The Guest Slot - Harry Hayfield
April 23rd, 2006
-
Boundary Changes : The Great Leveller or An Unfair Advantage?
Since the Second World War there have been seven boundary changes to the United Kingdom parliament. Some have been caused by changes in the UK constitution (for instance the reduction of the Scottish seats) and some have been caused due to the underpopulation of urban centres and the overpopulation of rural areas, but do these changes favour any one party or do they reflect the whole country?
Ted Heath won Election 1970 with a majority of 30 (overturning Harold Wilson’s 96 Labour majority in 1966) when the boundary reviews started, by the time they had finished Britain had gained an extra five constituencies (which you may think seems not much effort for what was a radical sort through of the constituencies that had been in existence since 1955), but boy did the Boundary Commission of the day have it’s work cut out.
A massive 350 constituencies were “rejigged” and to give you an example of the sort of problems they faced, let’s take the two constituencies in Havering borough in London. Romford (in the north of the borough) had an electorate of 79,448 in 1970 whilst Hornchurch (in the south) had an electorate of 99,800 giving the borough a grand total of 179,248. Now that is plainly miles too many for just two constituencies so the Boundary Commission said “Right, let’s split Romford and Hornchurch in half and place them on the left hand side of the borough, and create a new Upminster constituency in the right hand side of the borough”.
So the Boundary Commission have made their judgement and now it’s down to the parties to campaign like billyo. But hold on a second! In 1970 Romford was won by Labour (Lab 53% Con 47%) and Hornchurch was won by the Conservatives (Con 50% Lab 42% Lib 9%), what’s happened to all those people who have found themselves in this new Upminster seat. Well, thanks to those technical whizzkids at the BBC Election Unit we have an answer. It appears that Romford loses Conservatives voters to Upminster and Hornchurch loses Labour voters to Upminster, so by that logic Romford becomes a solid Lab seat, Hornchurch a solid Con seat and Upminster must be therefore a bit of a mix of the two.
And it’s not the only seat to be left in a sort of limbo either. Kingswood, Dudley West, Putney, The Wrekin, West Bromwich West, Hazel Grove are all in the same boat as well as Devon North. (Hang on a moment! Are you trying to tell me that Jeremy Thorpe, Lib MP for Devon North didn’t win his seat!) No, in 1970 Devon North was Lib 44% Con 43% Lab 12% Dem 0% and that allowing for the boundary changes the Liberal majority over Conservative would be reduced even further. But don’t worry the BBC have a way out of this little problem. “If the name’s the same, then so is the party”. So what does all this rejigging do to the party totals.
Well, the clear loser is Labour who lose 9 London seats and the biggest gainers are the Conservatives who gain 11 Home Counties seats, so when we tot up the new starting post positions based on Election 1970 we find that compared with the Con 330 Lab 287 Lib 6 Others 7, the new positions are Con 338 (+8) Lab 284 (-3) Lib 6 Others 7. In other words, a Conservatives do the best out of that boundary change. And as we know, February 1974 led to a hung parliament.
The next set of boundary changes came into play in 1983 increasing the House of Commons by fifteen MP’s and here the benefits for the Conservatives were even more marked. At the 1979 General Election, the Conservatives won 339 seats, to Labour’s 269 and the Liberal’s 11 with 2 Plaid Cymru and 2 SNP members as well giving the Conservatives a majority of 43, but thanks to those wonderful boundary changes that majority rocketed up to a massive 68! How? Well, again Labour seats with a low electorate were merged and new Conservative seats with a high electorate established. The Conservatives gained 20 seats, Labour lost 8, the Liberals lost 2 and the Others (in Northern Ireland) gained 1, so it was no real surprise at all that the Conservatives won the 1983 general election.
There was a slight boundary change in 1992 when Milton Keynes got split into two and the interesting boundary change in Scotland when Loch Tay was brought into Tayside North and that several hundred fish now had a Conservative MP to represent them in Westminster as opposed to a Lib Dem MP.
But rhe next big boundary change came in 1997. Surely in the midst of an impending Labour landslide Labour would be rewarded. No chance! Election 1992 saw the Conservatives win 336 seats, Labour 271, Liberal Democrats 20 and the Others 24, along came the Boundary Commissioners, rejigged the country and left Britain with 343 Conservatives (+7), 273 Labour (+2), 18 Liberal Democrats (-2) and 24 Others. Yet again, the Conservatives gained seats as a result of the Boundary Commission.
At the most recent changes, caused by the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, again Labour had a poor showing due to boundary changes managing to lose 10 seats (of the 13 got rid off), so when the next set of boundary changes comes around for the 2009/2010 general election, what can we expect? Well, the simple answer is “More of the same!”
Using the same method as the BBC back in 1974 and using information published by Martin Baxter on his website, I’ve done a calculation for the new boundaries at the next election and surprise, surprise, the Conservatives gain whilst Labour lose seats! As we know at Election 2005, Labour won 356 seats to the Conservatives 198, the Liberal Democrats 62 and the Others on 30. After all the rejigging of the Boundary Commission, what do we get? Labour winning 348 seats (-8), the Conservatives winning 213 seats (+15), the Liberal Democrats winning 60 seats (-2) and the Others winning 29 seats (-1). Yet another example of the Conservatives gaining due to boundary changes!
But it doesn’t all go the Conservatives way in this latest rejig of seats. Clwyd West in Wales for instance was a sign of great jubilation as the Conservative got their first seat in North Wales for nearly 8 years, but hold on a second! Lab 36% Con 36% Lib Dem 13% Plaid 11% Others 3%! “No” cry the Clwyd West Conservatives, “don’t say we have to gain the seat all over again!” I’m afraid so and it’s not just the Conservatives who have the occasional hiccup. Take the Liberal Democrats and their mighty gain of Rochdale. Sorry Menzies it’s back to square one for you there (Lab 41% Lib Dem 40% Con 11% Others 8%) and even Plaid Cymru have troubles losing Arfon to Labour by 95!
