Monday, 5 December 2011
Greater Manchester and Lancashire - my counter-proposal to the Boundary Commission
This has gone down pretty well with the Vote UK people who know what they are talking about. See what impressed them: http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/pdf/nw-submission.pdf.
Saturday, 17 September 2011
Local by-election preview 22.9.11
Results from last week:
Bramshott and Liphook: 2 C holds, 4.2% swing LD to C
Graiseley: Lab hold, 4.2% swing Lab to C
Headley: C hold, 10.1% swing LD to C
Highgate: Lab hold, 4.8% swing Grn to Lab
Highland: SNP hold, 0.4% swing SNP to C on first preferences (1.0% swing C to SNP since 2008 by-election)
Phoenix: Lib Dem gain from Lab, 7.0% swing Lab to LD
Surbiton Hill: Lib Dem hold, 0.9% swing LD to C
Just one by-election on 22nd September.
STAITHE, Fenland, Cambridgeshire; caused by the death of a Conservative councillor in a car crash. Welcome to Wisbech, self-styled Capital of the Fens. Located on the Cambridgeshire/Norfolk border, the town became a wealthy port in the 17th century, handling agricultural produce from the newly drained Fens; the River Nene here is still navigable. Many of the buildings in the town centre are Georgian, leading to some film and TV costume dramas being filmed here, while the town's most famous son is the slavery abolitionist Thomas Clarkson, who has a memorial and a ward named after him in the town. Staithe ward, one of seven wards covering Wisbech, is located on the eastern edge of the town before it merges seamlessly into the suburb of Walsoken, which is over the county boundary in Norfolk. Fenland distict is an extremely Tory part of England, with the Tories having a majority in 2003 and 2007 before a single vote was cast through unopposed returns and undernomination by opposition candidates; Staithe was Conservative unopposed in both those years. In May the opposition made an effort to actually contest the election, and Labour and UKIP candidates were nominated for the ward; the result was C 55.1 Lab 28.8 UKIP 16.1. The ward forms a quarter of the Wisbech South county division which at the last county council election in 2009 voted C 46.4 UKIP 26.5 Lab 10.6 LD 9.5 Libertarian 7.0. Candidates for the by-election are C, Lab, UKIP, Lib Dem and an Independent.
Bramshott and Liphook: 2 C holds, 4.2% swing LD to C
Graiseley: Lab hold, 4.2% swing Lab to C
Headley: C hold, 10.1% swing LD to C
Highgate: Lab hold, 4.8% swing Grn to Lab
Highland: SNP hold, 0.4% swing SNP to C on first preferences (1.0% swing C to SNP since 2008 by-election)
Phoenix: Lib Dem gain from Lab, 7.0% swing Lab to LD
Surbiton Hill: Lib Dem hold, 0.9% swing LD to C
Just one by-election on 22nd September.
STAITHE, Fenland, Cambridgeshire; caused by the death of a Conservative councillor in a car crash. Welcome to Wisbech, self-styled Capital of the Fens. Located on the Cambridgeshire/Norfolk border, the town became a wealthy port in the 17th century, handling agricultural produce from the newly drained Fens; the River Nene here is still navigable. Many of the buildings in the town centre are Georgian, leading to some film and TV costume dramas being filmed here, while the town's most famous son is the slavery abolitionist Thomas Clarkson, who has a memorial and a ward named after him in the town. Staithe ward, one of seven wards covering Wisbech, is located on the eastern edge of the town before it merges seamlessly into the suburb of Walsoken, which is over the county boundary in Norfolk. Fenland distict is an extremely Tory part of England, with the Tories having a majority in 2003 and 2007 before a single vote was cast through unopposed returns and undernomination by opposition candidates; Staithe was Conservative unopposed in both those years. In May the opposition made an effort to actually contest the election, and Labour and UKIP candidates were nominated for the ward; the result was C 55.1 Lab 28.8 UKIP 16.1. The ward forms a quarter of the Wisbech South county division which at the last county council election in 2009 voted C 46.4 UKIP 26.5 Lab 10.6 LD 9.5 Libertarian 7.0. Candidates for the by-election are C, Lab, UKIP, Lib Dem and an Independent.
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Local by-election preview 15.9.11
Results from last week:
Backwell: Indepedent hold, majority 38% over C, swing 1.7% to Ind.
Southmead: Lab hold, majority 14.1% over C, swing 2.9% to C.
Stock: C hold, majority 35.3% over UKIP, swing 15.2% to UKIP.
