A Change in the Rules and a Change in the Outcomes? An Evaluation of the Work of the Boundary Commission for England in its Third and Fourth Periodic Reviews

Ron Johnston, D J Rossiter and C J Pattie
Additional contact information
C J Pattie: Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England

Environment and Planning C, 1996, vol. 14, issue 3, 325-350

Abstract: The rules under which the UK Boundary Commissions operate are imprecise in their wording. An attempt to achieve greater precision through the courts in 1982–83, after the Commissions had completed their Third Periodic Review of all constituencies, produced exactly the opposite outcome with judgements stressing the flexibility which the Commissions are accorded; one aspect of those judgements suggested greater importance for one of the rules (Rule 7) than had previously been assigned to it. The authors compare the outcome of the Third and Fourth Periodic Reviews conducted by the Boundary Commission for England. They find that the major change has been greater attention to electoral equality across all constituencies in the latter of the two—which is exactly what the 1982 court case had sought.

Date: 1996
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c140325 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirc:v:14:y:1996:i:3:p:325-350

DOI: 10.1068/c140325

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Environment and Planning C
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().