Proposed new constituencies for expanded Senedd revealed
Martin Shipton
Proposals have been published for the new super-constituencies that will be used to elect the expanded Senedd of 96 Members in 2026.
Currently there are 60 MSs – 40 elected from former first-past-the-post constituencies and 20 regional “top-up” Members elected by a form of proportional representation.
Under the new arrangements, there will be 16 constituencies, each made up of two Westminster constituencies and each electing six MSs.
But as the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru (DBCC) announced the details of its proposals, controversy continued over the electoral system that will be used to elect the next Senedd.
People will vote not for individuals, but for party lists – with parties deciding the order that their candidates will be elected.
‘Closed List’
While seats will be allocated on a proportional basis, critics argue that this “Closed List” system will give too much power to the parties, who will be able to reserve the plum places at the top of the lists for tribal loyalists rather than mavericks who may be prepared to take an independent line and rebel on a point of principle.
Most countries that elect politicians on a proportional basis use the Single Transferable Vote, under which voters can list candidates in order according to their own preference. But Welsh Labour insisted on the Closed List system, and told Plaid Cymru that unless its MSs agreed to that, the whole Senedd reform package would collapse. Plaid therefore accepted the closed lists.
Here are the 16 constituencies proposed by DBCC that are now out for consultation, together with explanations about how they came to be chosen:
Bangor Aberconwy Ynys Môn:
The UK Parliamentary constituency of Ynys Môn only has road connections to the mainland via the Bangor Aberconwy UK Parliamentary constituency. The act states that the Commission must create constituencies that are contiguous. The Commission is of the view that having clear communication and travel connections is a vital part of being able to provide for effective and convenient representation. The Commission considers that combining the areas as proposed is appropriate due to the good transport and communication links within the proposed constituency. Therefore, the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Clwyd
As a result of the proposed Bangor Aberconwy and Ynys Môn constituency the only other constituency which shares a boundary with the Clwyd North constituency is the Clwyd East constituency. The Commission has previously set out its policy on creating Senedd constituencies that are a combination of two UK Parliamentary constituencies that are contiguous, therefore there would be no need to travel outside of the proposed constituency in order to reach another part of that constituency. The Commission is of the view that these areas are well connected to each other by transport links, and are similar in character. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Alyn, Deeside and Wrexham
As a result of the proposed Clwyd constituency, the only other constituency which shares a boundary with the Alyn and Deeside constituency is the Wrexham constituency. The Commission has previously set out its policy on creating Senedd constituencies that are a combination of two UK Parliamentary constituencies that are contiguous, therefore there would be no need to travel outside of the proposed constituency in order to reach another part of that constituency. The Commission is of the view that these areas are well connected to each other by transport links, and are similar in character. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr
The Commission proposes to combine these constituencies. It did consider the alternative of combining Dwyfor Meirionnydd with Ceredigion Preseli, and Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr with Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, however, it was of the view that the alternative would create two Senedd constituencies that would be very large and unwieldy. The Commission is of the view that there are reasonable road links between the areas of the proposed constituency such as between Machynlleth and Dolgellau. While the Commission is of the view that it is not ideal to propose such a large constituency it is the best option in terms of proposing a contiguous combination of two UK parliamentary constituencies in the area.
Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire
The proposed constituency would combine the whole of the Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire principal council areas into one constituency. The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting Pembrokeshire into one constituency building on the established links between the UK Parliamentary constituencies of Ceredigion Preseli and Mid and South Pembrokeshire. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Carmarthenshire
The proposed constituency would combine the whole of the Carmarthenshire principal council area into one constituency. The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be building on the established links in the principal council area. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Swansea West and Gower
The proposed constituency would combine two UK Parliamentary constituencies that sit within the Swansea principal council area into one constituency. The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be building on the established links in the principal council area. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Brecon, Radnor, Neath and Swansea East
The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting areas that form part of the Neath Port Talbot principal council area into one constituency by building on the established links that exist. The Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe constituency was one of the more contentious UK Parliamentary constituencies with many suggesting that the Cwm Tawe area should have been in a UK Parliamentary constituency with areas of Neath or of Swansea. This proposal would see the Cwm Tawe area combined with areas of both Neath and Swansea.. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Aberafan Maesteg, Rhondda and Ogmore
The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting areas that form part of the Bridgend principal council area into one constituency by building on the established links that exist. The Commission believes that there is a shared sense of character between the valley communities of Maesteg, Pontycymmer and Ogmore. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Pontypridd
The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting areas that form part of the Rhondda Cynon Taf principal council area into one constituency by building on the established links that exist. By pairing these constituencies the Commission will be able to reunite the historic Cynon Valley area within one constituency. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Blaenau Gwent, Rhymney and Caerphilly
The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting areas that form part of the Caerphilly principal council area into one constituency by building on the established links that exist. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Monmouthshire and Torfaen
The proposed constituency would combine the whole of the Monmouthshire and Torfaen principal council areas into one constituency. The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two contiguous UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be building on the established links between the two areas. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Newport and Islwyn
The proposed constituency would combine the whole of the Newport principal council area into one constituency. The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two contiguous UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting the City of Newport into one constituency building on the established links between the UK Parliamentary constituencies of Newport East and Newport West and Islwyn. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Cardiff East and North
The proposed constituency would combine the two UK Parliamentary constituencies that cover the northeast of the Cardiff principal council area into one constituency with the inclusion of the Taffs Well electoral ward from the Rhondda Cynon Taf principal council area. The Commission is of the view that there are good road and communication links between the two areas and by pairing these two contiguous UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting two of the four UK Parliamentary constituencies that cover the City of Cardiff into one constituency by building on the established links that exist in the area. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Cardiff West, South and Penarth
The proposed constituency would combine the two UK Parliamentary constituencies that cover the southwest of the Cardiff principal council area into one constituency with the inclusion of the area of Pontyclun from the Rhondda Cynon Taf principal council area, and the area of Penarth from the Vale of Glamorgan principal council area. The Commission is of the view that there are good road and communication links between the areas and by pairing these two contiguous UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting two of the four UK Parliamentary constituencies that cover the City of Cardiff into one constituency building on the established links that exist in the area. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend
The Commission is of the view that there are good road links between the two areas and by pairing these two contiguous UK Parliamentary constituencies the Commission would be uniting areas that have a shared sense of character. The Commission is therefore of the view that the proposed combination creates a cohesive constituency.
The Commission considers that constituencies should only be thought of as “contiguous” or neighbouring if it is possible to travel throughout it without having to leave the constituency. For example, the Commission did not consider Ynys Môn and Dwyfor Meirionnydd to be a viable proposal since it is not possible to travel from one to the other by road without having to enter Bangor Aberconwy. The Commission also considered local ties, such as shared history, the Welsh language, and socio-economic considerations in an attempt to propose constituencies which feel as natural as possible to people across Wales.
The Commission does not however consider the impact of its proposals on future election results.
Having published its initial proposals, the DBCC has also opened a four-week consultation to seek the views of people across Wales. The Commission says it is keen to understand whether there is public support for these proposals or whether people feel that their parliamentary constituency should instead be paired with a different constituency.
The Commission also looks forward to hearing the public’s views on the proposed constituency names. DBCC’s aim was to give the constituencies names which reflected the areas they cover, and where there was no name in common use for the area, to use the names of the parliamentary constituencies.
The Commission has however stated that local people are best placed to advise on the names for their area and the Commission remains very open to amending the proposed names as well as the proposed pairs.
‘Important step’
Commenting on the publication of the initial proposals, Chief Executive of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, Shereen Williams said: “Today marks a very important step in the journey towards reforming the Senedd. At the 2026 Senedd election, our national parliament will be elected using an entirely new system, with entirely new constituencies.
“The Commission is confident that our initial proposals represent a very good first step in creating Wales’ 16 new Senedd constituencies, but we know from experience that these processes are always strengthened when we hear from the public.
“So we strongly encourage everyone to share their views with us, whether they support or oppose the proposals, so that we can go on to further strengthen the map ahead of the next election.”
