Lines on a map - a preview of the 2013 English boundary review

So, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act has gone through. While the immediate focus will be on the fairer votes referendum which is now just two months away, the Constituencies limb of the Act is potentially just as important. Here's a preview of what I think the English Boundary Commission are going to do.

The Act reduces the number of constituencies from 650 to 600 and states that all of them (with certain exceptions) have to have an electorate within 5% of the UK average - on the December 2010 electoral register, between 72810 and 80473 electors. Today the four Boundary Commissions got together and published the allocation of the 600 constituencies between the home nations:

England 502 (including two seats for the Isle of Wight, which will be divided for the first time since the universal franchise)
Wales 30
Scotland 52 (including Orkney/Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
Northern Ireland 16.

The English Commission has also published the following allocation of seats between the English regions:
Eastern 56
East Midlands 44
London 68
North East 26
North West 68
South East 83 (including the two Isle of Wight seats)
South West 53
West Midlands 54
Yorkshire and the Humber 50.

Here's a preview of what might happen within each region.

NORTH EAST (26)

Entitlements:
Cleveland: 5.45* (currently 6) (2.69* (currently 3) for Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, 2.76* (currently 3) for Stockton and Hartlepool)
Durham: 6.31* (currently 7)
Northumberland: 3.16* (currently 4)
Tyne and Wear: 10.81 (Newcastle and N Tyneside 4.55* (currently 5), rest 6.26 (currently 7))

Areas marked with an asterisk* can't form a whole number of seats with each seat being within the 5% tolerance. So as only Tyne and Wear is able to stand on its own, there will have to be, for example, three whole seats for Northumberland and one seat crossing the border with a neighbouring county (or possibly more than one).

The regional boundary constrains options for dealing with Cleveland. It might be possible to create three seats south of the Tees, with Cleveland going into Redcar, Middlesbrough expanding eastwards and south Middlesbrough combining with Thornaby; one or two wards from south of the Tees might have to stay in a Stockton seat (Yarm presumably).

In the north, it would be obvious to reunify Northumberland which comes to 7.70, good for eight seats. The two North Tyneside seats are both within tolerance but will need reducing in size because the rest of the area is outside tolerance for six seats. I did an eight-seat proposal for this area a year ago in which Blyth and Ashington were combined into one seat, Cramlington went into Newcastle North and Hexham expanded right up to the Western Bypass.

The rest of the area (basically County Durham reunified) should be OK for fifteen seats - roughly 8.8 for Durham and Stockton/Hartlepool and 6.26 for southern Tyne and Wear. Getting a seat crossing the Cleveland/Durham boundary will be a lot of fun and probably one of Stockton, Billingham and Hartlepool will end up being split.

NORTH WEST (68)

Cumbria: 5.09 (currently 6)
Lancashire: 14.51 (currently 15)
Greater Manchester: 25.55 (currently 27)
Merseyside: 13.19 (Wirral 3.12 (currently 4), rest 10.06 (currently 11))
Cheshire: 10.20 (currently 11)

If each county's entitlement is rounded to the nearest whole number the total comes out at 69, so to reach 68 seats Lancashire and Greater Manchester will need to be paired and 40 seats allocated to the combined area.

The Wirral is now within the tolerance for three seats so there won't have to be a seat crossing the Wirral/Cheshire border (although it will be a tight squeeze to get all three seats within tolerance, and as Wirral having 22 wards which won't divide evenly there will be lots of ward-splitting).

The rest of Merseyside loses a seat, probably in the Liverpool/Sefton area. Knowsley and both St Helens seats are within tolerance and will probably stay as they are. Formby will end up being split between Southport and another Sefton seat.

In Cheshire, Warrington has an entitlement of exactly two seats, although the current North is too small and South is too large so they will need equalising. The rest of the county has to lose a seat. Congleton, Crewe and Nantwich and Macclesfield are within tolerance, so the seat will disappear in the west of the county (Weaver Vale or Eddisbury would be the most obvious choices for abolition).