So seven sets of boundary changes since the Second World War and since 1974 every single boundary change has helped the Conservatives and hindered Labour! What we do know is that come the next election, David Cameron will have a spring in his step as he sets off in his battlebus (but a spring created by the Boundary Comissioners!)
Harry Hatfield
Note by Mike Smithson. Would you like to write a guest slot? Please drop me an email
MessageSpace Advertising
An entirely disingenous article.
Here in West Yorkshire the boundary commission has recommended that the number of seats be cut from 23 to 22. The seat that they have recommended by abolished is my own constituency of Normanton. The present incumbent Ed Balls is fighting like hell to have this decision over turned.
All part of the great cycle of British politics. Labour areas, predominently urban areas, lose population and Tory areas, predominently suburban areas, gain population. But as the population moves the suburban areas become more urban and Labour tends to ‘get back’ the seats it lost.
Labour have a built-in advantage because their electorates are smaller - in other words it takes fewer people to elect a labour mp than a tory mp. Although the reviews are meant to equalise electorates they take such a long time that by the time the changes are implemented the tory seats have grown again to be larger in electorate than the labour ones.
The boundary changes complained of are entirely justified as a way of providing roughly equal numbers of electors per constituency ( about 65,000 from memory). The Isle of Wight is a good example. The electorate for the existing constituency is over 120,000 from memory. It’s high time the island had two constituencies and, again as I recall, that’s what’s been recommended. The implication of the piece is that Labour should benefit indefinitely from increasingly tiny electorates in inner cities whilst Conservatives lose out with ever growing constituencies in the suburbs. Thank god we have an independent Boundaries Commission whose verdicts everyone accepts ( after appeals have finished)rather than the US where both Parties fiddle the boundaries in their own interests or, just as bad, to feather bed and perpetuate incumbency.
If Mike’s around does he think that the brand new boundaries will make it more difficult for some Lib Dem incumbents to hang on ( because they won’t be well known by some of their new voters) in what might be a difficult climate for the Lib Dems generally. Also will the new boundaries make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to run the third party squeezes necessary for successful targeting (’ Lib Dems winning here’) because local people won’t really know who is best placed to win and therefore will be more difficult to persuade to vote tactically. ( actually the Lib Dems’ efforts were only patchily successful here last time).
One forecast I’ll confidently make. Whatever the complaints about the Tory bonus from the Commissioners, it will take many more votes to get a Tory elected than a Labour candidate and, in fairness, a heck of a lot more still to get a Lib Dem elected.
4/5 The slightly smaller size of Labour constituencies has a slight effect in making the results biased in Labour’s favour but it is not the major cause . Interestingly the Isle of Wight will still be 1 large constituency because there was a complete consensus for the status quo at the Boundary Commission Review including strangely from the Conservatives . Of rather more importance at the last election it was the much lower turnout in safe Labour seats that caused roughly a 2% lower differential in the lead of Labour over the Conservatives .
Boundary reviews only mitigate somewhat any imbalances. IIRC populations used are those fromt he last census, not the latest projection, hence there is still a timelag, in this case 2001 census for a 2009? election. There was a proposal to use projected population figures but this got nowehere. I believe, for example, it would have produced a notional Tory seat in Oxon. On the other hand, The Boundary Commission trying to second guess future populations got it worng in Kingston in the late 1970s, creating 2 undersized constituencies (Surbiton and Kingston). Other factors are at play, to what extent are County. Metropolitan District and London Borough boundaries unviolable? Admittedly, for County not a great issue, but Met Districts and London Boroughs can affect the results. eg. If Camden and Islington have a quota for 3 seats in total, how would this be split if both boroughs are counted separate, 2+1, 1+1, 2+2, 1+2?
5-Some staes, Oregon and Iowa, bravely have an independent boundary comission. Arnie wanted one for California, the democratic Democrats screamed blue (or red?
) murder and it got voted down at a referendum…
“Also will the new boundaries make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to run the third party squeezes necessary for successful targeting (’ Lib Dems winning here’) because local people won’t really know who is best placed to win and therefore will be more difficult to persuade to vote tactically.”
you could be sure that they would produce all necessary barcharts!
Thanks Mark . I rather assumed there would be two; indeed I thought I remembered talk that this was going to happen but it must have been out of date speculation. I suppose the trouble is that if you divide the island into two the numbers of electors is a little lower than the threshold of votes and there’s not much support for creating a seat which takes in part of the mainland. From the Conservative point of view a completely safe seat would be created but perhaps at the expense of creating a very decent prospect for the Lib Dems. Whatever the partisan arguments I think there should be two seats for the island even if it gives the population slightly lower numbers than the threshold. After all they’ve been suffering from the opposite problem for years.
I believe most people on the Isle of Wight are opposed to splitting the Island into two constituencies.
5 - “Also will the new boundaries make it more difficult for the Lib Dems to run the third party squeezes necessary for successful targeting (’ Lib Dems winning here’) because local people won’t really know who is best placed to win and therefore will be more difficult to persuade to vote tactically. ( actually the Lib Dems’ efforts were only patchily successful here last time)”
To be honest I expect the opposite, with an absence of definite previous results, Liberal Democrat campaigners have license to be far more disingenuous with the statistics and can take their pick of the available statistics. For some seats the ability to extrapolate local results rather than the previous GE result will be manna from heaven (take Outer York, for example)…
6/9. how is the vote spread on the Isle? are there (contiguous) areas that if put together could create a LD seat?*
* does the question make sense?
