The UK’s New Political Map? The Democratic Audit Model

The documents below provide the full details of Democratic Audit’s model of how constituency boundaries could change using the new rules contained in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. The model, devised by Lewis Baston, Senior Research Fellow, with assistance from Kevin Larkin uses the December 2010 electorate figures, as the Boundary Commissions are required to do. It also adheres to a number of principles which the Boundary Commissions have indicated they will seek to apply, such as avoiding constituency configurations which cross English regional boundaries. It should be emphasised that this is only a model, not a precise prediction. There are many possible patterns for drawing up constituencies that will be consistent with the new rules, and this is but one solution. The political parties have no doubt done similar work. But the final word will go to the Boundary Commission working in each of the component nations of the United Kingdom – and no doubt the result will be different in significant ways from any other model set of boundaries. The authors of this work on boundaries hope that it will raise public awareness of the issues involved, and encourage a maximum of informed public participation once the Boundary Commissions invite consultation on their proposals. Read More: Lewis Baston: The Democratic Audit model of new Parliamentary boundaries: methodological note 6 June 2011 (PDF) This paper summarises the assumptions and methods used to undertake the modelling and provides a number of important caveats about how the results should, and should not, be interpreted. Lewis Baston: Summary of Democratic Audit boundary simulation 7 June 2011 (PDF) This paper provides an overall summary of the model findings for each standard English region as well as for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (Note – this is an updated version, with minor changes to the two Warrington seats, which replaces the version published on 6 June 2011). Lewis Baston: Constituencies left unchanged in the Democratic Audit boundary model 7 June 2011 (PDF) It has been widely assumed that the new rules to be used by the Boundary Commissions will require changes to the boundaries to almost every constituency. This paper provides details of 88 constituencies, listed by region, which remain unchanged in the Democratic Audit model. Detailed regional summaries We have now released all our detailed regional summaries of the model constituencies contained in the mapping exercise. These provide details of the wards making up each proposed constituency in the model. Region Summary (PDF) Maps Scotland Download  Scotland with central belt detail (PDF) Wales Download Wales and South Wales detail (PDF) Northern Ireland Download  No map currently available East of England Download  Eastern region map (PDF) East Midlands Download East...

Read More

Whatever the result, Thursday’s referendum will not mean the end of the road for electoral reform in the UK

AV is seen by many as a ‘stop-gap’ measure on the road to true Proportional Representation, but is this really likely to be the case if the Yes campaign is successful? Writing in a personal capacity, Lewis Baston looks at the recent history of electoral reform movements in the UK, and the prospects for further reforms depending on the result of Thursday’s referendum. The Alternative Vote (AV) referendum on 5 May is, on the face of it, a choice between two slightly different single-member constituency majoritarian electoral systems. Some people can make a choice on that basis. Peter Kellner and Peter Hain, for instance, have always favoured AV, over the options of either First Past The Post (FPTP) or Proportional Representation (PR). Similarly, some others simply do not see the appeal of preferential voting and sincerely favour FPTP. However, no decision is made in a vacuum, and for most of the rest of us the context is relevant when considering how one might vote. There are partisan and strategic calculations at work in the referendum, and one should not be too high-minded about this fact. I have discussed the partisan consequences of AV in another piece. The outcome, in terms of a simple Yes or No, will have unknown effects on the further progress of electoral reform. The case can be argued either way, despite some efforts on the part of each of the campaigns to suggest that the referendum will close the issue. Arguments about future consequences are all conjecture, but the ‘finality’ argument seems a poor one either way (as it was when it was used to support the 1832 Reform Act). Alan Renwick, for instance argues quite persuasively that it is likely that a Yes on AV will lead to further change because it makes change itself thinkable and because it may well lead to more inter-party agreement and hung parliaments. But there is an alternative argument. The history of constitutional reform is littered with cases where things that were supposed to be stopgaps lasted for decades – such as FPTP itself in 1918, or the House of Lords after 1911. If AV wins, small-c conservatism will work in its favour – it will be argued that the issue has been decided, and that the new system should be ‘given a fair chance’ or ‘allowed to bed in’. Clegg himself seems to have abandoned his party’s long term goal of PR, saying on 21 April that: We aren’t going to enter into a Maoist, perpetual revolution… This is a once in a blue moon opportunity to change the electoral system. It’s completely wrong to somehow suggest this is a stepping stone for something else. This gravely...

