Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 23:09:57 GMT
Anyone know if they took deprivation into account when they initially created the multi-member wards?
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 23, 2014 23:23:53 GMT
From what the document says that is a new addition. It of course only covers there being more cllrs per authority not more within it for the more deprived areas. To take a hypothetical example if a council was a 40 member authority with wards for 20 cllrs in the eastern half being deprived and the 20 in the west being non deprived if the authority got 4 more cllrs they would split 2:2 subject to the boundary being maintained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2014 10:46:03 GMT
From what the document says that is a new addition. It of course only covers there being more cllrs per authority not more within it for the more deprived areas. To take a hypothetical example if a council was a 40 member authority with wards for 20 cllrs in the eastern half being deprived and the 20 in the west being non deprived if the authority got 4 more cllrs they would split 2:2 subject to the boundary being maintained. Thanks! SIMD breakdowns by local authority can be found here. I don't think anywhere outwith Glasgow bumps over the 30% most deprived threshold (2,800 per cllr), but Dundee is definitely in the 15-30% category (3,000 per cllr). Might have a wee look through them all this afternoon.
|
|
afleitch
SNP
Posts: 3,723
Member is Online
|
Post by afleitch on Feb 25, 2014 19:39:53 GMT
The September 2013 council electorates are now on there. Looking at the guidelines, I've done a council by council rundown of potential changes. Alas, they are on another computer! Most changes are fairly modest. What's worth noting is how important the 10% variance cap and the 18-85 limit is, otherwise the formulae employed don't work.
Looking at the cities; the highest ratio is only 1:3800. Both Glasgow and Dundee due to deprivation levels would fall under the 1:2800. Glasgow would be entitled to 166seats(!) but the cap would reduce that to 85, up 6 from last time. At present Dundee only elects 29 councillors. New rules would see them entitled to 38, but the 10% rule kicks in so the maximum would be just 32.
Edinburgh and Aberdeen due to low deprivation fall into the 1:3800 category. Edinburgh currently elects 58 but under the new rules would see them entitled to 91. Of course that's both above 85 and change gets capped at 10% so the maximum seats allocated would be 64 (I'm always rounding up) In reality they might recommend no change. Aberdeen at present is entitled to 43. The new rules give 45; up just 2.
Not all councils see their numbers go up; a significant number see theirs fall. But now I have the 2013 figures I can re-calculate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 23:50:07 GMT
Under the new formula, the Highland Council would be due 64 members, but the 10% rule means we'll have 72. If you think some of the current wards are monstrosities, wait until you see what this review will produce!
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Feb 25, 2014 23:52:57 GMT
Isn't there something in the rules that says these growth and shrinkages are not absolutely compulsory?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 2:36:53 GMT
Under the new formula, the Highland Council would be due 64 members, but the 10% rule means we'll have 72. If you think some of the current wards are monstrosities, wait until you see what this review will produce! *rubs thighs*
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,271
|
Post by YL on Feb 26, 2014 18:48:32 GMT
Wow, what happened for a 50% increase in population on those handful of wards? I'm guessing these are largely rural wards that border on, and contain a very small part of, an urban centre, and there's been a big housing development there. But one or two are actually very small geographically. It can easily happen. In the run up to the 2004 Sheffield review the council predicted the City Centre would have about 3000 electors. I did some research on all the flats and tower blocks being thrown up, and showed this was woefully underestimated, and the boundary commission agreed, and we used an updated prediction of 6000 electors to give a Central Ward of 13,500. It is now 26,500 !!! (10,350 in the city centre). And... the city council has a planning policy to encourage another 10,000 people to move to the city centre. Really 26,500? If that's right it's gained nearly 6000 electors since the 2012 local elections (assuming the Council's figure for the electorate then is correct).
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,261
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 26, 2014 18:52:25 GMT
Though a lot of those are students, aren't they?