Turning to Greater Manchester, the current groupings work out as:
Bolton and Wigan 5.69* (currently 6)
Bury 1.87* (currently 2)
Manchester, Salford and Trafford 8.81 (currently 9)
Rochdale 2.05 (currently 2)
Oldham, Tameside and Stockport 7.13 (currently 8)

The two Rochdale seats are both within tolerance and can stay as they are.

In the Manchester/Salford/Trafford group Manchester Central is currently about 1.5 wards too large (and growing very strongly) and Altrincham, Blackley and Stretford are too small. The minimal thing to do here would be to transfer all or part of Moston ward from Central to Blackley, move all or part of Hulme or Moss Side into Stretford and have Altrincham/Sale East take over part of Bucklow-St Martins ward.

The Oldham/Tameside/Stockport group loses a seat, presumably Denton and Reddish disappearing. Lots of ward splits here, probably.

Bolton/Bury/Wigan together works out at 7.55 which is outside tolerance for 8 seats. All three Wigan borough seats are within tolerance so a seat needs to disappear in the Bolton/Bury area. Since Lancashire is at 14.51 this is where the cross-border seat will be. Options could include moving South Turton into a Darwen seat (where it used to be), moving Ramsbottom into a Rossendale seat (ditto) or moving Adlington into a Bolton seat.

Lancashire also needs to lose a seat somewhere. It probably won't be West Lancashire which is in an awkward corner of the map and within tolerance. Currently the most undersized seat is Preston - perhaps a split of the town is in prospect? Will have to look at this again.

Finally, Cumbria can stand on its own for five seats. For fans of old county boundaries it should be possible to recreate the old Westmorland seat (with necessary modifications).

YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE (50)

Humberside: 8.99 (currently 10)
North Yorkshire: 7.94 (currently 8)
South Yorkshire: 12.71 (currently 14)
West Yorkshire: 20.58 (currently 22)

If each county's entitlement is rounded to the nearest whole number the total comes out at 51, so to reach 50 seats West Yorkshire will need a partner.

First, the easy bit: all eight North Yorkshire seats are within tolerance. Leave them alone.

Humberside breaks up into 3.14 for South Humberside and 5.85 for North Humberside. Six seats for North Humberside is attractive so South Humberside has to lose a seat. South Humberside suffers from similar problems to Cleveland but the regional boundary here is far more arbitrary and leaves very few options. Grimsby is very undersized and needs expanding; in order to accommodate this the Cleethorpes seat will have to expand all the way to the edge of Scunthorpe and then you run into problems with the county boundary or end up splitting Goole or something.

One way of resolving this problem would to transfer the Isle of Axholme to a Doncaster seat. Doncaster is 2.88 seats at the moment and would be 3.11 with Axholme included, so it could accommodate the Isle and still be within tolerance. The Scunthorpe seat can then take in some rural wards east of the Trent to reach quota.

Goole can then be transferred to a North Humberside seat (where it belongs). There will be some radical redrawing of the North Humberside seats needed as all three Hull seats are some way short of quota, while Beverley and East Yorks are right at the top of the allowable range. I had a proposal for this a year ago in which the three Hull seats expand outwards and there were three completely new rural seats: Beverley/Haltemprice, Bridlington/Holderness, and Goole/Yorkshire Wolds.

Sheffield has an entitlement of 5.04 so it should be possible to create five seats within the city boundaries. (The current Penistone and Stocksbridge crosses the boundary with Barnsley.)

The rest of Yorkshire is going to be very difficult. The current groupings are:
Bradford: 4.31* (currently 5)
Calderdale: 1.89* (currently 2)
Kirklees: 3.97 (currently 4)
Leeds and Wakefield: 10.40 (currently 11)
Barnsley and Rotherham: 4.80 (currently 5 and a bit)

In Kirklees Batley and Dewsbury are within tolerance, Colne Valley is too large and Huddersfield is too small, so the Colne Valley and Huddersfield seats will need equalising.