The initial consultation period closes on September 30, and the Commission will publish its Revised Proposals report in December 2024. Another four-week consultation period running into January 2025 will follow. The Commission expects to publish its Final Decisions in March 2025.
Jess Blair, Director of Electoral Reform Society Cymru said: “The Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru’s initial proposals for the new Senedd constituencies remind us that significant change is just around the corner for Welsh democracy. At the next elections in 2026 voters will be returning more members to represent them in new geographical areas under a new electoral system.
“Voters should be at the centre of these changes and it is welcome that the Commission is asking for the public’s views on the proposed electoral map for Wales.
“Voters’ voices are the heart of any democracy, but they are currently at risk of being lost in the next election, due to the introduction of the Closed List electoral system, which only allows voters to back political parties rather than individual candidates. Ultimately to make these boundary changes work the best they can, the Senedd needs to move beyond Closed Lists after 2026.”
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
The use of the closed list system is disgraceful.
Jobs for the boys.
And those huge constituencies!
Madness.
STV would have been a better option.
Given the circumstances which are identified in the article do you therefore think that the system should have remained the same and if so why?
Or is it devolution itself is what you think is the problem?
” do you therefore think that the system should have remained the same and if so why?”
Read my comment again.
Note that I stated that STV would be a better option.
“Or is it devolution itself is what you think is the problem?”
No.
Labour vetoed STV so it’s a case of getting on with what we’ve got.
However hopefully that Labour blockage to STV and other advances for Cymru can be flushed under the new system.
That’s a pathetic response. Pure distraction. Expected much better from you.
Criticism for criticism’s sake is often an indicator of an undisclosed agenda.
In the run up to the next Senedd election we’re going to see a lot of it.
It’s going to be especially an aspect of the Reform Party Ltd.’s modus operandi.
Bryn offered another option in his comment, so hardly criticism for criticism’s sake is it ? That’s what comes from firing off responses without any consideration of the other person’s comment. Too wrapped up in the “correctness” of your own stance.
I didn’t reply to Bryn’s initial post with a “stance” but with two questions. As I’m not familiar with his views I thought the questions valid. He paid me the curtesy of replying. The new system is a fait accompli. There is a Senedd election in 2026 and I think the ones who would gain most by the questioning of the legitimacy or adequacy of the new system are those who are anti-devolution, certainly anti independence. In any case I don’t think there is anything wrong per se with someone having a “stance”. Bryn’s initial comment has five! You’ve made… Read more »
Except STV is not a PR system. It is designed to favour the parties or party of the centre as their candidates are more likely to pick up preferences. In addition is gives more say to those who vote for unpopular candidates as their vote is more likely to be distributed to someone else.
The so called closed list system is also the current system for the regional Senedd seats.
STV is approximately proportional and becomes more so when the number of MSs per constituency is increased, though the length of the ballot paper might then become problematic. STV does favour the centre because that is where most people congregate. If we imagine a Wales where everyone was either far left or far right, then STV would reflect that and centrists would pick up very few seats.
“The so called closed list system is also the current system for the regional Senedd seats.”
Indeed it is.
But the balance of the seats, where the first past the post system is utilised, allows the voters to pass judgement on the capabilities of the individual candidates.
The new system rules this out.
My concern is that this new system will cause voters to lose faith, and interest, in Senedd elections.
The turn out for Senedd elections is already low.
This may drive them down even further with only the very committed – or fanatical- voters turning out.
I don’t understand the criticism of the closed list system, given that all elections currently held are closed list.
Fptp elections – Westminster and constituency MSs – closed list of one option.
Additional member MS – closed list.
This is the one thing that hasn’t been changed by the reforms.
” all elections currently held are closed list. ” That is not correct. Westminster and constituency MSs are not elected under the closed list system Regional MSs are so elected at present. Under a closed list system a voter has a choice of parties , and not individuals, to choose from. A vote for a party is interpreted as approval for the full list of the candidates it puts forward. You cannot signal your disapproval of an individual candidate. If you vote for a party and it gets enough votes their choice of MS gets in. Under FPTP, flawed as… Read more »
Mathematically the Westminster FPTP system is a closed list system, just that the list length is 1 and MP elected per constituency is also 1.
