A very different looking electoral map
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on January 26, 2010 11:00 amOVER AT This Is My Truth Lee Waters draws attention to something we discussed here last May, namely that the Conservatives’ proposals for reducing the number of MPs could mean a much bigger cut in Wales than first suspected. The reason is that Tory Leader David Cameron has suggested both a 10% cut while also insisting that “every constituency [should be] the same size in each of the nations of the UK” (you can read his speech here).
There are two immediate practical implications. The first, as Lee suggests, is that a corresponding cut in the number of AMs would be required without prior amendment to the Government of Wales Act. The Act provides only for alterations by Order to the Assembly’s regions arising from changes to constituency boundaries, if necessary adjusting the number of regional members per region. Contrary to the claims of other bloggers, there is no provision in the Act to either increase the number of regions, the number of members per region, or to alter the ratio of regional to constituency members. Any move in this direction would require primary legislation.
The second, though, is perhaps every bit as spicy. Some 29 Parliamentary constituencies of around 77,000 electors each poses immense difficulties in drawing new boundaries. This is not as simple as merely making each seat bigger. Currently the Boundary Commission has to try and ensure that constituency boundaries do not cross the old “preserved” counties (such as those in place before 1994, like Clwyd and South Glamorgan). Given that the current legislation stipulates that Wales should not have fewer than 35 MPs, this arcane stricture may well face the chop.
But even that does not make matters straightforward. We can safely assume that no constituency will be allowed to be cross-border, so it will be a question of dividing 2.3 million into 29 in a way that neither advantages any particular party, nor fails the less objective test of being “unnatural” – joining together communities that otherwise have no obvious or functional affinity.
This is not easy. An obvious saving would involve merging the four Cardiff seats into three, but this would result in excessively large seats of around 90,000 each. Even removing Penarth from Cardiff South would not do the trick. So the next tactic might be to stick with four seats, enlarging Cardiff Central to the south, west and North and then enlarging the others by adding parts of adjacent seats. But then we would have three city seats that reach into and beyond the thin rural belt that divides the metropolitan Cardiff from the Valleys to the north, the Vale to the west and Newport to the east.
The problem becomes even more acute in rural areas, where sparsity has made the creation of normal sized seats very tricky. Who wants to be the one to tell Ynys Mon, with its 51,000 voters, that they will shortly be joined by around half of the neighbouring Arfon seat in order to get to the requisite 77,000 constituents? Which quarter of the two Powys seat’s 102,000 electors will volunteer to be incorporated into Ceredigion, the Valleys or Clywd in order to keep things neat and tidy?
These are just a few of the headaches facing the Boundary Commission. Little wonder, therefore that there is talk of the legislation needed to enact the reduction being one of the very first Bills introduced by a Cameron government. It could take a full Parliamentary term just to redraw and consult upon new boundaries. The result will be a very different looking map – and perhaps the last thing an Assembly growing in authority and power needs.
Tags: 2010 General Election, electoral reform
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
7 Comments
Adam,
You are right to say the policy will pose a challenge to the Boundary Commission, but in truth every major boundary change does. I don’t think a decrease in Assembly Members is likely, even if it does require primary legislation to decouple it from Parliamentary boundaries.
The problem is that the current system doesn’t work very well itself. To use an oft repeated example: a UK wide Conservative lead of 40% with Labour on 30, Lib Dems 18, others 12 leads to a Tory Majority of 8. If Labour had 40% and the Conservatives 30% then Labour would have a majority of 138. Even if some other calculations result in minor variations the theme is clear. The current system significantly favours the Labour Party. While I don’t suggest this has been done deliberately, I think it is also understandable the Labour wouldn’t be the ones seeking to reform it.
Time will tell, but I’m not certain people have such a strong affinity with their constituency. Where as for a council area it is preferable to use recognisable boundaries with which people can relate, I think for a constituency people will be more concerned with having a responsive MP rather than be concerned which neighbouring towns are included.
If we are to use FPTP then as close to possible as equal size constituencies is surely desirable.
Thanks for drawing attention to some of the practical consquences on the ground of a reduction in the number of seats. Sounds like the Tories don’t appreciate particular geography of Wales and no doubt they have not given the Welsh dimension any in-depth thought. Reminds me of Labour’s ill-fated proposal to abolish the four Welsh police forces.
Point of detail: local government reorganisation was in 1996 not 1994.
“Point of detail: local government reorganisation was in 1996 not 1994.”
Errr, no it wasn’t Efrogwr.
And the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar/Western Isles are also problematic for any tidying up exercise. Perhaps there will have to be a special dispensation for all islands – I’m sure Mam Cymru will be happy to make that case!
A Conservative MP in England is also proposing abolishing proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament.
http://www.freedomcentral.org.uk/2010/01/tory-electoral-reform-would-see-their-welsh-leader-without-seat.html
@Adam, @ Daran:
Re my questioning of the date of the dates in the history of Welsh local government, specifically the article’s reference to “the old “preserved” counties (such as those in place before 1994, like Clwyd and South Glamorgan)” :
this is a minor point in relation to the substance of the article, I know, but since Daran felt it the need to come on it, I’ll allow myself another go:
It’s quite true that the Local Government (Wales) Act received Royal Assent in 1994 but Adam’s piece seems to me to imply that Clwyd and Sout Glamorgan ceased to be “in place” in 1994, which is not the case. It was on 1 April 1996 the old counties were abolished/became “preserved counties” and the new 22 came into force. I think that’s why 1996 is the usual date given for the reorganisation (for example the Wikipedia entries for “Clwyd” or “South Glamorgan” or the potted history on the Welsh Local Government Association’s site: http://www.wlga.gov.uk/english/local-government-in-wales/).
Efrogwr
A fair point. I suspect I’ll always think in terms of 1994 even though, as you point out, the old counties did not become old until later.
Best
Adam