One inequality that has not been corrected is the allocation of seats to Wales.
At the last election the Scottish seats were reduced from 72 to 59 by using the english electoral quota of 69,932.
However the recent review of Wales was conducted using an electoral quota of 55,640. This resulted in an allocation of 40 seats, whereas if the english electoral quota was used 32 seats would have been allocated in Wales.
I’m currently one of 69,279 potential voters in the revised Chester seat, whereas just over the border in Wales the electorate of the revised Wrexham seat is 50,890 !
Post devolution how can this can be justified ? I can understand why Labour and PC have kept quiet about this, but can’t understand why the tories haven’t questioned this. After all an extra 6 to 8 Labour seats at the next election could make a significant difference.
OT: early results seem to point out in the direction of a re-election for socialists in Hungary.
By the tone of this article you’d think there was a big conspiracy to reward the Conservatives each time there is a boundary change. It is simply not the case and can be explained by changes in population between urban, suburban and rural. The boundary changes this year do not recify the imbalance in England: and that is that the Conservatives in England, marginally were the largest party in England but did not win the most, or even half of the seats. In fact electorally they ‘wus robbed.’
15 - You certainly would get that impression. What a load of codswallop.
I hope this article is not suggesting that the Boundary Commissions are biased towards the Tories. The amount of jiggery pokery that goes on after they make their (entirely fair) suggestions is unfortunate and the element of politicial appealing against their decisions shouldn’t be allowed. I don;t think they go anywhere near far enough and even with the forthcoming changes the differencs from the average electorate allowed are FAR too large.
15 - The reason for this is explained above at 6. Although Labour constituencies are smaller the major discrepancy is caused by differential turnout ie labour get less votes in safe urban seats than the tories get in safe rural seats. Also, historically this works both ways. In 1951 Labour got more votes but less seats than the Tories.
13 - The argument that Wales would put forward is that they are materially different to Scotland, only having an assembly rather than a Parliament with no primary legislative powers therefore the status quo should be maintained.
7 - Using projections is clearly dangerous, they can be wrong as well as right.
With boundary reviews you never get all seats meeting the electoral quota due to the attempt to retain constituencies that are reasonably contiguous. For example the debate in West Yorkshire is about whether Wakefield should have to ’share’ a constituency with Leeds. The aim of the boundary commission is to balance these concerns with achieving electoral fairness and as has been said I think they do a very good job and we’re lucky to not have the US system.
I wonder why Conservatives are irritated by the BC?? Maybe the fact that we will need to be 12% ahead on a uniform swing of the popular vote to form an overall majority has something to do with it?
The population shifts has very little to do with this. In Wakefield, for example, the Labour party engineered Sandal and most of Walton out of the marginal Wakefield constituency and into the ultra safe Hemsworth seat.
In Dewsbury they did the same with Kirkburton and Denby Dale to make this constituency far more favourable to the party.
Political interference has hijacked the BC for years
The opening is rather incorrect. The 1948/49 act specified reviews after every five years. There was a major review in 1948/9 and then a minor review in 1955. This was thought to cause unnecessary disrurption and so it was changed to ten years.
The review began in 1965 and when completed in 1969, the then Labour Governemnt laid the orders before Parliament and voted them down.
The Heath Government accepted them as published and so the changes came in for Feb 1974. Sadly these were amendments to constituencies designated in 1955.
The example you give of Havering is completely off kilter.
In 1950, the then Romford constituency was Conservative, it consisted of the Borough of Romford and Brentwood UDC. The Hornchurch constituency (Hornchurch UDC) was Labour.
In 1955 Brentwood was removed and Romford was reduced to the Borough of Romford and was won by Labour, with Hornchurch being a Conservative gain.
Labour retained the old Romford until Feb 1974 and and Hornchurch changed inhands in 1966 and 1970.
The issue of expansion, was the growth of the massive LCC estate at Harold Hill. This made Romford increasingly safe for Labour. However, it was in an odd position in relationship to the rest of the old Romford Borough, and it was easy to join Harold Hill (Gooshays, Heaton and Hilldene wards) on to the most Conservative wards of Hornchurch (Emerson Park, Cranhama and Upmister) plus the more marginal Harold Wood to form a new seat that was going to bea Conservative inclined marginal. This left Romford comfortably Conservative and Hornchurch commfortably Labour.
In the 1973 GLC election, the Conservatives won Romford by 2,000+ votes and Upmisnter by 700+ votes. Labour won Hornchurch by about 3,000. The Labour winner in Hornchurch was Serge Lourie, now Lib dem leader on Richmond Council.
I am not sure why Putney is mentioned as it was only subject to minor amendments in 1974.
In 1974 three London constituencies, Greenwich; Camden, Hampstead and Lambeth, Norwood were effectively identical to the 1885 boundaries.
Hampstead gained a handful of voters in Upper Park Road, otherwise it was unchanged.
HH appears to present a quite extraordinary contortion of the true position, suggesting that the Tories have been consistently favoured by the Boundaries Commission, whereas in truth they have consistently been disadvantaged by the inordinately long period of time it takes the Commission to report and for its recommendations to be implemented.
Even now, after all the reports to which HH refers it remains an inexplicable fact that Scotland and Wales continue to be over-represented in terms of the MPs they each return to Westminster, thereby, in both cases, favouring Labour.
A fairer seat distribution will help the Conservatives, at the moment they are at a disadvantage, surely the change benefits democracy.