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Feb 26, 2014 21:29:05 GMT
The September 2013 council electorates are now on there. Looking at the guidelines, I've done a council by council rundown of potential changes. Alas, they are on another computer! Most changes are fairly modest. What's worth noting is how important the 10% variance cap and the 18-85 limit is, otherwise the formulae employed don't work. Looking at the cities; the highest ratio is only 1:3800. Both Glasgow and Dundee due to deprivation levels would fall under the 1:2800. Glasgow would be entitled to 166seats(!) but the cap would reduce that to 85, up 6 from last time. At present Dundee only elects 29 councillors. New rules would see them entitled to 38, but the 10% rule kicks in so the maximum would be just 32. Edinburgh and Aberdeen due to low deprivation fall into the 1:3800 category. Edinburgh currently elects 58 but under the new rules would see them entitled to 91. Of course that's both above 85 and change gets capped at 10% so the maximum seats allocated would be 64 (I'm always rounding up) In reality they might recommend no change. Aberdeen at present is entitled to 43. The new rules give 45; up just 2. Not all councils see their numbers go up; a significant number see theirs fall. But now I have the 2013 figures I can re-calculate. Could I ask a favour? Could you post your calcs for Angus and Aberdeenshire? My gut feeling is that Angus should go up....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 21:49:57 GMT
Under the new formula, the Highland Council would be due 64 members, but the 10% rule means we'll have 72. If you think some of the current wards are monstrosities, wait until you see what this review will produce! *rubs thighs* You're going to be disappointed should 'North, West & Central Sutherland' and 'East Sutherland & Edderton' become simply 'Sutherland'!
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,586
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 27, 2014 10:52:47 GMT
It can easily happen. In the run up to the 2004 Sheffield review the council predicted the City Centre would have about 3000 electors. I did some research on all the flats and tower blocks being thrown up, and showed this was woefully underestimated, and the boundary commission agreed, and we used an updated prediction of 6000 electors to give a Central Ward of 13,500. It is now 26,500 !!! (10,350 in the city centre). And... the city council has a planning policy to encourage another 10,000 people to move to the city centre. Really 26,500? If that's right it's gained nearly 6000 electors since the 2012 local elections (assuming the Council's figure for the electorate then is correct). Sorry, too tired why typing. <i>Forecast</i> to be 26,500 electors in 2020, the figures we have to use for the current review, compared to <i>forecast</i> to be 6,000 in 2010 which turned into <i>actually</i> 10,350 in 2010. In 2011 the population was 26,000 compared to an electorate of 17,000 which was the most extreme in Sheffield, and is almost entirely accounted for by most of the 8,000 Chinese students in Sheffield living in the ward.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Mar 19, 2014 21:35:41 GMT
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Mar 29, 2014 13:30:35 GMT
Sneakily hidden away in the Commission's Corporate Plan is notice of their intention to conduct an administrative area review between Fife and Perth & Kinross to the north of Kelty. This will be done in conjunction with the ward boundary review and an extended timetable will be in effect to facilitate this. Looks to me like some territory and electorate will be ceded from Kinross into Fife to put all of the Kelty urban area into one local authority.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 29, 2014 18:09:08 GMT
The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has today published details of its proposals for councillor numbers for each of Scotland's 32 local authorities. Each council was consulted on the numbers for its area in the spring and the council's response to the Commission's proposals are on the appropriate page of the LGBC website. The public consultation closes on 21 August. Overall, the number of councillors in Scotland would reduce by 7 to 1216. This is in line with the instruction from Scottish Ministers that there should not be a substantial change in councillor numbers. The biggest gainers are Glasgow, North Lanarkshire (on grounds of social deprivation which has been a new factor incorporated for this review), and Edinburgh. The biggest 'losers' are Highland (who are broadly happy) and Dumfries and Galloway (who are not). For convenience, I've added a table at the end of this post summarising the proposals. I've looked at a few of the other council responses. Interesting one from CnES who would like to lose one or two more members but also requested the Commission to pass on to the Government their request that 2 and 5 member wards be a possibility in future reviews. This is something I personally agree with as there were a few areas in the previous review where the Commission thought a 5 member ward would be more appropriate. In my view, 2 member wards should be restricted to wards that include the whole of an island, or the whole or parts of 2 or more islands. Again, not something for this review, but I thought for some areas you could adopt a New Zealand model and say X area was entitled to the same number of members at each review and the rest of the area conforms to that quota. Using Bute as the basis for an Argyll & Bute quota is one I thought could work well. Perhaps not so good on the mainland but hey, it's an idea! Council area
| Existing No.
