|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 31, 2019 15:39:05 GMT
They've gone all three member presumably? Always causes some horrible messes. Can you explain your thinking re: good news for Labour? They've gone all three member yes, which necessitates some sort of horrible ward in that part of the borough. Interesting they've gone for linking the villages with the parts of Brierfield with best geographical and road links, rather than whatever other criteria might have been used to draw the county boundaries there. Perhaps brillant was an overstatement, but assuming no unusual results in Nelson (far from guaranteed at the moment), Labour currently have 19 seats that should be safe (though only currently hold 16), with 25 needed for a majority - they need 6 more seats in 2, or more likely 3 wards. On the new boundaries they get 15 of the 33 seats (assuming Brierfield West would be safe Labour), only needing to split one other ward to win a majority, which is not harder to win than any of the current target wards. Nelson might scupper their chances in the near future. Is that a safe assumption though? Fence & HIgham would mitigate against that I should have thought
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 31, 2019 15:43:45 GMT
FFS I've just noticed 'West Craven East' and 'West Craven West'. Really ?
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 31, 2019 16:48:32 GMT
They've gone all three member yes, which necessitates some sort of horrible ward in that part of the borough. Interesting they've gone for linking the villages with the parts of Brierfield with best geographical and road links, rather than whatever other criteria might have been used to draw the county boundaries there. Perhaps brillant was an overstatement, but assuming no unusual results in Nelson (far from guaranteed at the moment), Labour currently have 19 seats that should be safe (though only currently hold 16), with 25 needed for a majority - they need 6 more seats in 2, or more likely 3 wards. On the new boundaries they get 15 of the 33 seats (assuming Brierfield West would be safe Labour), only needing to split one other ward to win a majority, which is not harder to win than any of the current target wards. Nelson might scupper their chances in the near future. Is that a safe assumption though? Fence & HIgham would mitigate against that I should have thought The ward comprises the current Old Laund Booth ward, the Higham part of Higham with Pendleside ward (about half the electorate), Reedley Hallows parish, and the central and West wards of Brierfield town council. Election results this May: (top vote for multi member town council wards) Old Laund Booth: LD 373 Con 266 Lab 23 (55% turnout) Higham with Pendleside: Con 427 Lab 173 (43%) Brierfield West: Lab 347 Con 196 (45%) Brierfield Central: Lab 630 Con 132 (62%!) Reedley Hallows parish was uncontested and is non partisan. If the voters in the rest of Reedley ward voted the same way for the borough and town councils Reedley Hallows would be Labour by about 200 votes or so. Higham had a parish election but it's non partisan so we'll just have to use half the votes cast in the borough election as a guide. That gives Labour a lead of about 500 votes.
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Jul 31, 2019 16:58:43 GMT
FFS I've just noticed 'West Craven East' and 'West Craven West'. Really ? Not on my watch. I'll have a think. We have West Bromwich West and West Ham West as constituency names so I don’t see why not!
|
|
|
Post by syorkssocialist on Jul 31, 2019 17:08:29 GMT
Not on my watch. I'll have a think. We have West Bromwich West and West Ham West as constituency names so I don’t see why not! We don't have West Ham West - we have West Ham and East Ham!
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 31, 2019 17:47:28 GMT
Is that a safe assumption though? Fence & HIgham would mitigate against that I should have thought The ward comprises the current Old Laund Booth ward, the Higham part of Higham with Pendleside ward (about half the electorate), Reedley Hallows parish, and the central and West wards of Brierfield town council. Election results this May: (top vote for multi member town council wards) Old Laund Booth: LD 373 Con 266 Lab 23 (55% turnout) Higham with Pendleside: Con 427 Lab 173 (43%) Brierfield West: Lab 347 Con 196 (45%) Brierfield Central: Lab 630 Con 132 (62%!) Reedley Hallows parish was uncontested and is non partisan. If the voters in the rest of Reedley ward voted the same way for the borough and town councils Reedley Hallows would be Labour by about 200 votes or so. Higham had a parish election but it's non partisan so we'll just have to use half the votes cast in the borough election as a guide. That gives Labour a lead of about 500 votes. A very enthusiastic turnout in Brierfield Central!
