I have been thinking about the boundary review for parliamentary constituencies, again. The latest from the government
seems to be that they are going to throw out the results of the review, for a second time!
This is bad in various ways. So much time and money has been wasted on these reviews! There really ought to be better forward planning, don't waste all this, if you didn't want to do it you should not have started it. It also undermines the concept of public consultation. The public have been consulted, twice, and those of us interested have spent the time to think about it and input our views. For these to be ignored is just rude. It also undermines confidence in the government and does not encourage the public to participate in the future when they think they will just be ignored, again!
On the detailed points:
Need for equal and updated boundaries - this is important, constituencies should have very similar numbers of electorate for democratic fairness. the last review (in England) that was implemented used data from the year 2000. So a review is really needed now.
Maintaining 650 seats - I agree with this. The previous reviews that have not been implemented reduced the number of MPs to 600. With increased population it makes no sense to me to reduce the number of MPs. If anything they should be increased but I am happy if they stay the same. Also to try to mix reducing the number of MPs with equalising electorate numbers complicates the reasoning on the new boundaries. To stick with the same number of constituencies means the focus can be on minimising boundary changes but making them where necessary to equalise numbers and account sensibly for houses which have been built or demolished.
Electoral quota tolerance - I disagree with the proposed +-5% from average allowed variation in electorate numbers between constituencies. This was used in the two boundary reviews that were not implemented. It resulted in a few cases of strange boundaries that cut certain parts of communities off from the main area they associated themselves with. I would prefer a more nuanced approach, for example, require this +-5% limitation at the first round of consultation, but give the boundary commission the leeway to extend this maybe as far as +-8%, or 10% perhaps, if there is overwhelming community desire or concern about a particular boundary. This will only be needed in a few cases and sacrifices a little electoral equality but for the benefit or retaining a better community identity.
Boundary review cycle - I agree with the proposed 8 years as 5 years is a bit too frequent, but think that once it is reviewed it should be implemented!
Implementing the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions - I agree with the proposal to implement the results by order of council. I would normally want more parliamentary scrutiny but experience so far shows that political shenanigans just prohibits implementing what the public have had the chance to contribute to.
