|
Post by boondock on Oct 2, 2017 8:43:41 GMT
As lomg as the DUP are in government the review is dead. They had a fit at the proposals. Current state of play is 10 DUP, 1 Ind Unionist and 7 SF. The new boundaries will likely give 1 Ind U, 1 Alliance, 9 SF and 6 DUP
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 2, 2017 9:12:58 GMT
The DUP are not part of the UK Government. We have a Conservative Government with Her Majesty's Ministers in the UK government being only members of the Conservative Party.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,309
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 2, 2017 9:35:25 GMT
Not sure of the relevance that has to the previous post - if no non-Tory MPs are willing to back the proposals in their present form, they cannot pass. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 2, 2017 12:18:26 GMT
Not sure of the relevance that has to the previous post - if no non-Tory MPs are willing to back the proposals in their present form, they cannot pass. Simple as that. Because boondock said the DUP were part of the U.K. Government and I had an irresistible urge to correct him/her on that. I agree on the wider point and was focusing on a minor,but still constitutionally important, part of his/her post.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 2, 2017 14:00:25 GMT
Possibly Major ChangesSolihull needs to slightly increase Solihull at the expense of Meriden, but since they're at 1.07 and 1.12 with relatively large wards, doing so might require a ward split. With 5% variance, at least one ward will have to be put in with a constituency across the Solihull border. Numerically, it would make sense for this to be across the Staffordshire border What Solihull/Staffordshire border? Oops. I think I may require a brain transplant.
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,188
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 2, 2017 14:42:10 GMT
You mean the Solihull/Warwickshire border. Just put the easternmost ward (Meriden itself) with a modified North Warwickshire and remain the shrunken Meriden constituency as Dorridge Vale.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 3, 2017 1:10:26 GMT
You mean the Solihull/Warwickshire border. There is no such thing as that either.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 3, 2017 6:27:26 GMT
You mean the Solihull/Warwickshire border. There is no such thing as that either. I think it's legitimate to describe the part of the West Midlands/Warwickshire border that coincides with the borders of Solihull Metropolitan District as the Solihull/Warwickshire border.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 3, 2017 10:25:12 GMT
You mean the Solihull/Warwickshire border. There is no such thing as that either. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 3, 2017 16:06:36 GMT
It's legitimate to describe it as the Solihull MB/Warwickshire CC administrative border. Which cricket county does Solihull fall under? (And don't say "Birmingham Bears"!)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 3, 2017 16:15:02 GMT
This whole discussion may be irrelevent anyway. Birmingham's electorate may be good for 10 seats on its own, but not all the current seats fall within an acceptable range. In particular Erdington is well undersized but not so much that adding another Birmingham ward would not make it oversized. The obvious solution here is likely to be to add Castle Bromwich and that solves the Meriden problem simultaneously
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 3, 2017 16:56:34 GMT
This whole discussion may be irrelevent anyway. Birmingham's electorate may be good for 10 seats on its own, but not all the current seats fall within an acceptable range. In particular Erdington is well undersized but not so much that adding another Birmingham ward would not make it oversized. The obvious solution here is likely to be to add Castle Bromwich and that solves the Meriden problem simultaneously Are we talking about the new or the old Birmingham wards here?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 3, 2017 17:00:52 GMT
Well I don't know about the new wards but I would think there would still be scope for moving CB into a Birmingham seat - seems better than crossing the Met county boundary (especially as Warwickshire CC area is fine on its own as is Cov)
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 3, 2017 18:39:57 GMT
Well I don't know about the new wards but I would think there would still be scope for moving CB into a Birmingham seat - seems better than crossing the Met county boundary (especially as Warwickshire CC area is fine on its own as is Cov) Pitchfork time.....the whole point about Castle Bromwich is that it has spent the best part of a century avoiding being part of Birmingham, despite being effectively surrounded by it. Of course in reality it is a fairly normal middle class suburb, but there is no question that there would be very vocal opposition.
If the boundary review is abandoned, which people here think is inevitable, and we return to a 650 member House of Commons, Birmingham will still be entitled to 10 seats, so the point is moot (although I haven't looked at Coventry & Warwickshire recently). If we go back to 650, then we start again from scratch.