Bradford and Calderdale will need to be paired (for a 6.20 entitlement) and lose a seat. The Calder Valley seat is within tolerance, so Halifax will need to expand into Bradford West (which will probably be the seat that disappears).

Because West Yorkshire needs a partner in order that the region has the correct allocation, Leeds, Wakefield, Barnsley and Rotherham will need to be grouped for a total of fifteen seats. Leeds now has an entitlement of 7.12 so it should be possible to create seven whole seats in Leeds and eight in Wakefield, Barnsley and Rotherham. There will be major changes here, although the current Elmet and Rother Valley are within tolerance and in awkward corners of the map so they will probably be left alone.

WEST MIDLANDS (54)

Herefordshire 1.80* (currently 2)
Shropshire 4.57* (currently 5)
Staffordshire 10.97 (currently 12)
Warwickshire 5.32* (currently 6)
West Midlands Met County 25.34 (currently 28) (Birmingham 9.55 (currently 10), Coventry 2.93 (currently 3), Solihull 2.10* (currently 2), Black Country 10.77 (currently 13))
Worcestershire 5.69* (currently 6)

Staffordshire probably goes back to the eleven seats it had before 1997 with any necessary modifications.

Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire can't stand on their own but come to 12.06 when grouped together, so the Boundary Commission will probably do that.

This leaves the rest of the region a seat short, and the only way to get it back is to pair Warwickshire and Birmingham to create 15 seats (separately they would have only 14). Helpfully the only place to put a cross-border seat is in the Sutton Coldfield area, which will be one of the most controversial decisions of the entire review. Face it Sluttoners, some of you are going in with Erdington and some of you are going in with the Warwickshire coalfield.

The only change necessary in the Coventry/Solihull area is to reduce the size of the Meriden seat; probably Bickenhill or a part thereof will move into one or more Coventry seats. Solihull and all three Cov seats are currently within tolerance.

Poor decisions by the previous boundary review (which left the Black Country over-represented) mean that the area has to lose two of its thirteen seats.

EAST MIDLANDS (44)

Derbyshire: 10.12 (currently 11)
Leicestershire and Rutland: 9.85 (currently 10)
Lincolnshire: 6.98 (currently 7)
Northamptonshire: 6.61* (currently 7)
Nottinghamshire: 10.30 (currently 11)

Minor changes in Lincolnshire. The current Lincoln seat is undersized while Sleaford and North Hykeham is very oversized, so perhaps North Hykeham will finally end up in the Lincoln seat. Boston and Skegness is also undersized so will probably need a ward moving in from Louth and Horncastle to be within tolerance.

Derbyshire will presumably go back to the pre-2010 boundaries, mutatis mutandis.

Northamptonshire needs to be paired, but unfortunately the regional boundaries are very unhelpful in this, as the only county Northants can be paired with is Leicestershire. However, Leicestershire plus Northants is 16.46 seats which leaves the region a seat short. In order for the East Midlands to have its correct number of seats Leicestershire, Northants and Nottinghamshire will need to be grouped for an entitlement of 26.76 seats, an allocation of 27 seats and a right royal mess. There are currently 28 seats in these counties, so it's not clear where the seat will disappear; presumably in Nottingham as the current Nottingham East is one of the smallest seats in the country. Any suggestions for cross-border seats? Rushcliffe and Castle Donington? Loughborough and Keyworth? Market Ketteringborough?

EASTERN (56)

Bedfordshire: 5.64* (currently 6)
Cambridgeshire: 7.34 (currently 7)
Essex: 16.71 (currently 18)
Hertfordshire: 10.59 (currently 11)
Norfolk: 8.50* (currently 9)
Suffolk: 7.08 (currently 7)

Bedfordshire and Norfolk need pairing. Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire could stand alone but would be quite tight for an integer number of seats (particularly Cambridgeshire). So the Commission may well choose to pair Cambs/Norfolk and Beds/Herts.