Seven by-elections on 13th September, for eight seats:
BRAMSHOTT AND LIPHOOK, East Hampshire and HEADLEY, Hampshire County Council; a rare double by-election for the district council and a county council by-election caused by the resignation of two husband-and-wife Conservative district councillors; the husband (the county councillor) has since died. Despite the order of the names Liphook is the major part of the district ward; it's a large village which started as a coaching stop on the London-Portsmouth stagecoach route, and is now bypassed by the A3; for London commuters Liphook station is on the Portsmouth Direct line, 47 miles from Waterloo and 28 miles from Portsmouth Harbour. The Headley county division includes the whole of this ward and extends to the north to take in the Grayshott and Headley wards; Headley is just another rural village as far as I can tell while Grayshott (birthplace of the actor Colin Firth) is contiguous with the Surrey village of Hindhead, now known for its newly-built tunnel on the A3. During the Second World War a large number of Canadian troops were stationed all over the division. Politically, this a very Tory part of England although the Lib Dems came reasonably close in the district ward in 2007; shares of the vote were C 63.7 LD 31.1 Lab 5.2 in the county division in 2009 and C 50.6 LD 32.3 Lab 17.1 in the district ward in May. Both polls are contested by the three main parties and the Greens, although the Greens are only standing one candidate for the district by-election; there is also an outfit called the Justice and Anti-Corruption Party standing for the county by-election.
GRAISELEY, Wolverhampton; caused by the death of a Labour councillor. From a very Tory area to a very Labour area; this is inner-city Wolverhampton to the west and south-west of the city centre, with all the deprivation that entails. Even at Labour's nadir in 2008, when they lost control of Wolverhampton, this was a safe ward and it's a lot safer now for the party; the result in May was Lab 64.5 C 16.5 Ind 13.6 LD 5.4. Candidates are the three main parties plus UKIP.
HIGHGATE, Camden, North London; caused by the resignation of a Labour councillor. Highgate has a reputation as one of London's most expensive and desirable suburbs, although the political effect of this is slightly diluted as the Camden/Haringey boundary runs right through the middle of it. Camden's Highgate ward runs south through the more socially mixed Dartmouth Park area as far as Gospel Oak station on the North London and Gospel Oak-Barking Lines; the ward includes Parliament Hill, known for its great views of central London; much of Hampstead Heath; and Highgate Cemetery, final resting place of Karl Marx. The politics of this area certainly isn't Marxist: this ward is a very stong area for the Green Party, which suggests a very large concentration of so-called Guardianistas living here; it elected three Labour councillors in 2002 with the Conservatives and Greens not far behind (the lead Green candidate was future Mayoral candidate Sian Berry); the Labour councillors lost in 2006 to two Greens and one Conservative; the Conservative councillor resigned in 2008 and the Greens won the by-election; in 2010 Labour regained two seats from the Greens. Shares of the vote in 2010 were Grn 30.5 Lab 29.0 LD 20.2 C 20.2, which almost suggests a four-way marginal. The same four parties are contesting the by-election.
HIGHLAND, Perth and Kinross; caused by the resignation of an SNP councillor who is emigrating to Australia. This ward is centred on the town of Pitlochry, 28 miles north of Perth on the Highland Line and A9 to Inverness, which is a tourist resort popular as a base for pensioners' coach holidays. At this time of year the tourist interest is centred on the Pitlochry Highland Games (which take place today) and the Festival Theatre (which uniquely puts on six different plays at once, one for each night of the week), while year-round employment is provided by the Tummel hydroelectric power scheme, with nine power stations of which Pitlochry is the lowest. Eight of those power stations are within this ward, which is one of the largest wards in the UK with an area of 900 square miles; for comparison that is bigger than Herefordshire and only slightly smaller than Luxembourg. The only other population centres of note in the ward are Aberfeldy and Blair Atholl; to the north is a large chunk of the Cairngorms National Park (including Glen Tilt, known to pilots as "Star Wars Valley"), the A9 and Highland Line run north-west through Killiecrankie, Blair Atholl and Glen Garry to the Pass of Drumochter, while to the west Strath Tummel leads up to Rannoch Moor with its comically isolated railway station on the West Highland Line. Perthshire is a strong SNP area and this is one of the SNP's strongest wards; first preferences in 2007 were SNP 58.4 C 25.6 LD 13.5 Ind 2.5, with the SNP winning two seats and the Conservatives one; interestingly all three winning candidates had a quota of first preferences so there was no need to do any transfers. Candidates for the by-election are SNP/C/LD and two Independents.
PHOENIX, Gedling, Nottinghamshire; caused by the resignation of a Labour councillor who is emigrating. Part of the eastern Nottingham suburb of Carlton, this ward is on the edge of the Nottingham built-up area and covers a fairly socially mixed area. Politically it's a Labour/Lib Dem marginal, Labour gaining both seats from the Lib Dems in May by majorities of 62 and 4 votes; shares of the vote in May were Lab 52.2 LD 47.8. Candidates are the three main parties plus UKIP, who appear to be working the area hard (for them).