Note that there is no reason why the House of Commons couldn't accept the new boundaries in Britain, while rejecting them in Northern Ireland. This would keep the DUP happy, and probably get them onside in any vote.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 3, 2017 18:55:01 GMT
Well yeah it's not exactly Little Aston is it. If they want to be so precious about being in a nice middle class area they wouldn't be happy to be surrounded by Shard End, Castle Vale and Chelmsley Wood. It's only a nice area by comparison with its neighbours which is one hell of a low bar
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Oct 3, 2017 19:00:37 GMT
Well I don't know about the new wards but I would think there would still be scope for moving CB into a Birmingham seat - seems better than crossing the Met county boundary (especially as Warwickshire CC area is fine on its own as is Cov) Pitchfork time.....the whole point about Castle Bromwich is that it has spent the best part of a century avoiding being part of Birmingham, despite being effectively surrounded by it. Of course in reality it is a fairly normal middle class suburb, but there is no question that there would be very vocal opposition.
If the boundary review is abandoned, which people here think is inevitable, and we return to a 650 member House of Commons, Birmingham will still be entitled to 10 seats, so the point is moot (although I haven't looked at Coventry & Warwickshire recently). If we go back to 650, then we start again from scratch.
Note that there is no reason why the House of Commons couldn't accept the new boundaries in Britain, while rejecting them in Northern Ireland. This would keep the DUP happy, and probably get them onside in any vote.
If we retain 650 seats and the existing review is abandoned, Birmigham is still likely to still see large changes in its boundaries given the new wards cross many existing constituency boundaries. If if is based on the current boundaries, it will mean many wards not being aligned and containing parts of different constituencies. There is also many other parts of the country where this will also happen given the current review is based on December 2015 wards and many authorities have had electoral orders passed since then; it does make a mockery of the commission’s policy not to split wards given it would happen across the country by default if based on old wards.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 3, 2017 19:34:12 GMT
Pitchfork time.....the whole point about Castle Bromwich is that it has spent the best part of a century avoiding being part of Birmingham, despite being effectively surrounded by it. Of course in reality it is a fairly normal middle class suburb, but there is no question that there would be very vocal opposition.
If the boundary review is abandoned, which people here think is inevitable, and we return to a 650 member House of Commons, Birmingham will still be entitled to 10 seats, so the point is moot (although I haven't looked at Coventry & Warwickshire recently). If we go back to 650, then we start again from scratch.
Note that there is no reason why the House of Commons couldn't accept the new boundaries in Britain, while rejecting them in Northern Ireland. This would keep the DUP happy, and probably get them onside in any vote.
If we retain 650 seats and the existing review is abandoned, Birmigham is still likely to still see large changes in its boundaries given the new wards cross many existing constituency boundaries. If if is based on the current boundaries, it will mean many wards not being aligned and containing parts of different constituencies. There is also many other parts of the country where this will also happen given the current review is based on December 2015 wards and many authorities have had electoral orders passed since then; it does make a mockery of the commission’s policy not to split wards given it would happen across the country by default if based on old wards. If the boundary review is abandoned, then either it would be "postponed" to after the next election (as happened last time), or primary legislation would be required to return to a 650 House, and any other amendments. Either way new wards would be used. The new Birmingham wards could just as easily as the old wards be organised to create 10 seats. The problem with the current review is that with a higher quota and a lower tolerance, it is very difficult to construct Birmingham constituencies without crossing ward boundaries, as 4 wards are too small, and 5 are too large.
I pointed out to the Boundary commission, as did others, that it is absurd to reject crossing ward boundaries in Birmingham and Sheffield, when the wards have already been redrawn since the start date, so that the ward boundaries will be crossed in literlly dozens of places anyway......
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,405
|
Post by john07 on Oct 4, 2017 12:03:34 GMT
Anglesey has a higher proportion of Welsh speakers than Bangor thanks to the vastly greater presence of 'outsider' students in the latter. Last time I checked, though significantly Anglicised (especially when compared to the rest of Gwynedd), Bangor is still majority Welsh speaking. In fact, it must be worth noting that Anglesey itself has been seeing an influx of English speakers in recent years, though once again it's still majority Welsh speaking, and I think it has the greatest proportion of Welsh speakers in its population, or at least it did have. I certainly got the impression that the non-Welsh speaking population in Anglesey were mostly fairly recent incomers largely from Liverpool and Manchester. There was a big influx during the construction of the Wylfa Nuclear Power Station and a steady stream of retirees. Maybe Holyhead has had an influx from Ireland?
|
|