Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 22:39:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 29, 2017 23:37:52 GMT
South Gloucestershire really needs to have its border with the City of Bristol reviewed. Everything within the M5/M4/A4174 box should go into Bristol, then South Gloucestershire should become a normal district council in Gloucestershire.Basically the area currently covered by the constituencies of Filton & Bradley Stoke and Kingswood.
As for Thornbury and Yate, they would need to add the western parts of the existing Stroud district near the M5 to create a viable new district.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 30, 2017 9:16:47 GMT
Large parts of South Gloucestershire, especially those closest to Bristol, seem to have a lot of development work going on judging by forecast electorates! Or are projected to. The ward I live in will be drastically shrunk down at the next election, because of a couple of major developments. The snag is that they should already have built around 1500 homes, but they've only just applied for planning permission for the first ten and there's no more in the immediate pipeline. It wouldn't be a surprise if several of the new S Glocs wards remain undersized for a long period.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Aug 30, 2017 22:00:25 GMT
Large parts of South Gloucestershire, especially those closest to Bristol, seem to have a lot of development work going on judging by forecast electorates! Or are projected to. The ward I live in will be drastically shrunk down at the next election, because of a couple of major developments. The snag is that they should already have built around 1500 homes, but they've only just applied for planning permission for the first ten and there's no more in the immediate pipeline. It wouldn't be a surprise if several of the new S Glocs wards remain undersized for a long period. Manchester's new city centre wards are being created because of some rather ambitious projections as well. No doubt there are others. On the other hand there have been reviews such as the recent one in Lancashire which have ignored developments already being built. The new boundaries created in Lancaster a few years ago are already seriously out, and much of it is nothing to do with IER.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 16, 2017 11:10:07 GMT
At this point, the consultation on new warding arrangements in several councils including my own, Nottingham, has closed.
Having looked at all the submissions regarding warding arrangements in Nottingham other than my own, I concluded that Nottingham City Council's submission is not suitable as it just welds together two poorly constructed wards and fails to restore community ties broken by the last review. Given that 52 out of 55 councillors in Nottingham are Labour, I believe this to be a Labour gerrymander.
The small Conservative group's submission on new warding arrangements in Nottingham is far better by comparison, and is similar to my own submission in many ways. It is also the most detailed and researched, but it nevertheless has room for improvement.
You can view it here: www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/35181/NottinghamConservatives-PG-Nottingham-2017-09-04_Redacted.pdf
With regards to their submission:
Their proposals for the Clifton area, the Wollaton, Lenton and University area, and the Sherwood, Mapperley and Carrington area should all be accepted without amendment, apart from renaming their proposed Wollaton Park ward as Wollaton East and their proposed Wollaton ward as Wollaton West.
Their proposals for the North Nottingham area be largely accepted, apart from a small modification so that Beechdale ward includes all the houses of Beechdale Road (the western boundary is not adequate) and that everything west of Beechdale Road is included in Bilborough ward. This will also even out electoral inequality issues somewhat. Also, Cinderhill and Hempshill Vale wards can be merged to form a 2-member Cinderhill ward.
Their proposed New Meadows and Embankment wards should be merged to form a 2-member Meadows ward. These two areas do share significant ties and are not particularly separate.
That most of Victoria ward (except for polling district ANNB) and City ward (not ANNH) merge to form a 2-member Central ward. These particular areas are not really separate. However, their proposal to create a single-member Park ward and a 2-member Radford ward should be approved, as should their Hyson Green ward proposal (it is very similar to my own, coincidentally). ANNB should be returned to St Ann's ward, as should all of ANNH that lies east of Huntingdon Street, allowing it to keep 3 members. Colwick Wood & Sneinton and Thorneywood are otherwise acceptable.