SURBITON HILL, Kingston upon Thames, South London; caused by the resignation of a Lib Dem councillor whose new employer (Friends of the Earth) does not allow him to hold a council seat. Surbiton is an icon of suburbia in British TV such as The Good Life, thanks to its location on the South Western Main Line; Surbiton station is twelve miles from Waterloo. This ward runs south from the station through some very middle-class areas along the Upper Brighton Road and Hook Road. In 2010 the Lib Dems gained the ward from the Conservatives, who looked fairly safe on the basis of the 2006 results; shares of the vote in 2010 were LD 42.3 C 36.5 Lab 11.2 Grn 7.9 Christian Peoples Alliance 2.1. Those five parties are standing in the by-election together with an Independent.
Backwell: Indepedent hold, majority 38% over C, swing 1.7% to Ind.
Southmead: Lab hold, majority 14.1% over C, swing 2.9% to C.
Stock: C hold, majority 35.3% over UKIP, swing 15.2% to UKIP.
Seven by-elections on 13th September, for eight seats:
BRAMSHOTT AND LIPHOOK, East Hampshire and HEADLEY, Hampshire County Council; a rare double by-election for the district council and a county council by-election caused by the resignation of two husband-and-wife Conservative district councillors; the husband (the county councillor) has since died. Despite the order of the names Liphook is the major part of the district ward; it's a large village which started as a coaching stop on the London-Portsmouth stagecoach route, and is now bypassed by the A3; for London commuters Liphook station is on the Portsmouth Direct line, 47 miles from Waterloo and 28 miles from Portsmouth Harbour. The Headley county division includes the whole of this ward and extends to the north to take in the Grayshott and Headley wards; Headley is just another rural village as far as I can tell while Grayshott (birthplace of the actor Colin Firth) is contiguous with the Surrey village of Hindhead, now known for its newly-built tunnel on the A3. During the Second World War a large number of Canadian troops were stationed all over the division. Politically, this a very Tory part of England although the Lib Dems came reasonably close in the district ward in 2007; shares of the vote were C 63.7 LD 31.1 Lab 5.2 in the county division in 2009 and C 50.6 LD 32.3 Lab 17.1 in the district ward in May. Both polls are contested by the three main parties and the Greens, although the Greens are only standing one candidate for the district by-election; there is also an outfit called the Justice and Anti-Corruption Party standing for the county by-election.
GRAISELEY, Wolverhampton; caused by the death of a Labour councillor. From a very Tory area to a very Labour area; this is inner-city Wolverhampton to the west and south-west of the city centre, with all the deprivation that entails. Even at Labour's nadir in 2008, when they lost control of Wolverhampton, this was a safe ward and it's a lot safer now for the party; the result in May was Lab 64.5 C 16.5 Ind 13.6 LD 5.4. Candidates are the three main parties plus UKIP.
HIGHGATE, Camden, North London; caused by the resignation of a Labour councillor. Highgate has a reputation as one of London's most expensive and desirable suburbs, although the political effect of this is slightly diluted as the Camden/Haringey boundary runs right through the middle of it. Camden's Highgate ward runs south through the more socially mixed Dartmouth Park area as far as Gospel Oak station on the North London and Gospel Oak-Barking Lines; the ward includes Parliament Hill, known for its great views of central London; much of Hampstead Heath; and Highgate Cemetery, final resting place of Karl Marx. The politics of this area certainly isn't Marxist: this ward is a very stong area for the Green Party, which suggests a very large concentration of so-called Guardianistas living here; it elected three Labour councillors in 2002 with the Conservatives and Greens not far behind (the lead Green candidate was future Mayoral candidate Sian Berry); the Labour councillors lost in 2006 to two Greens and one Conservative; the Conservative councillor resigned in 2008 and the Greens won the by-election; in 2010 Labour regained two seats from the Greens. Shares of the vote in 2010 were Grn 30.5 Lab 29.0 LD 20.2 C 20.2, which almost suggests a four-way marginal. The same four parties are contesting the by-election.
