REDRAWING THE CONSTITUENCY MAP – WITH A CHANGE OF RULES

Ron JohnstonSchool of Geographical Sciences

University of Bristol

THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS

1.Reduce the number of MPs by 7.7% (from 650 to 600 – was 585) - which necessitates

2.Producing a totally new map of constituencies to be in place for general election in May 2015 - for which

3.The rules will be altered to give primacy to electoral equality.

WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE?

Four Boundary Commissions

Each must review all constituencies within therelevant ‘country’ every 8-12 years to ensure that there is a reasonable fit to the rules thenin force (can conduct interim reviews forparticular areas)

THE PREVIOUS RULES - I

• The total number of constituencies in Great Britain shall be not ‘substantially greater’ than 613 (currently 632)

• The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less than 35 (currently 40)

• The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall by 17, unless the Boundary Commission for NI thinks it should be 16 or 18 (currently 18)

THE PREVIOUS RULES - II

• The number of constituencies in Scotland shall not be less than 71

until• The Scotland Act 1998,

The 71-seat guarantee removed; The next (i.e. 2004) review to use the same

quota as England (resulted in 59 seats); Orkney and Shetland (current electorate 33,085)

must not be combined with any other area

THE PREVIOUS RULES – III

So far as is practicable• In England and Wales no constituency shall cross

a county or London borough boundary• In Scotland regard shall be had to local

government areas• In Northern Ireland no ward shall be divided

between constituencies[For Wales, the counties are the pre-1995preserved counties’]

THE PREVIOUS RULES – IV

• The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable

• Electoral quota is National electorate/constituencies at previous review

• This rule can be used to override the county and borough boundary rule if ‘excessive disparity between electorates of neighbouring constituencies’ would emerge

THE PREVIOUS RULES – V

• The previous rules can be over-ridden if ‘special geographical considerations ... in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency’ render that desirable

• Commissions should not give full effect to all preceding rules but shall take into account, as far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences change may createAny local ties that may be broken

SO WHAT DID THE COMMISSIONS DO - 1?

1. Calculate the electoral quota2. Determine the number of constituencies for

each local government area (or combined areas)

3. Produce provisionally recommended constituencies for each area

4. Receive representations and, if necessary, hold a Public Inquiry

SO WHAT DID THE COMMISSIONS DO - 2?

5. Receive a report from the Assistant Commissioner

6. Change provisional recommendations and re-consult

7.Maintain recommendations and report to Secretary of State

AND HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?• Last review in England used electoral data for

quota from 2000; reported in 2007• These were used for the first time at the 2010

general election, so were 10 years out-of-date• Size variations 2010

Mean SDEngland 71,882 6,091Scotland 65,498 9,987Wales 56,545 6,501Northern Ireland 63,101 7,159

LARGE LOCAL VARIATIONS

2000 2010• Islington (2000 entitlement 1.71 – quota

69,935)Islington North 61,054 68,120Islington South 58,839 67,649

• Brent & Camden (2000 entitlement 4.22)Hampstead/Kilburn 74,573 79,713Holborn/St Pancras 78,307 86,863

WHY ARE THE CONSERVATIVES CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE VARIATIONS?

Mean electorates in seats won by differentparties 2001 2005 2010

Conservative 72,137 72,950 73,031Labour 67,544 66,802 69,145LibDem 69,584 69,430 69,610

AND

Seats:Votes Ratios 2001 2005 2010Conservative 50,625 44,516 35,028Labour 26,111 26,921 33,468LibDem 96,287 96,485 119,780

[BUT – that includes turnout variations too]

HOW DISADVANTAGED ARE THE CONSERVATIVES?

Bias and its Components 2005 2005E 2010

TOTAL 112 94 54Electorate size 26 19 18

Between countries 6 6 9Within countries 20 13 9

Abstentions 38 38 31Third parties 9 8 4Efficiency 35 34 0

SO THE CONSERVATIVES WANT TO GET RID OF THE SIZE BIAS AGAINST THEM

The new Bill proposes?

1.Fixed number of MPs (600)2.Size the predominant criterion, with a 5%+/-

variation only, with two exceptions

HOW WILL IT WORK?

1. Allocate constituencies to the four countries2. Allocate constituencies within countries3. Delimit constituencies within countries,

within the size constraint4. Public consultation

APPORTIONMENT AND ITS PROBLEMS

Entitlements with 585 seats (2010 electorates)

England 38,241,036 491.63 492Northern Ireland 1,135,835 14.60 15Scotland 3,864,416 49.69 50Wales 2,261,816 29.08 29TOTAL 45,503,103 585 586Quota 77,783

APPORTIONING 600

Current electoratesEngland 38,241,036 504.24 504N Ireland 1,135,835 14.98 15Scotland 3,864,416 50.96 51Wales 2,261,816 29.82 30TOTAL 45,503,103 600Quota 75,839

WHO APPORTIONS, AND WHAT RULES?

• D’Hondt or Sainte-Lague?With 585 D’H E 492, NI 14, S 50, W 29S-L E 491, NI 15, S 50, W 29

• Who decides – the four Commissions together? The Electoral Commission?

BUTGuaranteed seats for

Orkney & Shetland (33,085)Western Isles (22,226)

Should they be within Scotland’s allocation,which would mean 49 seats for 3,809,105, which would be an average electorate of 77,737 instead of 75,839 – should the 5% band be around that figure? (i.e. Scotland 73,851-81,623 and England 72,082-79,630)

OR

Should those two seats be outside the general allocation – reducing that to 598seats, which would give

England 503.17 503N Ireland 14.95 15Scotland 50.12 50 +2Wales 29.76 30

598

AND

Guarantee that no seat will be larger than the largest now – refers to size not electorate; 13,000 sq km (or is it 30,000?!)Northern Scotland – other than two reservedareasRoss, Skye & Lochaber 51,836Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross 47,257

WHAT ABOUT THE ISLE OF WIGHT?