20 - I’m not sure if Scotland is particularly over-represented now. I think most Scottish constituencies are of a similar size to English ones - with a couple of exceptions - the Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland.
23. 6 Scots constituencies are under 60,000 voters. 17 are above 70,000 voters.
The average is 65,324.
Is it not the case that the oft-repeated allegation of boundary rigging by the Labour Party originates from the 1969 decision to reject the Boundary Commission’s recommendation-as it was,the 1970 election was fought on incredibly old boundaries-from memory,I recall Billericay in Essex had bloated to 123,000 voters by the time of the 1970 election,whilst Birmingham Ladywood had shrunk to 19,000.
Also,I cannot help but notice that the 1974 review had comparatively little effect on seat totals,not surprising as it was seemingly a revamp of whta had been intended for the late 1960s;furthermore,I recall the 1995 reviews(the reviews ususally occur mid-parliament) were vigorously monitored by the Labour Party,who I recall being pleased that only 7 extra Tory seats were created,along with 2 Labour.(On this topic,Southampton Test,held by 585 votes in 1992,lost a leafy suburb in its northern outskirts(Bassett) to neighbouring Romsey,so that by 1997,Southampton Test was notionally a Labour marginal,by c 2700 votes.
23 & 24 - That does sound a great deal fairer, it doesn’t seem that long ago since we saw Glaswegian MPs elected with as few as 12000 votes.
The blogs on Moray are fascinating. Looks like party workers whoever they are, keeping their spirits up.
See someone says they have had 12 pieces of paper from the Conservatives, with a week to go at the time of writing. If so that is some going, were they posted.
If you believe the bloggers it could be a 3 way split, but I still read it as comfortable for SNP. If its a fine day I suspect there may be a reasonable turnout.
Will Rennard stay or speak?
18. The contiguity argument is nonsense. With modern computer mapping systems you could create contigous constituencies of any shape whatever which never differed from the average by more than a few dozen votes. Of course they wouldn’t fit the existing municipal boundaries, but I thought that the boundary commission was meant to be about fairness. Still if people can support a party which can see nothing wrong with 54% of the seats with 37% of the votes then they probably think anything’s fair.
I presume the article was written to wind people up as the slant is quite extraordinary.
Surely as democrats we want parliamentary seats that have about the same number of voters. For the tories to get a majority of votes in England but significantly fewer appears wrong but is explicable under FPTP if turnout in Labour seats (but not potential electorate) is lower. That to me seems a quirk worth living with. What I think is wrong and why the article is simply mischievous is any suggestion that seats should not have a similar number of voters. If seats need to be adjusted so be it. The fact it favours one party this decade and another party another decade should be immaterial. The review process is too slow and open to party political interference.
Definetely one of the poorer guest pieces, which are usually much more balanced
I hear there will be a new constituency in Hampshire, v close to Winchester. In Autumn last year Mark Oaten was rumoured to be planning to contest the new seat, in an attempt to use his “local popularity” to create another LD stronghold.
In the light of Mark’s rather interesting January, is this still the LD plan? If not, does anyone know what the Tory/LD plans are?
27. David(s), I was told (by Max, I think) here that the constituency is quite large, so it’s possible to see lots of activities of one party and nothing from another in one area and the total opposite in another area. That could explain bloggers’ different views on who’s working harder.
29. Yes second guest article by HH, second feeble wind up. Very tiresome.
30 - No definite predictions from me yet, but I would suggest that Oaten would be wise worry about retaining his own seat first. I don’t think his political career is secure by any means.
33 - agreed. Was surprised to hear that he is getting his wife to do interviews again as part of his “comeback”.
Hasn’t she had enough of this type of thing.
34. maybe she didn’t mind them
27 - I disagree on the turnout. In 2003 it was only (IIRC) 46% and could go lower next time.
31 - Yes it is very big although it doesn’t quite compare to the huge Highland seats.
33 - Alastair - I’ll send you a little update on how things are going up here tomorrow!
Surely the Isle of Wight case - where IIRC the Commissioners had to be talked out of creating two seats by (I think) all the witnesses - shows that real people (as opposed to us lot
) value an area they can identify with over strict numerical equality.
[28] Presumably a computer could generate lots of alternatives that would fit the criterion you suggest.
Leafing through the coverage of the Moray by election I’m hard put to determine who has shot themselves in the foot the most effectively. The Tory was surely unwise to represent herself as the ‘natural heir’ to the previous SNP member in literature which omitted to mention at all that she was the Tory candidate; this has drawn Winnie Ewing into the fray to denounce her. And the Lib Dems doctored their own statements which had been quoted in the Northern Scot to give the impression that the Northern Scot was endorsing their candidate. Apparently the same tactic was used in Dunfermline but cunningly in a last minute leaflet so there was no time for the local paper to complain. The Northern Scot are furious. It could cost the Lib Dems second place.
The big story re. the mid-90s boundary changes was just how little they rewarded the Tories. As a Labour Party activist, I remember the great sense of relief which greeted the changes. Yes, the Conservatives gained seven seats, but they were expected to gain at least an extra twenty seats. The experience in Staffordshire was typical - the new Stone seat just served to take away Conservative votes from the two Conservative marginals of Stafford and Staffordshire Moorlands, so much so in Staffordshire Moorlands that it was calculated by Rallings and Thrasher to have, on the new boundaries, a Labour majority even on the 92 shares of the vote.
Two marginals weakened by the creation of just one new safe seat - not exactly favouritism towards the Tories.
37 - I shall look forward to that, Max.
41. at least your email box will gain some political depth
re 38. Yes it could and that’s where people come into choosing the one which is most acceptable for a huge variety of reasons. And that is where the process should then stop. No political intereference, no need for vote in the HoC.