HIGHLAND, Perth and Kinross; caused by the resignation of an SNP councillor who is emigrating to Australia. This ward is centred on the town of Pitlochry, 28 miles north of Perth on the Highland Line and A9 to Inverness, which is a tourist resort popular as a base for pensioners' coach holidays. At this time of year the tourist interest is centred on the Pitlochry Highland Games (which take place today) and the Festival Theatre (which uniquely puts on six different plays at once, one for each night of the week), while year-round employment is provided by the Tummel hydroelectric power scheme, with nine power stations of which Pitlochry is the lowest. Eight of those power stations are within this ward, which is one of the largest wards in the UK with an area of 900 square miles; for comparison that is bigger than Herefordshire and only slightly smaller than Luxembourg. The only other population centres of note in the ward are Aberfeldy and Blair Atholl; to the north is a large chunk of the Cairngorms National Park (including Glen Tilt, known to pilots as "Star Wars Valley"), the A9 and Highland Line run north-west through Killiecrankie, Blair Atholl and Glen Garry to the Pass of Drumochter, while to the west Strath Tummel leads up to Rannoch Moor with its comically isolated railway station on the West Highland Line. Perthshire is a strong SNP area and this is one of the SNP's strongest wards; first preferences in 2007 were SNP 58.4 C 25.6 LD 13.5 Ind 2.5, with the SNP winning two seats and the Conservatives one; interestingly all three winning candidates had a quota of first preferences so there was no need to do any transfers. Candidates for the by-election are SNP/C/LD and two Independents.
PHOENIX, Gedling, Nottinghamshire; caused by the resignation of a Labour councillor who is emigrating. Part of the eastern Nottingham suburb of Carlton, this ward is on the edge of the Nottingham built-up area and covers a fairly socially mixed area. Politically it's a Labour/Lib Dem marginal, Labour gaining both seats from the Lib Dems in May by majorities of 62 and 4 votes; shares of the vote in May were Lab 52.2 LD 47.8. Candidates are the three main parties plus UKIP, who appear to be working the area hard (for them).
SURBITON HILL, Kingston upon Thames, South London; caused by the resignation of a Lib Dem councillor whose new employer (Friends of the Earth) does not allow him to hold a council seat. Surbiton is an icon of suburbia in British TV such as The Good Life, thanks to its location on the South Western Main Line; Surbiton station is twelve miles from Waterloo. This ward runs south from the station through some very middle-class areas along the Upper Brighton Road and Hook Road. In 2010 the Lib Dems gained the ward from the Conservatives, who looked fairly safe on the basis of the 2006 results; shares of the vote in 2010 were LD 42.3 C 36.5 Lab 11.2 Grn 7.9 Christian Peoples Alliance 2.1. Those five parties are standing in the by-election together with an Independent.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Local by-election preview 8.9.11
Keswick result: Lib Dem gain from Independent.
By-elections on 8th September:
BACKWELL, North Somerset; caused by the death of an Independent councillor. This ward covers the large village of Backwell, eight miles south-west of Bristol on the road to Weston-super-Mare, together with the neighbouring villages of Brockley, Flax Bourton and Barrow Gurney. It is served by Nailsea and Backwell railway station on the Great Western Main Line, with direct trains to Bristol Temple Meads and in peak hours to London Paddington (126 miles away), which makes this a very desirable area for commuters to Bristol and even London (if you fancy spending upwards of four hours a day on a train). Politically this was a safe Conservative ward until 2007, when two Independents gained the ward after campaigning on a planning issue. The two Independents were re-elected in May with only a single Conservative candidate as opposition; shares of the vote were Ind 67.3 C 32.7. Candidates for the by-election are Ind/C/Lab/LD.
SOUTHMEAD, Bristol; caused by the resignation (due to ill-health) of a Lib Dem councillor. This ward is on the northern edge of the city next to the town of Filton and its airport. It started off life as a 1930s council estate to house people cleared from slums in the city centre, and is still an extremely deprived area, particularly when compared to the neighbouring middle-class ward of Westbury-on-Trym. Politically it's a rather volatile ward; safe Labour on the basis on the 2006 and 2010 results (the 2010 shares were Lab 40.5 LD 27.1 C 20.7 BNP 6.5 Grn 2.6 English Democrats 2.5) but the Lib Dems gained the ward from Labour in 2009 with a majority of 20 (LD 32.1 Lab 31.4 C 18.9 English Democrats 11.4 Grn 6.2). Candidates are LD/Lab/C/Grn/English Democrats.
STOCK, Essex County Council; caused by the disqualification of Conservative councillor Lord Hanningfield who is now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his House of Lords expenses. This ward covers a large rural area to the south of Chelmsford, including the villages of Stock, Margaretting, the Hanningfields and Bicknacre and the Wickford suburb of Runwell. There is one railway station in the far south of the division, at Battlesbridge on the Crouch Valley Line, 32 miles from Liverpool Street. This is a very right-wing part of England, and that together with the large size of Essex county divisions allowed Hanningfield to poll almost 6000 votes on general election day in 2005, when he was leader of the County Council; he was re-elected in 2009 with 65.7% of the vote, the opposition being split LD 12.5 Grn 8.7 BNP 7.8 Lab 5.2. With Hanningfield's fall from grace I would imagine that majority would be eroded somewhat. Candidates for the by-election are C/LD/Grn/Lab/UKIP.