Electorate 109,966

Should it be retained as a single, large constituency or should c.30,000 votersbe allocated to a constituency in Hampshire?

ALLOCATIONS WITHIN COUNTRIES

Former procedure – counties etc considered separately save in some cases of major discrepancies(London and Mets) not feasible because of the 5%constraint

Most units not close to the integerCornwall 5.52 Devon 11.49Somerset 5.31 Dorset 7.56Wiltshire 6.54

SO

Commissions will probably have to operate ad hoc, finding groups of counties etc. that have entitlements so that all constituencieswill be within the 5% constraintShould they publish these first?Could they be contested – alternative configurations?

WOULD REGIONS WORK?

EnglandNortheast 25.78 Northwest 69.23Yorkshire/Humber 50.40 East

56.19East Midlands 44.06 West Midlands 53.97London 69.43 Southeast 82.28Southwest 52.90

1. Poor fits in some cases2. Too big to handle as one – need to be subdivided

CREATING THE CONSTITUENCIES

Wards always used as the building blocks,and Clegg said he wishes to retain that. BUT this may not be feasible in some (many?) areas because they are too large relative to the size constraint (i.e.+/-

c.4000 around the quota)

SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Local government wards large because multi-member (STV used in local elections)

Scottish Commission had to break wards in a number of cases in recent redistribution of 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies (under old rules) – one constituency (Edinburgh Southern) comprises 6 part-wards only

METROPOLITAN AREAS

• Birmingham – electorate 741,286 in 40 wards, average 18,352

• Sheffield - electorate 383,989 in 28 wards, average (13,713)

seat entitlement 5; but 3 with 6 wards each and 2 with 5 each would not fit into the 5% constraint; each constituency would need to be c5.5 wards!

SMALLER BUILDING BLOCKS?

• Polling districts – subdivisions of wards for administrative purposes; variable in size etc; no statutory basis; no mapping; subject to change

• Postcodes – administrative; no fit with wards; frequent change; errors; no mapping (except Scotland)

• Census output areas – nest into wards; but population and dated

• Parishes – not urban areas!

A WELSH EXAMPLE

Lewis Baston and Owain Llyr ap Gareth (for ERS Wales) attempted to define 30 constituencies using the new quota and +/-5%

Eleven of them involved splitting council electoral divisions (i.e. wards) – including twoof the three proposed Cardiff constituencies and both in Swansea

SOLUTION?

Commissions will have to take ad hoc decisions, perhaps not using any defined areas (as for Scottish Parliament, 2010)BUTWhat happens if in public consultation interested parties want to suggest otherconfigurations with different splitting of wards?What data? What software? (Scottish example)Issue could become very difficult to control

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Current rules:1. Provisional recommendations published2. Four weeks for representations (not Cabinet Office

recommended 12)3. If either 100 separate objections or one from an affected

local authority – Public Inquiry4. Assistant Commissioner’s report5. Commission either maintain original recommendations or

proposes alterations6. Consultation again (could be second Inquiry) –even if only

name changes

TIME

On average it took over a year from publication to final decisions being published in last English review – total time taken 18 months each?BUTBill requires it all to be done within three years

OPTIONS?

• Eliminate public consultation?!• Eliminate Public Inquiries – give 12 weeks for

written representations• Increase Commission staffs and (in England

at least) number of Commissioners

ISSUES FOR THE REPRESENTATIONS/INQUIRIES

• If size is the predominant criterion that the Commissions have to apply, will any alternative scheme have to be at least as good on that criterion, or will it be acceptable if it fits within the size constraint?

• What other criteria can be applied –– Local ties– Not changing unnecessarily– Special geographical considerations– Better fit with local authority areas and wards?

FREQUENCY OF REVIEWS?

If keeping within 5%+/- bounds predominant, then a redistribution every Parliament might belogical (if unpopular with MPs) – fixed-termParliaments makes this feasible.

Interim reviews of particular constituencies or areas hardly feasible – spillover effects and fixed number of MPs

USE ELECTORAL FORECASTS?

• Linked to frequency of reviews• Very difficult (LGBCE experience)

WHAT DO THE COALITION (CONSERVATIVES) EXPECT?

Labour will lose their advantage because no longer winning in smaller seats on average

LibDems could lose out because some of their pockets of support small – larger could disadvantage them. But many contiguous pockets and increase in average constituency notthat great

AND WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT?

2010 Conservative 306 297Labour 258 223Liberal Democrat 57 53Other (incl. NI) 29 27 650 600Estimate that compared to what would happen if number of seats just reduced by 7.7% for each party, a further 15 seats change from Labour to Conservative; no change LibDems or other

ADD IN AV??!?

2010 = AV? AV&=Con 306 297 283 261 276Lab 258 223 248 229 214LibDem 57 53 89 82 82Other 29 27 30 28 28

650 600 650 600600

BUT – what if preference allocations change at nextelection reflecting ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of coalition?

KNOCK-ON EFFECTS

• Welsh Assembly currently same number of FPTP constituencies as there are HoC constituencies, plus half that number in five regional lists, so will be reduced from current 60 AMs to 45.

• Northern Ireland Assembly six members for every Parliamentary constituency – fall from 108 to 90.

• Amending legislation?