42 - Yes! It could do with some of that…
39 - I don’t know what the Ewing intervention tells us. It’s hardly a secret that Winnie Ewing was less than happy with her daughter being passed over for selection.
Annabell Ewing herself is taking part in a charity event for Perth Women’s Aid so has been absent from the campaign.
39 - I think that from a PR perspective that was actually very effective. By being drawn into a high profile spat between the party that holds the seat and is favourite for the by-election drains away the Lib Dem media coverage.
It also helps promote the perception in voters minds that it is a fight between the Tories and SNP… something which will benefit Moray as it is surely fertile Tory territory
re 29. I thought long and hard before deciding whether to publish it because it is so biased - but in the interests of free speech I let it go. I also had fun doing the collage of Tory PMs.
Of course in recent times at least Labour are the great winners because the boundary change process moves so slowly. They’ve also got their massive Welsh bonus.
Mike Smithson
Mark Oaten and his wife should think of their children and not give any interviews to the press. People have made up their mind over what he did one way or another.
Sid. I was Mark Oaten’s opposition at the last GE and I had exactly that conversation with him standing in front of Winchester’s hospital for a photo shoot. He clearly felt he could win the new seat (Meon Valley) though personally I think he’d have been hard pressed.
The seat has a Tory majority of about 4,000 by my calculartions and that already includes what was then called the “Oaten effect” in the currently Winchester part of the new seat.
My reading of the situation now (I’m on the local council) is that he’ll do well to persuade the Lib Dem members in the new Winchester seat to reselect him let alone have a go at the Meon Valley.
45. Max - I thought family-owned seats went out in the nineteenth century….
47. Very generous of you Mike, but perhaps you might be less indulgent next time.
47 - I found it amusing that the ‘grey’ Major, was the only one in colour.
46 - Not sure I agree both Fergus and Winnie are very well thought of. Fergus is almost unique in being about the only right of center nationalist MP.
The Northern Scot has been extremely helpful to the Nats in attacking both the Tories and Libs whilst not saying anything about some of the things the SNP have said - or about the vandalising of Tory posters!!!
47. Mike- do you not think that the vast majority of articles (including yours) have an inbuilt bias! A better informed piece than the Lancaster student last week.
152 - Jim Mather and Andrew Welsh are on the Centre-Right of the SNP also.
154 - I suppose but I think there is a distinction between being on the right of the SNP and the right of the political spectrum. In an independent Scotland I could imagine Fergus Ewing sitting in a new right of center party I’m not so sure if the same is true of the other two.
50 - I suppose the Ewing’s are pretty unique these days. Perhaps AHM can help with this one - was Dominic Grieve’s father an MP too?
46 The SNP are certainly pushing the line that the Tories are the challengers which makes me think they’re more worried by a Lib Dem surge. I just think the Tory campaign was unwise to draw Winnie Ewing into the campaign. Her absence from the fray until then had been useful ( as you say fed up with her daughter not being selected). The local Tory reaction to the kerfuffle was a very defensive line that quite a few local people hadn’t heard about it which suggest they were embarrassed. However, as a mere sassenach I’m conscious I’m straying out of my depth.
56 - Max, Yes, Percy Grieve was MP for Solihull from 1964 until either 1983 or 1987 (can’t remember when he retired)
56 - Yes, Sir Percy Grieve was MP for Solihull from 1964 to 1983, I think.
58 - Since when is your name AHM??!! Bloody Hershamite interloper.
PS But that’s nothing compared to the Labour Janner dyansty in Leicester West (cue for Ben
where Sir Barnett Janner ensured that his son, Greville, succeeded him in 1970.
60 - See you later Matty-gater
All boundaries are gerrymanders.
63 - There’s something truly profound in that observation
157 - Can’t see why Annabelle Ewing should be selected for the seat. She does not live anywhere near Moray - she lives in Perthshire. The Ewings didn’t live in the seat until recently - they ain’t local to Moray but from near Stirling/Glasgow they had a second home there.
Winnie Ewing has a high personal support in the seat being the former MP and MEP - a formidable woman although getting on in years. Her joining the fray will help Lochhead.
Although not the most important reason for the current electoral bias against the Conservatives, the parliamentary boundaries have undoubtedly favoured Labour for the last four decades and the periodic reviews have done too little to correct this.
A couple of factors to add to the above: due to the Commission’s policy of ‘minimum disruption’ more radical alternatives are often rejected, for example the more widespread pairing/grouping of London boroughs.
Secondly, Labour managed to gain a large and lasting advantage because they prepared for the 1995 review enacted in time for the 1997 election on a national basis, appointing a very clever and energetic man, David Gardner, to work full time through the inquiry preocess. The Conservatives failed to match this, were disunited and disorganised, and were consistently outmanouevred. To think how much money is spent on single, transient byelections, when the electoral map of Britain for the next three elections (at least) was bbeing drawn.
This time round the Tories have learnt their lesson, and have at least matched Labour through the appointment of the professional and efficient Roger Pratt; but ecause of the ‘minimum change’ argiment mentioned before, much of the achievement of David Gardner will remain as a legacy.
When I was first nationally involved as a boundary change pundit in 1983, there were people who didn’t seem to be able to grasp then that modifications which cost Labour to the tune of up to 40 on the Conservative majority might be anything other than a Tory fix.
In fact then, as in all other recent reviews, the outcome of the boundary changes did not go as far as it could to correct the PRO-Labour bias. It is quaint to see such naivete still extant.
George H @49 - Will you attempt to be selected to stand again? Guess this is the best chance since it was lost in ‘97.