By-elections on 8th September:
BACKWELL, North Somerset; caused by the death of an Independent councillor. This ward covers the large village of Backwell, eight miles south-west of Bristol on the road to Weston-super-Mare, together with the neighbouring villages of Brockley, Flax Bourton and Barrow Gurney. It is served by Nailsea and Backwell railway station on the Great Western Main Line, with direct trains to Bristol Temple Meads and in peak hours to London Paddington (126 miles away), which makes this a very desirable area for commuters to Bristol and even London (if you fancy spending upwards of four hours a day on a train). Politically this was a safe Conservative ward until 2007, when two Independents gained the ward after campaigning on a planning issue. The two Independents were re-elected in May with only a single Conservative candidate as opposition; shares of the vote were Ind 67.3 C 32.7. Candidates for the by-election are Ind/C/Lab/LD.
SOUTHMEAD, Bristol; caused by the resignation (due to ill-health) of a Lib Dem councillor. This ward is on the northern edge of the city next to the town of Filton and its airport. It started off life as a 1930s council estate to house people cleared from slums in the city centre, and is still an extremely deprived area, particularly when compared to the neighbouring middle-class ward of Westbury-on-Trym. Politically it's a rather volatile ward; safe Labour on the basis on the 2006 and 2010 results (the 2010 shares were Lab 40.5 LD 27.1 C 20.7 BNP 6.5 Grn 2.6 English Democrats 2.5) but the Lib Dems gained the ward from Labour in 2009 with a majority of 20 (LD 32.1 Lab 31.4 C 18.9 English Democrats 11.4 Grn 6.2). Candidates are LD/Lab/C/Grn/English Democrats.
STOCK, Essex County Council; caused by the disqualification of Conservative councillor Lord Hanningfield who is now serving a prison sentence for fiddling his House of Lords expenses. This ward covers a large rural area to the south of Chelmsford, including the villages of Stock, Margaretting, the Hanningfields and Bicknacre and the Wickford suburb of Runwell. There is one railway station in the far south of the division, at Battlesbridge on the Crouch Valley Line, 32 miles from Liverpool Street. This is a very right-wing part of England, and that together with the large size of Essex county divisions allowed Hanningfield to poll almost 6000 votes on general election day in 2005, when he was leader of the County Council; he was re-elected in 2009 with 65.7% of the vote, the opposition being split LD 12.5 Grn 8.7 BNP 7.8 Lab 5.2. With Hanningfield's fall from grace I would imagine that majority would be eroded somewhat. Candidates for the by-election are C/LD/Grn/Lab/UKIP.
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Local by-election preview 1.9.11
Have been doing local by-election previews on the US Election Atlas forum for a while, think this deserves a wider audience.
One by-election on 1st September:
KESWICK, Allerdale, Cumbria; caused by the resignation of an Independent councillor due to ill-health. Keswick (the W is silent) is a market town at the centre of the Lake District National Park, which was once a centre for pencil manufacturing (the world's first graphite pencils were made here) and now, this being the Lakes, gets most of its money from tourism. The ward also includes the rural Vale of St John to the east, which climbs between Wainwright's Central and Eastern Fells past the lake of Thirlmere (source of Manchester's water) to the pass of Dunmail Raise. Politically, this area is definitely not typical of Allerdale district, whose tone is set by the working-class and Labour-voting town of Workington, 21 miles to the west. Labour currently hold half the seats on the council and will have overall control if they win the by-election. Allerdale district has a lot of unopposed elections, and the last contested election in this ward was all the way back in 2003, at which the three main parties each won one seat, the Lib Dem candidate topping the poll. The Tory and Labour winners from that by-election are still there, while the Lib Dem councillor stood down in 2007 (she is now the county councillor for the area) and was replaced by a new Lib Dem councillor who was re-elected in 2011 as an independent. Interestingly the Tories are not contesting the by-election; the candidates nominated are Lib Dem, Labour and Green Party.
One by-election on 1st September:
KESWICK, Allerdale, Cumbria; caused by the resignation of an Independent councillor due to ill-health. Keswick (the W is silent) is a market town at the centre of the Lake District National Park, which was once a centre for pencil manufacturing (the world's first graphite pencils were made here) and now, this being the Lakes, gets most of its money from tourism. The ward also includes the rural Vale of St John to the east, which climbs between Wainwright's Central and Eastern Fells past the lake of Thirlmere (source of Manchester's water) to the pass of Dunmail Raise. Politically, this area is definitely not typical of Allerdale district, whose tone is set by the working-class and Labour-voting town of Workington, 21 miles to the west. Labour currently hold half the seats on the council and will have overall control if they win the by-election. Allerdale district has a lot of unopposed elections, and the last contested election in this ward was all the way back in 2003, at which the three main parties each won one seat, the Lib Dem candidate topping the poll. The Tory and Labour winners from that by-election are still there, while the Lib Dem councillor stood down in 2007 (she is now the county councillor for the area) and was replaced by a new Lib Dem councillor who was re-elected in 2011 as an independent. Interestingly the Tories are not contesting the by-election; the candidates nominated are Lib Dem, Labour and Green Party.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Lines on a map II - previews of the 2013 Welsh and Scottish boundary reviews
WALES (30)
The effect of the 2013 boundary review will be most keenly felt in Wales. Historically Wales has been over-represented at Westminster, a consequence of its distance from London and sparse population in some parts of the country. The previous Rules for Redistribution of Seats guaranteed 35 seats for Wales and for many years it has been divided into forty constituencies. Now, with the equalisation of electorates, ten of those forty seats will disappear. Just one of the present 40 seats (Cardiff South and Penarth) is within the 5% tolerance from the new electoral quota so the changes in each area will be drastic.