Suffolk stays at seven seats. Currently all the seats are within tolerance except for Bury St Edmunds which is some way over. Neighbouring South Suffolk is only just within the lower bound, so the minimal change would be to equalise the electorates of those two seats and leave the rest as they are.

Essex presumably goes back to the status quo before 2010 with any necessary adjustments.

Herts + Beds is 16.23 seats so the combined area loses a seat. Currently the seats outside tolerance are Bedford, the two Luton seats, Broxbourne, Hemel, Hertsmere, NE Herts, St Albans (too small). The obvious place to put a cross-border seat is by expanding the two Luton seats into neighbouring Herts rural areas.

Cambs + Norfolk is 15.84 seats so there is no actual change in seat allocations. However, most of the rural Cambs seats are too large while Norfolk has three constituencies that are too small (Gt Yarmouth, North Norfolk and Norwich North), so the general effect will be to move electors from Cambridgeshire seats into Norfolk seats. The obvious cross-border seat is to put Wisbech in a Norfolk seat.

LONDON (68)

North of the river: 43.80 (currently 46)
South of the river: 24.92 (currently 27)

Considering the north and south of the river separately from each other would lead to 69 seats rather than the required 68, so there will be a cross-Thames constituency for the first time. London's entitlement is 68.72 so it was rather unlucky to be allocated only 68 seats; the reason for this is that if each region was rounded up to its own entitlement there would be 504 seats in England rather than the required 502. (The North West was the other region to lose out.)

There are obviously lots of ways to group the boroughs together, but the groups will have to be much larger than hitherto in order to keep seats within tolerance and lose the seat. Here's one possible set of groupings:

Bexley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark: 8.90 (allocate 9).
Currently Lewisham has 2-and-a-bit seats, Southwark has 2-and-a-bit and Bexley and Greenwich together have five, so overall a seat will disappear. Cross-borough seats will presumably appear in the Blackheath and Deptford areas.

Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon: 7.03 (allocate 7)
Currently Brent has 2-and-a-bit seats and Harrow and Hillingdon together have 5. Of the current constituencies, Brent North is too large while the Harrow and Hillingdon seats are too small.

Bromley: 3.01 (allocate 3)
Currently Bromley has 3-and-a-bit seats. It will probably go back to the pre-2010 boundaries with any necessary modifications.

Croydon and Sutton: 4.92 (allocate 5)
Strong population growth in Croydon means it is now too large to stand alone. Croydon Central is within tolerance but Croydon North and South are both too large and will probably lose a ward each to the Sutton seats which are both too small.

Hackney: 1.94 (allocate 2)
The Hackney seats are both within tolerance and should have unchanged boundaries.

Haringey: 1.96 (allocate 2)
Tottenham is currently too small and some territory will need to be transferred from Hornsey and Wood Green.


"North Central" (Barnet, the City, Camden, Ealing, Hammersmith, Islington, Kensington, Westminster): 13.46 (allocate 13)
Barnet currently has three seats; the City and Westminster have two; Ealing has three; Hammersmith and Kensington have three; Haringey and Islington have two each, and Camden has one-and-a-bit, so one-and-a-bit seats disappear here. Of the current seats, Holborn and St Pancras is too large while Ealing Central, Ealing Southall, Finchley and Golders Green and the Islington/Westminster/Kensington/Hammersmith seats are too small. Probably part of Hampstead would end up in the Finchley seat. Chipping Barnet will probably escape unchanged as it is within tolerance and in a corner of the map.

"North East" (Barking, Enfield, Havering, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest): 13.32 (allocate 13)
Barking and Havering currently have four seats, Enfield currently has three, Newham has two and Redbridge and Waltham Forest have five, so one seat disappears overall. Currently Chingford and Woodford Green, Dagenham and Rainham, Ilford North, Leyton and Wanstead, Romford, Walthamstow and the Enfield seats are too small while Ilford South and both Newham seats are too large - Newham actually lost part of a seat at the last boundary review but population growth has been so strong that East Ham is now the largest seat on the English mainland.