Westminster and constituency MSs are a closed list of one candidate. If you want to vote for a party, you have to accept the candidate that they have selected or vote for a different party.
That is true of fptp just as much as the new senedd system. Just because it is a closed list of one candidate, doesn’t mean it isn’t a closed list.
“It is not a good system and should not be implemented.”
My understanding is that it will be implemented.
Do you have any information that indicates that it will not?
A bizarre comment.
I repeat.
It is not a good system and ought not to be implemented.
For my reasons see above.
I suspect that you are not a serious commentator and are merely playing games.
The evidence clearly suggests such.
“It is not a good system and ought not to be implemented”. But it appears that like me you expect the new system to be in operation for the next Senedd election. Basically for those who want a different system for whatever reason and using whatever argument the immediate battle has been lost. So for me the approach is to take what positives there are – an enlarged Senedd and a more proportional system than the current one together with the calculation that because of this the new system is not necessarily the likely end point for how we elect… Read more »
Brecon and Swansea East a ‘cohesive community’? Or gerrymandered to all Hell.
What is your suggestion for the new constituencies?
Or is it devolution itself is what you think is the problem?
The word gerrymandered suggests that the boundaries are selected to favour a particular party. I do not think that is the case here. It would be difficult to gerrymander when all constituencies elect the same number of MSs by list PR.
In Gwent if David Total Connman Davies is on the Tory list then he could regain his Monmouthshire seat and suddenly also represent Torfaen. While I appreciate that a balanced Senedd with Plaid as the joker could be beneficial I absolutely don’t want him in the role. His long service gives him some clout with his voters but ‘gerrymandered’ boundaries and ‘stealth tactics’ are apt descriptions when him or his ilk are imposed upon us the morning after an ellection.
As is Torfaen/Monmouthshire. Gwent reunited apart from one borough is mostly Labour and the other mostly Tory. Plaid get the scraps under either system.
I’m going to struggle with some aspects of this innovation. I’m supportive of expanding the numbers in the Senedd so that they become more proportionate, numerically speaking, with the those of the other UK devolved parliaments in Belfast and in Edinburgh. It’s always struck me as especially eccentric that, due to the numbers, the ruling party in the Senedd ends up with rather too few ‘back-benchers’. But the proposal that we’ll be voting, merely and solely, for a ‘ticket’ – for a clutch of candidates nominated by the political parties on a ‘take it or leave it’ batch basis –… Read more »
Nonsensecal esp Bangor Aberconwy Ynys Mon crossing sections of 3 counties – Ynys Mon, Gwynedd and Conwy !! – is this a precursor to recreating the old authorities of Gwynedd and Clwyd, The electotate have enough problems with understanding the 4 tiers of local and national Government- without this constant tinkering
Given that 22 local authorities is widely felt to be too many and wasteful. The opportunity here is the reform local authorities, reducing them to 16 along these boundaries. Every local authority will then have 2 MPs, 6MSs, and roughly the same population.
The Gangs of Desolation Bay, 21st Century thriller set in the near future…
Soundtrack by Oasis…
Unintended consequence looming large on the horizon. Reform appeals to disaffected, hostile, even the indifferent as it’s an invitation to chuck a spanner into the works. Reform stands a good chance of doing well under this new system. It will work at getting the non voting electorate out to vote as well as the usual mix of fringe Tories, Labour and other Unionist inclined groups. People who sit on their arses all day long just moaning about things may just respond to the Reform approach. It need only happen once, in 2026, to cause damage.
That is the problem with democracy. We’ve had UKIP in previous Senedds and we will surely have reform in the next. You cannot prevent that and still have a democracy.
They are playing with fire, and they don’t care as long as they are on the gravy gang yellow brick road train metro whatever they call it…
Agreed which is why perhaps PC and Greens need to work together to ensure they come 1st or 2nd! Otherwise the narrative is abolish rather than independence / more autonomy.
It is beholding on the political parties in the election to get their vote out and counted, armchair supporters who stay at home are the same as votes against.