It's worth noting that Wales' arithmetic entitlement is 29.68 so, even with the equalisation, the Welsh seats will still be on average 1.2% smaller than quota.
Starting in the north, the entitlements are: Anglesey 0.65, Conwy 1.19, Gwynedd 1.12. The Ynys Mon seat is 35% under the new quota so there will be a seat crossing the Menai, probably for the first time. Having a "North West" grouping of Anglesey + Conwy + Gwynedd councils looks attractive; the combined area has an entitlement of 2.95 so could have 3 seats within quota; probably one based on Anglesey and Bangor (much of eastern Anglesey is within the economic orbit of Bangor), one based on the coastal resorts of Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and one covering rural Caernarfonshire, Merioneth and the Conwy valley.
In the north-east the numbers are less helpful: Denbighshire 0.97, Flintshire 1.51, Wrexham 1.30. Denbighshire can stand on its own but the other two councils can't, and neither can the combined area (entitlement 3.78). It would be possible to add Powys into the mix, which would make the entitlement of the area 5.11, good for five constituencies. The seats would presumably be: one based on Breconshire, Radnorshire and Newtown; one based on Welshpool and southern parts of the old Clwyd; one based on Wrexham and southern Flintshire; one covering the rest of Flintshire and one consisting of Denbighshire plus a ward or two from northern Flintshire (if Denbighshire stood on its own the rest of the area would be a very tight fit for four seats).
The old Dyfed is in a similar situation; the entitlements are Carmarthenshire 1.78, Ceredigion 0.73, Pembrokeshire 1.21. Now Ceredigion + Pembrokeshire comes to 1.94 so it will be possible to create two seats in the combined area, with the Preseli area moving into the Ceredigion seat and a new Pembrokeshire seat created from the rest of the county. Carmarthenshire will presumably have a rural seat based on Carmarthen itself (a straight merger of Carmarthen East/Dinefwr with the Carmarthenshire part of Carmarthen W/S Pembs would be sufficient) and an urban seat based on Llanelli expanding into Glamorgan.
In western Glamorgan the entitlements are: Swansea 2.41, Neath Port Talbot 1.42, Bridgend 1.35. With Carmarthenshire having a 1.78 entitlement the simplest option would be to group all four districts for an entitlement of 6.96 and an allocation of seven seats.
The rest of urban south Wales comes to the awkward number of 12.68 seats; 3.05 for Cardiff and 9.63 for the rest, broken down as Blaenau Gwent 0.70, Caerphilly 1.67, Merthyr 0.57, Monmouthshire 0.92, Newport 1.36, RCT 2.30, Torfaen 1.21, the Vale 1.21.
Arithmetically Cardiff could stand on its own for three seats, but then you end up with three awkward half-entitlements to deal with: the Vale + RCT = 3.51, Monmouthshire + Caerphilly = 5.55 and Merthyr 0.57, in an area where the Valleys constrain options for creating good seats. So probably Cardiff will go in with the surrounding areas in order to create more options.
SCOTLAND (52)
Two of those seats are for Orkney/Shetland and the Western Isles, which leaves 50 for the mainland. With an arithmetic entitlement of 50.54 the mainland seats will be on average 1.1% larger than the quota. Seven seats will disappear on the mainland.
In the south-west Dumfries and Galloway (1.52) needs a partner. Currently there is one seat (Dumfries and Galloway) within tolerance covering the west of the district and one seat which extends into South Lanarkshire (3.16 entitlement). The two Lanarkshire councils have an entitlement of 6.40, so it makes sense to group the three areas (7.92) and allocate eight seats. The area currently has seven whole constituencies (Airdrie, Coatbridge, Dumfries/Galloway, East Kilbride, Lanark, Motherwell and Rutherglen) and the majority of two others (Cumbernauld and Dumfriesshire), so overall a seat disappears here. Currently Dumfries/Galloway, East Kilbride, Lanark and Rutherglen are within tolerance, although Lanark will need to give up some territory to Dumfriesshire. Maybe this will allow the Boundary Commission to break a long-standing tradition and not split Hamilton between constituencies?