Also - what is your opinion on Aldershot as it looks like the seat is slowly moving toward the LD’s (ie. 4.1% swing at last GE). Or perhaps this is just a reflection of a Gerald Howarth’s local popularity?
61 Wha about Southend? Paul Channon inherited the seat from Chips Channon, so father and son held the seat for more than fifty years.
But Chips Channon hmself inherited the seat from his mother-in-law, who in turn inherited from her husand when he went the Lords. He (the father in law) had held the seat from 1918.
So nearly eighty years being passed around one family.
19 - “I wonder why Conservatives are irritated by the BC?? Maybe the fact that we will need to be 12% ahead on a uniform swing of the popular vote to form an overall majority has something to do with it?”
I have to laugh when Conservatives complain that the system works against them.
Once the Conservatives get over about 35% (if they can), the system works in their favour (but perhaps not as strongly as it does for Labour).
It’s case of Tories saying “the system is rigged in our favour, but it’s not fair as it’s rigged in Labour’s favour even more…” FPTP, whatever the BC do, will not produce a level playing field. Even the Liberal Democrats are getting used to it. (Though some Tories claim that tactical voting to keep a Tory out is unfair too!)
I would like to play tribute to those Tories on this site (- the majority -) who do not claim the system is rigged against them.
69. A Lib Dem is in no position to lecture anyone about whingeing about the electoral system.
70 - whereas a Conservative has no need to whinge about the electoral system.
69 - I will humbly accept your accolade
50.”- I thought family-owned seats went out in the nineteenth century….”
especially when your relative already got a chance elsewhere and she failed.
To focus only on boundary changes and to ignore the current situations in Wales and Scotland naturally leads to a very one sided synopsis from HH.
As all issues in Scotland with the exception of economic,defence and foreign affairs are handled by the Scottish parliament,how can anyone justify Scottish parliamentary constituencies being the same size as English constituencies other than for Labour electoral advantage?
Similar question for Wales.
50 - I believe Ruth Henig ran in Lancaster in 1992 for Labour and did not get in. Her husband had previously been MP there (1970-1974?) but lost out to Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman. Their son, Simon Henig, is the renowned psephologist.
75. yes, she lost by 6.38% in 1992. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman gained the seat in 1970 defating Henig.
74. Much better case for Wales as the Welsh Assembly has far fewer powers.
75. and naturally Hilary followed her father in North West Durham
74 - this I can understand. A direct parallel is Northern Ireland where constituencies were historically more populous than in GB as there was once home rule. The anomaly was rectified in 1979, but some say it was a sop by Callaghan to the Unionists hoping that the prospect of extra seats would make them less likely to bring down the government.
75 - Stanley Henig won Lancaster from Humphrey Berkeley, he who designed the Conservative leadership election process by MPs following the Alec Douglas-Home episode, and served for one term until 1970 when he was defeated by Dame Elaine. Was his wife a lot younger than he was? A 22 year gap seems like a very long time before taking a shot at a Parliamentary seat.
Who asked about Lancaster anyway?
74. Scottish and Welsh constituencies should be the same size as English constituencies but their MPs should not vote on devolved issues that affect only England. This would produce so-called ‘anomalies’ such as a Labour UK government in charge of economy, defence and foreign affairs cohabiting with an Englsh Tory government in charge of ‘domestic’ policy. We’re renowned for our malleable constitution, so where’s the problem? Let’s have democracy first, and then deal with matters arising.
80. Voice from the South West. Baroness Henig was born in 1943
http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=32292
She married Stanley Henig in 1966 and divorced him in 1993
here’s a not so old photo of Stanley:
http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/info/lunews.nsf/I/20BC58002EA0D87B80257126004DC5B0
he doesn’t look much older than her
81 - It may do that in future, but not in this parliament - Labour has a majority of English seats.
…but not a plurality of votes. Which brings us to the point of the whoe thread…
I think you need to improve your quality control, Mike!
I would agree that there are too many Welsh seats with respect to the electorate but strangely a reduction of 7 would lead to probably only a net loss of 1 to Labour . Scotland is I think pretty fairly represented given 2 or 3 constituencies such as Orkney/Shetlands and Western Isles would be hard to combine with mainland areas . Re Isle of Wight , the BC considered having 2 smaller constituencies and 2 seats of normal size combining one with part of Hampshire but they accepted the evidence from all aprties in the Island to leave it as 1 . In my view you have to balance equality of size with a meaningful constituency and IMHO this review has erred a little too much in going for equality of size .
Lurker Terry at 3 effectively rebuts Harry’s entire article in a few words. A completely correct assessment of how things have gone, I think.
Boundary changes are notoriously hard to read anyway. In 1997, most thought the Conservatives had handled the boundary changes superbly by shifting votes from safe seats to bolster marginals. What actually happened was that the marginals were lost by a landslide anyway and the “safe seats” were turned into Labour or Lib Dem held marginals - the Conservatives had accidentally holed them below the waterline.
In this review, for example, the Conservatives succeeded (in 2003/4 when it was assessed for the 2009 election) in making North Norfolk much better for them at the expense of Broadland. As the 2005 result turned out this was probably a terrible error - North Norfolk is likely to remain safe Lib Dem (albeit a bit less so) but Broadland becomes unnecessarily shaky for the Tories. With hindsight they would have been better shoving all the Liberals in one seat, but you can see why they didn’t when North remained highly marginal. There are many examples - benefiting and harming different parties in each case.
The trouble is that people compare the new seats with how people voted last time to come up with notional results, and those lobbying to re-jig the seats often work on the result before that. There is, of course, no other realistic way of doing it. But it really is impossible to assess the impact of the current changes sensibly until after the general election.