"South West" (Hounslow, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond and Wandsworth): 12.17 (allocate 12)
Hounslow currently has two seats, Kingston and Richmond have three, Lambeth has two-and-a-bit, Merton has two and Wandsworth has three, so only part of a seat disappears here. Currently Brentford and Isleworth, and Kingston and Richmond are too large, while Putney, Streatham, Tooting and the Merton seats are too small. The cross-Thames constituency will probably appear here.

Tower Hamlets: 2.02 (allocate 2)
As in Hackney, the Tower Hamlets seats are both within tolerance and should emerge unchanged.

SOUTH EAST (83)

Berkshire: 7.94 (currently 8)
Buckinghamshire: 7.06 (currently 7)
East Sussex: 7.69 (currently 8)
Hampshire: 17.13 (currently 18)
Kent: 16.12 (currently 17)
Oxfordshire: 6.20 (currently 6)
Surrey: 10.79 (currently 11)
West Sussex: 7.86 (currently 8)

Isle of Wight: 2 seats (currently 1)

Not much change overall in the South East; Hampshire and Kent are the only counties to lose a seat while a late change to the Act gave the Isle of Wight a second seat in order to avoid having a seat either side of the Solent.

Kent will probably go back to the pre-1997 boundaries. However, Folkestone and Hythe, and Ashford are too large and need to be reduced in size.

In East Sussex Brighton Kempton, Hove and Lewes are too small and need to be increased. The county is close to the lower limit for eight seats so this could be quite challenging.

In West Sussex Chichester is too large while Bognor Regis and Crawley are too small, so Chichester and Bognor will see some equalisation and Crawley will probably take a ward from Horsham or Mid Sussex.

Hampshire will probably go back to the pre-2010 boundaries with necessary modifications. Fareham and Gosport are within tolerance (although only just in the case of Gosport) and in an awkward corner so will probably be unchanged.

In Surrey, Spelthorne, Mole Valley and Reigate are currently too small. Since Spelthorne is cut off from the rest of the county by the Thames, it's difficult to see where the extra territory will come from.

The only change required in Berkshire is to equalise the electorates in Slough (which is too large) and Windsor (which is too small).

Oxfordshire was very close to getting a seventh seat at the last review; this time Banbury and Oxford East are too large and will need to be reduced, probably by donating territory to Henley which is the county's smallest seat.

In Bucks, Chesham and Amersham is currently too small while both Milton Keynes seats are (surprise surprise) oversized.

SOUTH WEST (53)

Bristol: 3.97 (currently 4)
Cornwall: 5.47* (currently 6)
Devon: 11.39 (currently 12)
Dorset: 7.51* (currently 8)
Gloucestershire (including bits of Avon): 8.66 (currently 9)
Somerset (including bits of Avon): 9.17 (currently 9)
Wiltshire: 6.57* (currently 7)

A Lords amendment to keep Cornwall at six seats failed to make the final cut, so there will be a cross-Tamar seat containing part of Cornwall and part of Devon. (Torridge and Bude? Plymouth North and Saltash? Tamar Valley?) Cornwall and Devon will be combined for a total of 17 seats, so one seat lost overall and probably all the seats changing.

Dorset and Wiltshire need to be paired for 14 seats (a loss of 1).

Gloucestershire needs some equalisation: currently Gloucester is too large while Forest of Dean and the three ex-Avon seats are too small.

In Zummerrzet, all the non-Avon seats are oversized except for Wells, while Bath and Somerset NE are very undersized and will need to be expanded.

Finally, Bristol will keep its four seats, but Bristol West will need to be reduced and Bristol East increased in size.

The timescales will be much tighter for the Boundary Commissions, who are required to deliver their final recommendations by October 2013 so that they can implemented at the 2015 general election.

Obviously these are just my ideas and I'm sure all the parties will be wanting to put in their two penn'orth.