The three Ayrshire councils together come to 3.83 seats, so it will just about be possible to keep four seats within Ayrshire. The Ayrshire Central seat will need to be increased in size to come within tolerance.
The three Renfrewshire councils have entitlements of 0.80 (Inverclyde), 1.68 (Renfrewshire) and 0.89 (East Renfrewshire). No combination of these councils covering Renfrewshire can have an integer number of seats within the tolerance, so the Commission may choose to group the area with Glasgow (5.85). The combined area would have 9.22 seats and could be allocated 9 seats. There are currently 11 constituencies in this area so two seats will disappear here.
The two Dunbartonshire councils can't stand alone (East 1.05, West 0.87) but together come to a 1.93 entitlement so two constituencies can be allocated to the combined area. Probably part of Bearsden or Milngavie will move into the West constituency.
In the south-east, East Lothian (0.97) could stand on its own and could remain unchanged. Midlothian (0.81) and Scottish Borders (1.16) need a partner. Edinburgh (4.19) could just about stand alone for four seats, but the seats would be almost impossibly tight within the tolerance. Similarly West Lothian (1.61) and Falkirk (1.53) together come to 3.14 quotas, and it would be almost impossible to get three seats here within the quota. So the Commission may choose to group Edinburgh, Falkirk, Midlothian, Scottish Borders and West Lothian together for a total of 9.30 seats. Currently there are ten-and-a-bit seats here so one seat will disappear, probably in the Edinburgh area. Berwickshire/Roxburgh/Selkirk may be unchanged, while Falkirk and Linlithgow/Falkirk E need to be reduced in size.
In the north-east, Aberdeen (1.99) can be allocated two seats without question. The rest of the councils are:
Aberdeenshire (2.40)
Angus (1.14)
Clackmannanshire (0.50)
Dundee (1.38)
Fife (3.66)
Perth and Kinross (1.44)
Stirling (0.87)
There is no way to split these councils into two groups such that an integer number of seats can be allocated to each group, so the Commission will need to group them all for an entitlement of 11.39 and an allocation of 11 constituencies.
Finally, the three Highlands councils (Argyll and Bute, 0.88; Highland, 2.25; Moray, 0.87) can be grouped for an allocation of exactly four constituencies. There are provisions relating to geographic size of constituencies which will only have an effect here, although I haven't worked out what effect they will have.
The effect of the 2013 boundary review will be most keenly felt in Wales. Historically Wales has been over-represented at Westminster, a consequence of its distance from London and sparse population in some parts of the country. The previous Rules for Redistribution of Seats guaranteed 35 seats for Wales and for many years it has been divided into forty constituencies. Now, with the equalisation of electorates, ten of those forty seats will disappear. Just one of the present 40 seats (Cardiff South and Penarth) is within the 5% tolerance from the new electoral quota so the changes in each area will be drastic.
It's worth noting that Wales' arithmetic entitlement is 29.68 so, even with the equalisation, the Welsh seats will still be on average 1.2% smaller than quota.
Starting in the north, the entitlements are: Anglesey 0.65, Conwy 1.19, Gwynedd 1.12. The Ynys Mon seat is 35% under the new quota so there will be a seat crossing the Menai, probably for the first time. Having a "North West" grouping of Anglesey + Conwy + Gwynedd councils looks attractive; the combined area has an entitlement of 2.95 so could have 3 seats within quota; probably one based on Anglesey and Bangor (much of eastern Anglesey is within the economic orbit of Bangor), one based on the coastal resorts of Llandudno and Colwyn Bay and one covering rural Caernarfonshire, Merioneth and the Conwy valley.
In the north-east the numbers are less helpful: Denbighshire 0.97, Flintshire 1.51, Wrexham 1.30. Denbighshire can stand on its own but the other two councils can't, and neither can the combined area (entitlement 3.78). It would be possible to add Powys into the mix, which would make the entitlement of the area 5.11, good for five constituencies. The seats would presumably be: one based on Breconshire, Radnorshire and Newtown; one based on Welshpool and southern parts of the old Clwyd; one based on Wrexham and southern Flintshire; one covering the rest of Flintshire and one consisting of Denbighshire plus a ward or two from northern Flintshire (if Denbighshire stood on its own the rest of the area would be a very tight fit for four seats).