I read it as a slightly light hearted introduction to Boundary reviews. No need to get overly pompous and serious, the issue has been raised and discussed.
85. are you Adrian Bailey MP?
Having explored psr.keele,I have made some intruiging discoveries.For example,the fact that lower Labour turnout in their urban seats contibutes to their winnig more seats than might be expected is by no means a new phenomenon.
psr.keele lists marginal seats,both nationally,and for each party seperately.
‘Swinging away’,as it were,from the actual result of the 1979 general election,when the Tories won the national vote by 7.2%,and, in a 635 seat chamber,the Conservatives took 339 seats,the Labour Party 269(including then speaker George Thomas),the Libs 11,and others 16-O.K,to have won a bare overall majority of 1,Mr.Callaghan would have had to retian 49 more seats than he actually did-the 49th most marginal Con-Lab seat was Wtford,gained by 7.3 % for the Tories-as this level of notional swing,away from an actual Tory lead of 7.2%,would have resulted in a Labour lead of 0.1%-in other words,a staright ‘draw ‘ in votes would have sufficed for Mr.Callaghan.
I know this election was fought on (reasonably)old boundaries,but my point(hopefully) is that,no matter what,the fact that urban seats turn out less,that it does’nt matter how many people turn out in aTory seat,partially explains why the the system does(now)not work in the favour of the Conservative Party.
Final point-for the benefit of more irate Tory posters,a 6% swing from 2005’s Labour 3% lead would entail a Tory lead of 9%; whilst I acknowledge some southern Lib Dem retreat may benefit the Conservative Party,I would surmise by the equivlaent of 1% at best-I’d be the first to say ‘All to play for’,but ‘Best of British’ is my parting line!
I gave evidence for the Tories at the public enquiry at the last parliamentary boundary review for north London. We went away quietly happy about the result.
James (87) is correct using the North Norfolk example.
A real dogs dinner of a seat has been created by creating the new Broadland seat, which strangely includes the parts of North Norfolk that are furthest away from the Broads in the new Broadland seat whilst leaving the parts of North Norfolk that are on the Broads out of the Broadland seat.
The Lib Dems actually argued against the new proposals on the basis that it was geographically a daft idea, but the Tories refused to support the Lib Dem proposal, instead coming up with a ludicrous suggestion for moving other bits around which had no logic at all. The Boundary Commision actually commented on the lack of political unanimity being a factor in their decision not to change the seat. The Tories initally were cock-a-hoop believing that they would then weaken the Lib Dems position. Now it appears that the Broadland seat, where there are NO Labour councillors and a strong Lib Dem council base (a recent by-election in Spixworth (Broadland D.C.) saw a sharp increase inthe Lib Dem vote) is a genuine Lib Dem target.
That said, the initial article that we are all referring to is a laod of drivel. The boundary changes before 1997 contributed to Labour’s landslide, not to the Tories holding seats, and I would suggest that the latest changes do little to alter this.
90 Patrick I a, sure I would be irate if I understood what you are saying.
I really would like to get some clarification. It looks intersting but…..
93 Mind you, I am sure you would like some quality typing, too.
I have been reminded on the site to watch my punctuation;I do hasten to add that I am a former state grammar school boy!
My main point is that;
(a)Due to differential turnout between urban working-class Labour seats
(b)…and more rural,southern Tory seats
…. it is the case,that no matter how evenly the Boundary Commission tidy up the actual size of the seats,it will almost always be the case that there is a slight ,albeit accidental,advantage for the Labour Party-going off topic,if Tory posters are so irate,perhaps they should retrieve David Cameron from Norway,and direct him to South Wales Lab-Tory marginals like the Vale of Glamorgan,Cardiff North- to refresh everyone’s memories,in about 1987-9,it was thought the Conseravtive Party would govern forever- even as a Labour voter,I admit all governments lose eventually-I just start to think there are some sore losers out there…(Mind you,as my beloved West Ham United have reached the FA Cup final today,for the first time in 26 years,I am looking through claret and blue spectacles!:lol:)
I do think the current boundaries are too helpful to Labour and the revision is appropriate on democratic grounds.
Kingbongo and patrick both identify the important point, though, that the system can seem to be more unfair than it is, since turnout in urban Labour seats tends to be lower - it’s generally accepted by pollsters, in fact, that if everyone entitled to vote did so, Labour would have a substantial lead.
Why Labour-leaners vote less is a good question - it might be weaker identification, or less ‘civic involvement’ (e.g. if you’re homeless, you probably don’t think much about voting), or something else. But under FPTP or regional PR one can’t really ‘punish’ an area for low turnout by reducing their repesentation, so the apparent bias will persist unless pro-Labour electors turn out in equal numbers.
Under a national PR list system (as in Denmark, Israel etc.), of course, it would be different - in that case, non-voters would have no representation instead of having a ghostly influence through being allocated MPs elected by their like-minded neighbours, even if they don’t vote themselves. Conversely there would be no safe seats so nobody would have that excuse not to vote.
I have just seen this in the NoW. Not a rag I usually look at but this item was flagged in US newservers.
It is not really news but it must have been placed by Downing Street?
TONY BLAIR has decided to stay on as Prime Minister until 2009—because he doesn’t trust Gordon Brown to deliver his radical reforms.
Two senior Cabinet ministers have told the News of the World he has SCRAPPED his plans to hand over leadership to the Chancellor at the end of next year.
Apologies if this has been listed on the site earlier.
97 - This is the first I’ve heard of it, Clive. Very interesting! The plot thickens…. (if it’s accurate)
Patrick thanks….. from a Seondary Modern and Grammar School boy.
