime minister, who has a modest majority, will move to entrench the Tories’ position by pressing ahead with radical boundary changes to overcome what is seen as a bias in favour of Labour. But Downing Street is to scrap plans to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600, according to the Sunday Times.

http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2015/05/10/conservatives-to-push-forward-on-manifesto-and-scrap-human-right/

THe trouble with changing the boundaries based on population is that population is changing all the time and so you would have to redraw the boundaries every election so people would move in and out of constituencies every election depending on national population movements.

If we had a proper PR system with for arguements sake 500 seats then it would be very simple to say that each seat is worth 0.2% of the national vote and that would give you a ‘fair’ parliament. It does destroy the local MP link which will be more or less important depending on everyones perception.

= Labour bias at parliament.

Don’t worry Stoner the Tories have a solution………………………………PORK BARREL POLITICS !

Conservative vote rose in seats receiving extra government money

“The Conservative party won a bigger vote swing last week in areas where they had spent significant amounts of government money, an analysis has found”.[/b]

THe trouble with changing the boundaries based on population is that population is changing all the time and so you would have to redraw the boundaries every election so people would move in and out of constituencies every election depending on national population movements.

chris, the whole point of the Boundary review framework is to periodically adjust for population changes. The period is supposed to be every 8 – 12 years so that it doesnt happen too often, creating shocks to the system, but regularly enough to reset any bias.

It was the Sunday Times this week

Hadn’t seen that – would be surprised, with retirements and a few judiciously awarded knighthoods and lordships it should be possible to square away the back benchers.

PORK BARREL POLITICS

Is disappoint.
I dont recall getting much bacon thrown our way.
Although Harriet Baldwin did increase her maj, and has been rewarded with a Jr ministerial promotion – Economic Sec to the Treasury – a jumping off point for quite a few Big Hitters in the past including Mr Yvette Cooper, Patsy Hewitt and Sajid Javid. I have high hopes for our girl!

Can someone explain that graph in th OP to a foreigner (myself)?

The way I see it is that the Tories were more dominant in the seats with larger constituencies. Therefore, to get one seat in those larger constituencies swallowed up more Tory votes.

Redrawing the boundaries will disperse some of those Tory votes into other now smaller constituencies.

So under the redrawn boundaries, the Tories would have increased numbers in the now smaller constituencies, as the predominantly Tory voters from the larger constituencies have now been shifted around. The other colours (which were dominant in the previously smaller areas) would be diluted as the constituency size is shifted closer to the mean.

If this view is correct, you could say that the present system put the Tories at a disadvantage, and even despite this they won the majority that they did.

^ have a gold star. Spot on 🙂

although the dispersal of tory voters isnt really whats happening with boundary changes, it’s simply that the number of parliamentarians returned from strong labour voting areas would fall in total and the number of constituencies in traditionally strong conservative areas would increase.

obelix – the argument is it takes less labour votes to get a labour seat

OP, that’s fabulous, love it. Chapeau. 😀

the number of parliamentarians returned from strong labour voting areas would fall

And SNP, quite a bit of the imbalance is in Scotland, hence Labour did not benefit from it – 700,000 votes for 1 MP is not a great return.

Very interesting figure that.

I have no horse in the race, but you’d certainly have to admit that given the structural disadvantage this created for them, the Conservative majority certainly is the democratic will of the UK.

mefty – Member

And SNP, quite a bit of the imbalance is in Scotland, hence Labour did not benefit from it – 700,000 votes for 1 MP is not a great return.

Obviously a FPTP issue this, primarily, rather than a boundary issue- no amount of boundary changes can ever fix it.

But does highlight the stupidity of opposing electoral fairness just because right now it disadvantages you- the tables can turn faster than you think.

The Scottish imbalances actually cancel out (more or less). An electorate of c.4m, at 70k per seat ought to return 57 seats, they have 59. Not really anything massively wrong there, although Scottish seats have a mean of 66k registered voters and an SD of 10,000, but that’s not surprising since they also have 3 protected island constituencies of 22k, 33k and 47k in their lot.

Scotland had 72 seats fairly recently. That imbalance has already been resolved. What are the figures for NI?

What are the figures for NI?

1.2m electorate, 18 seats, mean of 66k and SD of 5,370

EDIT: an interesting figure as to the “scale” of the issue, is that over the c.290 constituencies with less than 70k electorate in each, there is a total “overallocation” of 24 seats in parliament.

I take the point. The conclusion ia therefore that FPFT cost in Scotland was greater than the boundary benefit in England so Labour seats on average cost more for the first time, rather than because some of the boundary benefit was attributable in Scotland. That graph does look very yellow near the y axis.

Scotland had 72 seats fairly recently. That imbalance has already been resolved. What are the figures for NI?

If I recall correctly NI and Scotland are about the same and neither are a million miles away from England. The only place where there seemed to be a significant discrepancy was for Wales.

Wales has a substantially smaller mean of 57,500 (2.3m and 40 seats) and an SD of 6,800.

8 seats over-representation.

BTW just been reading this

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/20-seats-lowest-turnout-show-labour-voters-drifting-ukip-or-not-voting-all

All 20 of the seats in Britain with the lowest turnout in the general election were won by Labour.

Great graph!

Of course some proper electoral reform (as opposed to AV) could sidestep all thses accuasions of gerrymandering etc.

Less of a point now that all of the south west peninsula is blue apart from Exeter, but my local super-safe-seated MP got pissy about boundary reforms because it looked like in his case he would actually have had to do some work to get returned as MP, with some very labour areas being brought into his patch -a legitimate worry for him on 2010 figures, he had his intern check certainly did his homework on that, but not borne out by the swing to conservative since 2010. Naturally he insisted it was because his constituency was geographically big enough already and would be unworkable as a funny shaped and craply-roaded patch. The size of his patch would still have been significantly smaller than most of the other rural constituencies nearby.

It was interesting to see him (a tory whip with his eye on the deputy speaker’s position at the time) break cover and speak out on it even if it was only really in the local press and local beeb. I look forward to emailing him about the lack of protest from him should similar gegraphically challenging but politically safe boundary changes come his way this time. 😀

Thread resurrection!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41643467

Back in the news.

2018 Review