The optimares faction in Rome restructured the imperial map to stop populists. It failed.
Clearly the Boundary Commission has a better impression of Wales’ “good road links” than many.
My guess is they looked on the map, saw a single A road and thought there must be surges of traffic. Between Brecon and Neath every day.
The closed list system will create representatives of parties in the constituencies, not representatives of the constituencies in parliament.
It is unlikely that a talent puddle of 96 chosen by party apparatchiks for their party loyalty (and in many cases, GB party loyalty) will have among them persons of vision, charisma, leadership and management qualities to form the transformative, powerhouse WG executive that Wales so badly needs
Yn hollol!
Nail hit squarely on the head!!
Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion merging into one constituency does seem a bit ludicrous. Is someone who would stand on a platform on the future of Withybush Hospital going to have to campaign on the streets of Aberystwyth? Equally if more funding went to the Aberystwyth area is that going to appeal to voters in Haverfordwest? I’m for expanding the Senedd and getting rid of first past the post, but I feel there could be a danger of some areas missing out on representation, unlike Westminster where every constituency is guaranteed a representative. Could this not play into the hands of the… Read more »
No doubt there will be another expensive commission in a few years to look at why this is not working!
Super-large constituencies that will mean ASau are distant from the communities they represent. This really is an awful idea.
However currently if your needs as a constituent differ politically/expertise/priorities wise from your constituency Senedd member then tough.
With a super constituency the chances are that one of the super constituency’s Senedd members interests will align with yours and so your needs from a SM will be met.
It’s gerrymandering. To quote an email I have from Eluned Morgan MS prior to her elevation to First Minister, “The closed-list system being proposed means that it will be party units – i.e. party members and affiliates – that will have control over the selection of candidates and their order on our lists and will help us to ensure that Welsh Labour lists are diverse.” The change in the voting system is to slot in Labour desirables, nothing to do with representation of empowerment of the people of Wales.
I note North Wales has 4 constituencies so 24 out of the 96 SMs. South East Wales has 7 so 42 SMs- Its little wonder North Wales gets such a poor service from the Senedd- No wonder few in North East Wales support indie when all we would be doing is swapping Westminister to South East Wales both of whom do not give a dam about us in the North.
The number of MPs and MSs correlates with the population. Also government spending correlates with population. It may look like the south, especially south east, is funded more because there is a larger population with higher population density. Doesn’t mean they are being prioritised.
There’s not much you can do about an uneven population distribution save relocating 100s of thousands from south to north or giving those in the north more than one vote each. That’s mathematics for you.
London is further away from north Cymru.than Caerdydd. That’s geography for you.
North Cymru is much less a concern of London than it is of Caerdydd. That’s Unionist politics for you.
Yes you are right re uneven population however the majority of North Wales population is in Flintshire/Wrexham- they have far more links with North West England and as you say London is further away than Cardiff- however you can get to London quicker than you can to Cardiff from North Wales.
Now you’re switching your argument to the links between north Cymru and North West England.
Depending on how you define north east Cymru it has between 20 and 30% of the population of south east Wales (gov.wales)
Whereas north east Cymru only has between 7 and 10% % of the population of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Cheshire combined (wiki)
It shouldn’t be difficult to work out that north west England will give less of a damn than you think the Senedd does.
Train times – yet another example of what Unionist politics get us.
‘But Welsh Labour insisted on the Closed List system, and told Plaid Cymru that unless its MSs agreed to that, the whole Senedd reform package would collapse. Plaid therefore accepted the closed lists’.
Pathetic from Plaid. Instead of calling Labours bluff when faced with hyperbolic blackmail Plaid folds like a deckchair. Country before party? No chance. Potentially more gravy before country? Most definitely.
What makes you think Labour were bluffing?
Do you think Labour in Wales would have been allowed to change to a new system if Starmer’s UK Labour government had been calling the shots?
I reject this proposal in it’s entirety. It’s not fit for purpose in any way, shape or form.
It will entrench incumbent power, i.e. the Labour Party.
Close lists are also a terrible idea.
I remain unconvinced we need more politicians.