| Proposed No.
| Change | Aberdeen City | 43 | 45 | +2 | Aberdeenshire
| 68 | 70 | +2 | Angus
| 29 | 27 | -2 | Argyll & Bute | 36 | 33 | -3 | Clackmannanshire
| 18 | 18
| 0 | Dumfries & Galloway
| 47
| 43 | -4 | Dundee City
| 29 | 31 | +2 | East Ayrshire
| 32 | 32 | 0 | East Dunbartonshire
| 24 | 22 | -2 | East Lothian
| 23 | 21 | -2 | East Renfrewshire
| 20 | 18 | -2 | Edinburgh City
| 58 | 63 | +5 | Falkirk | 32 | 30 | -2 | Fife
| 78 | 75 | -3 | Glasgow | 79 | 85 | +6 | Highland | 80 | 72 | -8 | Inverclyde | 20 | 22 | +2 | Midlothian | 18 | 18 | 0 | Moray | 26 | 25 | -1 | North Ayrshire
| 30 | 33 | +3 | North Lanarkshire
| 70 | 77 | +7 | Orkney Islands
| 21 | 21 | 0 | Perth & Kinross
| 41 | 40 | -1 | Renfrewshire | 40 | 43 | +3 | Scottish Borders
| 34 | 32 | -2 | Shetland Islands
| 22 | 22 | 0 | South Ayrshire
| 30 | 27 | -3 | South Lanarkshire
| 67 | 64 | -3 | Stirling | 22 | 23 | +1
| West Dunbartonshire
| 22 | 22 | 0
| West Lothian
| 33 | 34 | +1 | Eilean Siar
| 31 | 28 | -3
| TOTALS | 1223 | 1216 | -7 |
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on May 29, 2014 19:47:42 GMT
Angus Council has objected to the proposed cut. I would agree, as I would have assumed that we might have gained a councillor or two due to population increase, particularly around some of the existing 3-member wards.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 29, 2014 20:17:57 GMT
Having looked at all the responses now, it looks like Highland and the Western Isles are content with the cuts proposed. As I noted, The Western Isles would be content losing one or two more depending on the ward geography that could be designed. Everyone else facing a cut wants to keep the status quo at least, if not a couple more.
Interestingly, some of those with increases don't want them including Inverclyde and West Lothian. Others have argued for further increases. North Ayrshire wants to break the 10% cap and go straight to 35/36, Edinburgh thinks figures should be rounded up so it can have an increase of 6 instead of 5.
I think it would be possible to let all decreasing councils have one more member, apart from Highland and Western Isles, and only go single digits above the total number of Scottish councillors, especially if you let those who want to stay the same do so, rather than increasing.
Interestingly almost all the rural councils object to the multi deprivation index being used which they perceive as generating an urban bias (not unfairly) but there is no corresponding measure to address rurality and the issues that poses. Not altogether convinced they make a strong case but it is something I think the Commission will have to consider in future at least, if not for this review as well.
Off to read the newly published minutes now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 20:30:10 GMT
piperdave, i bloody love your posts! (And BComm Scotland will be sorely missed if there's a yes vote.....)
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 29, 2014 21:10:54 GMT
Aww shucks, thanks doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️! Always happy to oblige, even if I don't know exactly what it is you enjoy so much. And I wouldn't worry too much about the yes vote, we'll still need a Commission for the independent SP's electoral arrangements, and the staff do both the parly and local commissions, so we'll still have it all to enjoy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 22:13:43 GMT
If Edinburgh is to gain five councillors, then I suspect that the primary effect will be an additional ward in the Leith area. From a purely partisan perspective, I'd welcome that.
|
|