Nick Palmer The pollsters might say than but then people often give replies that indicate nearly 50% of the electorate voted Labour in the GE. So I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
52.Is what have the Romanovs done for us” Max in disguise?
I just wanted to know what he thought of the Tory campaign in Moray and Dunfermline?
Being a former student of ‘A’ level economics,and well qualified to discuss the tendencies to boom-and bust first seen during the 1950s Conservative hemogeny,more recently spectaclarly displayed by Mr.Nigel Lawson in the late 1980s,were it to ne that Mr.Blair outstayed his welcome to the extent of fighting a fourth general election,I personally believe he would (albeit narrowly) lose to Mr.Cameron. I also firmly believe that within 2-3 years,in much the same pattern that Mr.Heath and Mr.Barber went in the early 1970s,that a disastrous string of macro-economic errors would see
(a)Maladroit interest rate moves-no doubt weight would be brought to bear upon the Bank of England
(b)Inappropriate monetary policies would re-ignite inflatioanry pressures
(c)Unions are sleeping,not dead,and public sector workers would unleash their anger in such a way that makes the ‘winter of discontent’ look like a dinner party
(d)After the (theoretical) Conseravtive govt of 2010-2014,the Labour leader,as leader of the Opposition,would be in a very strong position to say,in not so may words; ‘Told you that would happen if those muppets were given a chance!’-so,if and it is a huge ‘IF’,Tony Blair hung on and lost,it would only be a semi-colon,not a full stop for the Labour Party being the natural party of government in 21st century Britain
101 Patrick Change the party label and that sounds like a Tory cira 1994 talking.
98 AHM IF it was placed in the NoW by the Blair faction then it is a rallying cry for the start of a civil war. Extraordinary. If Blair moves his standard to Oxford and the Labour MPs raise a standard in the city and Brown rallies his people in Scotland, it will be history repeating itself.
I can see Brown as a Dissenter Roundhead in a Rump parliament, Blair in a floppy hat and supported by dashing continental princes. But who is the man in the shadows, that Colonel Cromwell?
And I have had nothing to drink since midday.
103 -
- Sounds like great fun!
the reason why labour gets a lot of seats with a lower vote share is not mainly down to there being a bias in the system, which does exist. It is rather that it is impossible to get labour voters out in “safe” seats. Trying getting a stuanchly labour family to vote in barnsley - they wont do it as they know labour will win
I think Harry´s article was sound enough, with the one exception that it was not completely clear that he was comparing OLD constituencies with new NOTIONAL constituencies.
Obviously, it is fair that the Boundary Commission should eliminate disparities and unfairness, as far as is possible, within their guidelines; and that the beneficiaries of this tidying up process have routinely been the Tories. What is interesting is that Harry has presented us with numbers to demonstrate how the imbalance has grown before each review.
As various correpondents have mentioned, the imbalance has always been in favour of the Labour Party and so the adjustment has always been in favour of the Tories. This is an inevitable consequence of the FPTP system.
I do not understand why some of our Tory correspondents are getting so upset by this quantification of the inevitable. I don´t think anybody here is complaining about official discrimination in favour of the Tories - quite the contrary.
So keep going Harry! Don´t let them grind you down!
Re 106:
I never let anybody grind anyone down and have to admit there was a slightly ulterior motive to this article (namely generate more interest than my last article) which I think you will agree it has done, but also to try and generate a debate on how well balanced the Boundary Commissioners are in the seats that they suggest (hence my suggestion of each county having a number of seats and the votes in that county being used with d’Hondt PR to try and produce a more balanced reflection of support across the county)
82 - Oh how charming, he’s a founder member of the department I study in
He must have been fairly young when he was elected, I’m surprised he didn’t try again though I guess he must have prefered being involved in acedemia. Looking at PSR Keele again it would appear Mrs Henig contested the seat in 1979 as well, and still lost!
Yes, I dont know why some are getting so upset at the article, it is clearly a light-hearted piece and wasnt implying the BC is biased. Of course the Tories should always be happy about boundary changes because demographic shifts over the last 50 years have always favoured Labour seats. But with the current “urban rennaisance” this may not be true of the next decade, as urban areas are experiencing a period of densification. The repopulation of inner city seats in the core cities may even mean that the process needs to be reversed in 2020.
PS there is another “Mark” who isnt me!
Of course the flip-side to this is that population shifts generally favour Labour, which is why the boundary changes have to compensate. Specifically, people move out of poor areas, leaving smaller Labour seats, and I think into commuter belts, so that there are more electors in Tory seats. So there’s an argument that until boundary changes happen, the boundaries favour Labour.
Naturally this is far outweighed by a standard bias in all electoral systems in favour of the party that better-off people tend to vote for: it’s easier to raise money if your supporters are rich. So then you have more cash to employ full-time campaigners and other staff, pay for glossy literature, etc.
Apologies, lots of you had already made that point I made just above.
If I remember rightly, Brent East is being changed such that Sarah Teather has to work pretty hard to hang on.
Does not always work in the Conservatives favour though Gavin . You have the case of Northamptonshire where a new safe Conservative seat has been created by partly taking bits from 2 marginal Con/Lab seats making them fairly safe Labour .
111. Gavin, Anthony Wells’ figures gives Labour a majority of just a couple of points in the new Hampstead and Kilburn (and with a decent tory vote to squeeze). And Glenda Jackson will be 73 in 2009 and probably likely to retire, so Labour could have a new candidate in place.
I would say Teather gaining the seat is quite likely. I think she should have had to work in Brent East anyway, because it was always a marginal (and very vulnerable in a good Labour year).