Read More

Supporters of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and UKIP should vote Yes to AV. For the Conservatives and Labour – the balance of advantage is much less clear

The AV referendum campaign has produced some strange political alignments, more because of its perceived strategic consequences than the nature of the alternative electoral systems. Writing in a personal capacity, Lewis Baston finds that for some parties rational self-interest is clear: supporters of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and UK Independence Party should vote Yes on AV. For others –the Conservatives and Labour – the balance of advantage is much less clear, and may differ between different bits of the party. Arguably, looking only at rational self-interest, the Conservatives should be divided, rather than mostly for No. How to make a partisan choice on AV It is not unreasonable to examine the effect a change such as moving to the Alternative Vote will have on the fortunes of the parties. To do so is rational self-interest, but also more than that; its effects on party performance imply consequences for the range of economic, public policy and social outcomes towards which few people are neutral. Given that the difference in terms of democratic values between FPTP and AV is not large, it need not trump a medium-term partisan calculation. What one should ask of such calculations is that they should be rational. For a Liberal Democrat, supporting AV is a no-brainer. The Liberal Democrats are (and even in 2015 can be expected to be) a fair-sized centre party. If a centre party has enough first-preference electoral support to come first or second (and therefore not be eliminated during the early stages of an AV count), it will tend to attract more transferred votes than its less centrist main competitor and therefore win more seats than it would otherwise. AV also suits the campaigning culture of the Liberal Democrats, in that the party is experienced in the techniques of attracting tactical votes and gathering local and personal credibility for individual candidates, and this is easily adapted to casting a net for second preferences. They tend to have more trouble winning votes in actual PR elections, like the European Parliament, London Assembly and devolved parliaments. The SNP and Plaid Cymru are also capable of attracting transfers and would probably be helped by AV. For Greens, Yes to AV is also logical. They are likely, whichever system is used, to hold their Brighton seat but not gain any more in the medium term. The benefits from AV would be in increasing the party’s overall share of the vote, because sympathisers could afford to give them a first preference without fear of letting in a hostile candidate. They would gain the credibility that goes with a significant vote share and encourage more voters to consider the option of voting Green. They would also encourage other...

Read More

English Local Elections 2011

Lewis Baston previews the English Local Elections and discusses some of issues likely to be guiding the electorate’s choices. [gview file=”http://www.lewisbaston.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/English.pdf”]

Read More

Eastern Promise

Eastern Promise

Labour lost badly in eastern England last May. It need not do so again Labour’s performance in eastern England in 2010 was disastrous, with Luton the only bright spot. The swing against the party (seven per cent) and the proportion of Labour seats lost (85 per cent) were both the worst in any region. East Anglia is without a Labour MP for the first time since 1938. However, this was merely the culmination of a long trend. Our losses in local elections have also seen us reduced to a low ebb – in 1995 we had around 1,100 councillors, but now there are only 264. One might be tempted to respond to these depressing facts by writing off the east as being a no-hope Tory region, but this would be wrong. Eastern England is a key region for Labour and we cannot afford it to become our equivalent of the Tory wilderness in Scotland. Of the seats we need to win to gain a workable overall majority, only one region (the northwest) contains more constituencies than the east. In writing our report, How the East Was Lost … And How to Win Again, we studied the figures and talked to the candidates who had fought seats for Labour in eastern England. Several themes emerged. One was that voters in the east, while not being enthusiastic about David Cameron, did not want Gordon Brown to be prime minister. Another was that there were big concerns about immigration – not usually racism as such, but more often expressing worry about the impact of immigration on jobs, housing and public services. This also tapped into a sense of ‘fairness’, in that Labour was seen as tolerating the selfish abuse of systems that should work in the public interest, be they migration, benefits or banking. Labour lost votes and seats through a ‘hollowing-out’ in core areas, a Conservative vote that was energised by some very strong constituency campaigns, and also direct switchers from Labour to the Conservatives. What sort of policy agenda can recapture the east for Labour? Most potential Labour voters in the east favour ‘tough-minded’ solutions to issues such as benefits and migration. They know we have caring values, but want to be sure that we are not pushovers. They need to be reassured about Labour’s economic competence and that we understand people’s aspirations – a decent house, a chance to get on, a good education for their children. We need to have some solid things to say about housing and infrastructure in this growing region, too. In 1997 Labour performed strongly in eastern England, winning the largest swing outside London, but the reversal of fortune was temporary. Despite the strength...

Read More
This site uses cookies. Find out more about this site’s cookies.