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 31, 2019 20:08:59 GMT
Having said all that, looking at the turnout again, maybe Brierfield West etc might be competitive on a general election turnout, though another election soon would delay that possibility to 2024 at least.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 1, 2019 20:01:55 GMT
(Cross-posted from the Shetland by-election thread.) A new electoral changes order has been published: The Representation of the People Act 1983 Remedial (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/261). Allows prisoners serving sentences of twelve months or less, who would otherwise have been resident in Shetland, to vote in the Shetland by-election on 29 August 2019. Prisoners registered to vote under this Order will only be able to vote by post. A prisoner's registration to vote under this Order will expire after the by-election is over. This is a consequence of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Hirst v UK that the UK's ban on prisoners voting is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The provisions of the order mirror a bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament, which will give prisoners serving sentences of twelve months or less the right to vote in Scottish local government elections and, by extension, Scottish Parliament elections.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,406
|
Post by john07 on Aug 2, 2019 13:51:25 GMT
Not on my watch. I'll have a think. We have West Bromwich West and West Ham West as constituency names so I don’t see why not! Not as bad as the (former?) ward name Barking Barking Barking?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 3, 2019 13:05:51 GMT
We have West Bromwich West and West Ham West as constituency names so I don’t see why not! Not as bad as the (former?) ward name Barking Barking Barking? Why was it called Barking Barking Barking?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 3, 2019 13:12:04 GMT
Not as bad as the (former?) ward name Barking Barking Barking? Why was it called Barking Barking Barking? It wasn't. There was never any such ward. The Barking constituency was technically Barking, Barking between 1974 and 1983 when the old way of naming London boroughs was used with the new boroughs but that would have had no relevance to the name of the constituent wards even if there had been a ward called Barking, which there wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Aug 3, 2019 14:27:31 GMT
Why was it called Barking Barking Barking? It wasn't. There was never any such ward. The Barking constituency was technically Barking, Barking between 1974 and 1983 when the old way of naming London boroughs was used with the new boroughs but that would have had no relevance to the name of the constituent wards even if there had been a ward called Barking, which there wasn't. "Barking, Barking" is still pretty good. "Barking, Barking: so barking they had to name it twice."
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 3, 2019 14:41:13 GMT
It wasn't. There was never any such ward. The Barking constituency was technically Barking, Barking between 1974 and 1983 when the old way of naming London boroughs was used with the new boroughs but that would have had no relevance to the name of the constituent wards even if there had been a ward called Barking, which there wasn't. "Barking, Barking" is still pretty good. "Barking, Barking: so barking they had to name it twice." Yes Barking, Barking was excellent. I also liked some of the alliterative ones like Merton, Mitcham & Morden and Hillingdon, Hayes & Harlington or the absurdly long-winded such as Cities of London & Westminster, City of Westminster, Paddington. I doubt these forms were used very often in everyday conversation though..
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 22, 2019 17:58:15 GMT
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,809
|
Post by jamie on Aug 22, 2019 21:09:45 GMT
I imagine their would be split wards galore. Labour would probably win control based on 2018 and 2019 results but dependent upon continuing to overperform their general election result in the ex mining/industrial areas.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 3, 2019 9:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 4, 2019 20:41:56 GMT
A few weeks ago I emailed to the councillor for Neath East ward to ask why it's called Neath East instead of Neath West. No reply. I emailed Electoral Services at Neath & Port Talbot county council to ask the same question. No reply. I emailed ditto with a reminder, then a second reminder. No reply.
Then I emailed the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. I got a reply - but that reply is simply that they don't know the reason because the current ward boundaries were created before the LGBCW existed.
BUT "the Commission is currently conducting a review of Neath Port Talbot and the names of the wards are being considered as part of that review" and "There is no specific scheduled date at present. The Commission are currently determining what the draft proposals should be. The draft proposals are due to be published later in the year" so they are actually doing it, but are still in the early stages.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 4, 2019 20:45:50 GMT
A few weeks ago I emailed to the councillor for Neath East ward to ask why it's called Neath East instead of Neath West. No reply. I emailed Electoral Services at Neath & Port Talbot county council to ask the same question. No reply. I emailed ditto with a reminder, then a second reminder. No reply. Then I emailed the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. I got a reply - but that reply is simply that they don't know the reason because the current ward boundaries were created before the LGBCW existed. BUT "the Commission is currently conducting a review of Neath Port Talbot and the names of the wards are being considered as part of that review" and "There is no specific scheduled date at present. The Commission are currently determining what the draft proposals should be. The draft proposals are due to be published later in the year" so they are actually doing it, but are still in the early stages. We have a new poster called 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ - you could ask them.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 4, 2019 21:06:36 GMT
A few weeks ago I emailed to the councillor for Neath East ward to ask why it's called Neath East instead of Neath West. No reply. I emailed Electoral Services at Neath & Port Talbot county council to ask the same question. No reply. I emailed ditto with a reminder, then a second reminder. No reply. Then I emailed the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. I got a reply - but that reply is simply that they don't know the reason because the current ward boundaries were created before the LGBCW existed. BUT "the Commission is currently conducting a review of Neath Port Talbot and the names of the wards are being considered as part of that review" and "There is no specific scheduled date at present. The Commission are currently determining what the draft proposals should be. The draft proposals are due to be published later in the year" so they are actually doing it, but are still in the early stages. We have a new poster called 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ - you could ask them. All I know is that it happened some time in the 80s/90s. Neath used to have just North and South before then, and then someone cocked up splitting South into two wards.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 4, 2019 21:14:44 GMT
Actually, I can do better than that. The suspect order is the Borough of Neath (Electoral Arrangements) Order, 1983 (S.I. 1983/116). I cannot find a copy of this, but I imagine that the bad drafting will be obvious.
|
|