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

R. J. Johnston*, D. J. Rossiter, C. J. Pattie

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)325-350
Number of pages26
JournalEnvironment and Planning C: Government and Policy
Volume14
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Aug 1996

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this