The old Dyfed is in a similar situation; the entitlements are Carmarthenshire 1.78, Ceredigion 0.73, Pembrokeshire 1.21. Now Ceredigion + Pembrokeshire comes to 1.94 so it will be possible to create two seats in the combined area, with the Preseli area moving into the Ceredigion seat and a new Pembrokeshire seat created from the rest of the county. Carmarthenshire will presumably have a rural seat based on Carmarthen itself (a straight merger of Carmarthen East/Dinefwr with the Carmarthenshire part of Carmarthen W/S Pembs would be sufficient) and an urban seat based on Llanelli expanding into Glamorgan.
In western Glamorgan the entitlements are: Swansea 2.41, Neath Port Talbot 1.42, Bridgend 1.35. With Carmarthenshire having a 1.78 entitlement the simplest option would be to group all four districts for an entitlement of 6.96 and an allocation of seven seats.
The rest of urban south Wales comes to the awkward number of 12.68 seats; 3.05 for Cardiff and 9.63 for the rest, broken down as Blaenau Gwent 0.70, Caerphilly 1.67, Merthyr 0.57, Monmouthshire 0.92, Newport 1.36, RCT 2.30, Torfaen 1.21, the Vale 1.21.
Arithmetically Cardiff could stand on its own for three seats, but then you end up with three awkward half-entitlements to deal with: the Vale + RCT = 3.51, Monmouthshire + Caerphilly = 5.55 and Merthyr 0.57, in an area where the Valleys constrain options for creating good seats. So probably Cardiff will go in with the surrounding areas in order to create more options.
SCOTLAND (52)
Two of those seats are for Orkney/Shetland and the Western Isles, which leaves 50 for the mainland. With an arithmetic entitlement of 50.54 the mainland seats will be on average 1.1% larger than the quota. Seven seats will disappear on the mainland.
In the south-west Dumfries and Galloway (1.52) needs a partner. Currently there is one seat (Dumfries and Galloway) within tolerance covering the west of the district and one seat which extends into South Lanarkshire (3.16 entitlement). The two Lanarkshire councils have an entitlement of 6.40, so it makes sense to group the three areas (7.92) and allocate eight seats. The area currently has seven whole constituencies (Airdrie, Coatbridge, Dumfries/Galloway, East Kilbride, Lanark, Motherwell and Rutherglen) and the majority of two others (Cumbernauld and Dumfriesshire), so overall a seat disappears here. Currently Dumfries/Galloway, East Kilbride, Lanark and Rutherglen are within tolerance, although Lanark will need to give up some territory to Dumfriesshire. Maybe this will allow the Boundary Commission to break a long-standing tradition and not split Hamilton between constituencies?
The three Ayrshire councils together come to 3.83 seats, so it will just about be possible to keep four seats within Ayrshire. The Ayrshire Central seat will need to be increased in size to come within tolerance.
The three Renfrewshire councils have entitlements of 0.80 (Inverclyde), 1.68 (Renfrewshire) and 0.89 (East Renfrewshire). No combination of these councils covering Renfrewshire can have an integer number of seats within the tolerance, so the Commission may choose to group the area with Glasgow (5.85). The combined area would have 9.22 seats and could be allocated 9 seats. There are currently 11 constituencies in this area so two seats will disappear here.
The two Dunbartonshire councils can't stand alone (East 1.05, West 0.87) but together come to a 1.93 entitlement so two constituencies can be allocated to the combined area. Probably part of Bearsden or Milngavie will move into the West constituency.
In the south-east, East Lothian (0.97) could stand on its own and could remain unchanged. Midlothian (0.81) and Scottish Borders (1.16) need a partner. Edinburgh (4.19) could just about stand alone for four seats, but the seats would be almost impossibly tight within the tolerance. Similarly West Lothian (1.61) and Falkirk (1.53) together come to 3.14 quotas, and it would be almost impossible to get three seats here within the quota. So the Commission may choose to group Edinburgh, Falkirk, Midlothian, Scottish Borders and West Lothian together for a total of 9.30 seats. Currently there are ten-and-a-bit seats here so one seat will disappear, probably in the Edinburgh area. Berwickshire/Roxburgh/Selkirk may be unchanged, while Falkirk and Linlithgow/Falkirk E need to be reduced in size.
In the north-east, Aberdeen (1.99) can be allocated two seats without question. The rest of the councils are:
Aberdeenshire (2.40)
Angus (1.14)
Clackmannanshire (0.50)
Dundee (1.38)
Fife (3.66)
Perth and Kinross (1.44)
Stirling (0.87)
There is no way to split these councils into two groups such that an integer number of seats can be allocated to each group, so the Commission will need to group them all for an entitlement of 11.39 and an allocation of 11 constituencies.
Finally, the three Highlands councils (Argyll and Bute, 0.88; Highland, 2.25; Moray, 0.87) can be grouped for an allocation of exactly four constituencies. There are provisions relating to geographic size of constituencies which will only have an effect here, although I haven't worked out what effect they will have.
Friday, 4 March 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)