The final list of new wards for the city of Nottingham should therefore be as follows:
New ward | # of councillors | Forecast electorate (est) | Aspley | 2 | 8151 | Basford | 2 | 8309 | Beechdale | 2 | 8250 | Berridge | 3 | 11091 | Bestwood | 2 | 7982 | Bilborough | 2 | 7600 | Broxtowe | 2 | 7246 | Bulwell | 2 | 7432 | Bulwell Forest | 2 | 7327 | Central | 2 | 7670 | Cinderhill | 2 | 7703 | Clifton North | 2 | 8293 | Clifton South | 2 | 8420 | Colwick Wood & Sneinton | 2 | 7000 | Dunkirk, Lenton & University | 2 | 8122 | Hyson Green | 2 | 7632 | Mapperley | 2 | 7836 | Meadows | 2 | 7173 | Park | 1 | 3699 | Radford | 2 | 7160 | Rise Park | 1 | 3503 | Sherwood North | 2 | 7687 | Sherwood South | 2 | 7816 | Silverdale & Wilford | 1 | 3977 | St Ann's | 3 | 11900 | Thorneywood | 2 | 8322 | Wollaton East | 2 | 6931 | Wollaton West | 2 | 7076 |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Oct 3, 2017 18:37:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 31, 2017 22:58:26 GMT
Draft recommendations for the city of Nottingham where I live can be found here: consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/9774They are a mix of ideas from the ruling Labour group, the Conservative group, and myself. My proposals for the two new Clifton wards were accepted, as was my idea of a Hyson Green ward (also coincidentally proposed by the Conservative group on Nottingham City Council); the rest of mine were not (although I did ask that seven wards be kept intact anyway). The only Labour proposal accepted by the LGBCE was to merge Dunkirk & Lenton and Wollaton East & Lenton Abbey wards into a 3-member Lenton & Wollaton East ward (which takes in part of Leen Valley, which I will recommend be renamed Beechdale). The Conservative proposal to split up the oversized Bridge ward into three new single-member wards called City, Meadows, and Embankment was accepted, as was a widely supported idea to separate Radford and Park. Their ideas elsewhere in Nottingham were clearly rejected. All in all, a good plan for Nottingham. As for the psephological effects, the single-member Arboretum ward without the parts that have been moved to Hyson Green will give the Green Party very good chances there in 2019 given their excellent performance in the old 2-member Arboretum ward. On the minus side for the Greens, Dunkirk & Lenton's merger with Wollaton East & Lenton Abbey (mostly) will make the new ward much less Green notionally. The Park ward will be marginal compared to Radford & Park. The new Hyson Green ward will be a very safe Labour ward indeed but Leen Valley will be more marginal under these draft proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 2, 2017 9:01:19 GMT
Local MP Sir Hugo Swire has put down an EDM "That the draft East Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be not made." EDM 484
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 2, 2017 14:56:02 GMT
Local MP Sir Hugo Swire has put down an EDM "That the draft East Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be not made." EDM 484To be fair, he does have a vested interest. In the last two elections the Independent who scored a wonderful second place in 2015 has now turned the seat into a marginal.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 2, 2017 16:24:27 GMT
Local MP Sir Hugo Swire has put down an EDM "That the draft East Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be not made." EDM 484To be fair, he does have a vested interest. In the last two elections the Independent who scored a wonderful second place in 2015 has now turned the seat into a marginal. Do the proposed local government boundary changes somehow make it more marginal?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 2, 2017 17:43:46 GMT
Local MP Sir Hugo Swire has put down an EDM "That the draft East Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be not made." EDM 484A bit odd. He didn't make any submission at any point during the process, and the Conservative run council supported the proposed changes.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 3, 2017 8:33:54 GMT
To be fair, he does have a vested interest. In the last two elections the Independent who scored a wonderful second place in 2015 has now turned the seat into a marginal. Do the proposed local government boundary changes somehow make it more marginal? The local government boundary changes do not, but it would reinforce the view that the Independent (who is a local councillor herself) is more in tune with the electorate than Mr. Swire
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 3, 2017 8:51:25 GMT
ok
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Nov 3, 2017 20:49:34 GMT
Do the proposed local government boundary changes somehow make it more marginal? The local government boundary changes do not, but it would reinforce the view that the Independent (who is a local councillor herself) is more in tune with the electorate than Mr. Swire How would it do that? Is Claire Wright against the changes? I can't find any mention of it on her website or twitter (which is focused on opposing the government rather than anything local).
