This discussion is closed.
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
B979 - Boundary Reviews Bill 2016, TSR Labour

Boundary Reviews Bill 2016

An Act to introduce boundary reviews at regular, pre-defined intervals.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Regular Boundary Reviews
(1) In the year 2023, and every 10 years thereafter the Boundary Commissions shall carry out a review of the boundaries of:
(1) a. House of Commons constituency boundaries;
(1) b. National Assembly for Wales constituency and electoral region boundaries;
(1) c. Scottish Parliament constituency and electoral region boundaries;
(1) d. Northern Ireland Assembly constituency boundaries;
(1) e. London Assembly constituency boundaries; and
(1) f. Local government ward boundaries.
(2) The revised boundaries shall come into force for all elections from 2025 onwards, or the year ending in 5 after the review began.

2: Population Data
(1) Population data for boundary reviews under this Act comes from the most recent census data available.
(2) Boundaries are based upon this population data rather than number of registered voters.

3: Extent
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

4: Commencement
(1) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.

5: Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Boundary Reviews Act 2016.


Notes
Currently there is a debate underway (well, it’s been going for some time) about Conservative plans to review boundaries. There is no doubt that there are some very unfair distributions of seats but the Conservative Party are clearly operating the review in the way that best suits their electoral interest.

This bill would require boundary reviews UK-wide every 10 years, based on population data from the census two years previous – because elected representatives should be allocated evenly to all residents, not just electors.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
The reasoning is faulty because if it was truly believed elected representatives should be allocated evenly to residents there would be a push to replace FPTP. But the workings are more strange, including in the constituency count individuals who cannot vote, such as individuals in a constituency with a high proportion of foreigners who do not qualify to vote, unbalanced the process away from the aim in the notes section which aims to give equal constituencies; using residents enrolled to vote is a fairer method.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Already exists. Parliamentary constituencies act 1986, amended since I believe changing the interval in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Not so sure about this. Nigel Farage MEP makes some fair points in all honesty, though FPTP has already been replaced here (iirc)
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
The reasoning is faulty because if it was truly believed elected representatives should be allocated evenly to residents there would be a push to replace FPTP. But the workings are more strange, including in the constituency count individuals who cannot vote, such as individuals in a constituency with a high proportion of foreigners who do not qualify to vote, unbalanced the process away from the aim in the notes section which aims to give equal constituencies; using residents enrolled to vote is a fairer method.
It is not just electors who need representation, however.

And FPTP is long gone, replaced with AMS.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It is not just electors who need representation, however.

And FPTP is long gone, replaced with AMS.
Any real argument for the bill though is reliant on the premise that there is not a strong correlation between electors and population, but logically one would expect a strong correlation, and on that basis I would encourage the bill be rejected due to the laziness of the authors unless they can put forwards proof that there is not a particularly strong correlation.
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It is not just electors who need representation, however.

And FPTP is long gone, replaced with AMS.
It is a nice thought to give all individuals representation but as it is the electors who decide the representation it is fairer to give each elector equal influence when deciding the representation.

PetrosAC I cannot remember FPTP being replaced but if FPTP has been replaced in TSR this bill is a waste of Parliamentary time which should not have been accepted by Toronto.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
It is a nice thought to give all individuals representation but as it is the electors who decide the representation it is fairer to give each elector equal influence when deciding the representation.

PetrosAC I cannot remember FPTP being replaced but if FPTP has been replaced in TSR this bill is a waste of Parliamentary time which should not have been accepted by Toronto.
I'm sure Labour did it but I could well be wrong. I'll go check Hansard
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Nigel Farage MEP http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3437307
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
PetrosAC I cannot remember FPTP being replaced but if FPTP has been replaced in TSR this bill is a waste of Parliamentary time which should not have been accepted by Toronto.
Why?

Constituencies have not been abolished.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Any real argument for the bill though is reliant on the premise that there is not a strong correlation between electors and population, but logically one would expect a strong correlation, and on that basis I would encourage the bill be rejected due to the laziness of the authors unless they can put forwards proof that there is not a particularly strong correlation.
It is a question of getting things exactly right, not just a correlation.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It is a question of getting things exactly right, not just a correlation.
That's not a very strong justification, especially when even under current rules and ignoring the exceptions we get theoretical discrepancies of 10% even if we assume an r value of 1.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Abstain.

I'm with canon and honestly not too bothered.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Even if already applying to the MHofC it still would still apply to the devolved administrations. I think that reviews should start in 2022 or 2021 given the time they take, so that the outcome is at least 18 months away from the GE. If constituencies are changed it allows time to select candidates.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by barnetlad)
Even if already applying to the MHofC it still would still apply to the devolved administrations. I think that reviews should start in 2022 or 2021 given the time they take, so that the outcome is at least 18 months away from the GE. If constituencies are changed it allows time to select candidates.
2023 is the earliest we can start because that is when the data from the 2021 census will be released.

I'm not sure whether the full extent of the data is known before public release, but otherwise we cannot really bring it forward, only do the review quicker, speed up the selection process or delay the GE if we want the most up-to-date data possible.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
2023 is the earliest we can start because that is when the data from the 2021 census will be released.

I'm not sure whether the full extent of the data is known before public release, but otherwise we cannot really bring it forward, only do the review quicker, speed up the selection process or delay the GE if we want the most up-to-date data possible.
Could electoral register data be used? Census returns are not as high and in any case there has been the suggestion of not carrying out the census as we know it (which for family research would be a great loss).
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by barnetlad)
Could electoral register data be used? Census returns are not as high and in any case there has been the suggestion of not carrying out the census as we know it (which for family research would be a great loss).
It would be a disgrace if they stopped carrying out the census.

Electoral register data is used right now, but only measures the number of eligible voters rather than the number of people in total.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by barnetlad)
Could electoral register data be used? Census returns are not as high and in any case there has been the suggestion of not carrying out the census as we know it (which for family research would be a great loss).
This bill is the lazy way of amending the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, changing from electors to total population because apparently a logically very strong correlation between the two is insufficient

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Andy98
  • Study Helper
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
2023 is the earliest we can start because that is when the data from the 2021 census will be released.

I'm not sure whether the full extent of the data is known before public release, but otherwise we cannot really bring it forward, only do the review quicker, speed up the selection process or delay the GE if we want the most up-to-date data possible.
I wondered why it was 2023.

I'd honestly say bring the census forward a year so that it can be done.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Andy98)
I wondered why it was 2023.

I'd honestly say bring the census forward a year so that it can be done.
That's a good idea for a second reading.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (476)
66.39%
No (241)
33.61%

Watched Threads

View All