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 8, 2017 9:50:49 GMT
Seven new electoral changes orders have been published: The Leeds (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1077). Introduces new ward boundaries for Leeds council to come into effect at the 2018 election, and restores the system of election by thirds in following years. There are thirty-three new wards, all of which elect three councillors. The Newcastle-under-Lyme (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1079). Introduces new ward boundaries for Newcastle-under-Lyme council to come into effect at the 2018 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parish of Kidsgrove. There are twenty-one new wards, of which four are single-member, eleven elect two councillors and six elect three councillors. Newcastle-under-Lyme is not going back to thirds elections and will hold whole council elections every fourth year after 2018. The Newcastle upon Tyne (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1080). Introduces new ward boundaries for Newcastle upon Tyne council to come into effect at the 2018 election, restores the system of election by thirds in following years, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parish of Woolsington. There are twenty-six new wards, all of which elect three councillors. The Teignbridge (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1081). Introduces new ward boundaries for Teignbridge council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Dawlish, Haccombe with Combe, Hennock, Newton Abbot and Teignmouth. There are twenty-four new wards, of which six are single-member, thirteen elect two councillors and five elect three councillors. The South Norfolk (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1082). Introduces new ward boundaries for South Norfolk council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Bawburgh, Costessey and Wymondham. There are twenty-six new wards, of which eleven are single-member, ten elect two councillors and five elect three councillors. The Torridge (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1083). Introduces new ward boundaries for Torridge council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Bideford and Northam. There are sixteen new wards, of which one is single-member (Winkleigh), ten elect two councillors and five elect three councillors. The North Norfolk (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1085). Introduces new ward boundaries for North Norfolk council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Cromer, Fakenham, North Walsham and Sheringham. There are thirty-two new wards, of which twenty-four are single-member and eight elect two councillors.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 22, 2017 23:08:48 GMT
Three new electoral changes orders have been published: The Tendring (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1124). Introduces new ward boundaries for Tendring council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Frinton and Walton, and Harwich. There are thirty-two new wards, of which eighteen are single-member, twelve elect two councillors and two (Brightlingsea; and Lawford, Manningtree and Mistley) elect three councillors. The Harborough (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1124). Introduces new ward boundaries for Harborough council to come into effect at the 2019 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Broughton Astley and Lutterworth. There are nineteen new wards, of which seven are single-member, nine elect two councillors and three (Kibworths, Market Harborough - Welland, and Thurnby and Houghton) elect three councillors. The London Borough of Croydon (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1125). Introduces new ward boundaries for Croydon council to come into effect at the 2018 election. There are twenty-eight new wards, of which one (Park Hill and Whitgift) is single-member, twelve elect two councillors and fifteen elect three councillors.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 29, 2017 8:34:59 GMT
A new electoral changes order has been published: The South Lakeland (Electoral Changes) Order 2017 (S.I. 2017/1154). Introduces new ward boundaries for South Lakeland council to come into effect at the 2018 election, restores the system of election by thirds in following years, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Kendal and Windermere. There are eighteen new wards, of which three (Ambleside and Grasmere, Cartmel and Kendal North) elect two councillors and fifteen elect three councillors.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 30, 2017 13:39:29 GMT
Secretary of State is minded to approve plans to merge two groups of two councils:
* Taunton Deane and West Somerset * Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury (already operating as an unofficial 'West Suffolk council'
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Nov 30, 2017 14:33:10 GMT
Secretary of State is minded to approve plans to merge two groups of two councils: * Taunton Deane and West Somerset Not seen any plans for this - is there an associated move (or is there likely to be subsequently) to move that portion of the current West Somerset District which lies East of the Quantocks to Sedgemoor District?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 30, 2017 17:17:06 GMT
Secretary of State is minded to approve plans to merge two groups of two councils: * Taunton Deane and West Somerset Not seen any plans for this - is there an associated move (or is there likely to be subsequently) to move that portion of the current West Somerset District which lies East of the Quantocks to Sedgemoor District? It's the West Suffolk plan that I hadn't heard about! (Technically a resurrection of that name, but as a district rather than a county.) Some kind of plan to get rid of West Somerset has been on the cards for a while. A simple merger with Taunton Deane isn't really an ideal solution. This move should really have triggered a complete rethinking of the internal borders of ceremonial Somerset, but the government isn't interested in opening up that can of worms at the moment. If this goes through, it would leave Rutland as the least populous 'proper' local authority in England, and neigbouring Melton would – if the Dorset mergers are also passed – end up as the least populated district.
|
|