piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 29, 2014 22:24:02 GMT
How do you come to that conclusion Benjamin?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 29, 2014 22:27:48 GMT
You wouldn't necessarily need an extra ward at all. They could just make 5 of the 3-seaters into 4-seaters and then tinker with the boundaries to even up the electorates..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 22:43:01 GMT
How do you come to that conclusion Benjamin? Well, from afleitch's map, Leith is the main area of Edinburgh where there has been substantial population growth, and I'm not sure that adding a councillor to the Leith ward whilst retaining substantially the same boundaries would be sufficient. Though yes, it would certainly possible to retain the current number of wards whilst shifting the boundaries, though the effect might be similar from a Leith perspective. Expanding Craigentinny & Duddingston towards Leith Links and Easter Road might be an option, though adding Broughton to City Centre might too.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on May 30, 2014 18:23:37 GMT
[quotefauthor="@benjamin" source="/post/166292/thread" timestamp="1401403381"] How do you come to that conclusion Benjamin? Well, from afleitch's map, Leith is the main area of Edinburgh where there has been substantial population growth, and I'm not sure that adding a councillor to the Leith ward whilst retaining substantially the same boundaries would be sufficient.[/quote] IIRC afleitch's map was change between 2001-2011. If The commission will be looking at divergence from parity of the elector:councillor ratio. From the March 2014 stats (I know the September 2013 ones are the basis of the review) Leith, leith walk and forth wards are all a bit below parity so would need electorate added to them from above pair areas. Some of these are nearby like Craigentinny/Duddingston. If most of the growth in the Leith area was prior to 2006, the commission will have caught that in the last review, particularly as they were looking at parity being achieved by 2012. Sorry for that last para being disjointed but typing this on my phone and it doesn't want to play ball!
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 30, 2014 19:18:45 GMT
From the map, it looks like Renfrew North, Renfrew South and Lochwinnoch etc. going from 3 members to 4 would be the simplest way of turning 40 councillors into 43 in Renfrewshire, so obviously they will do something radically different.
The growth in Renfrew is presumably all the new developments around Braehead.
The three aforementioned wards are currently "marginals" in that they can flip between 2 Lab/ 1 SNP and 1 Lab/2 SNP. They would most likely be 2 Lab/2 SNP for the foresee-able if the above changes occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 22:08:32 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! What has basically happened is that the LGBCS is taking councillors away from rural Scotland and giving them to urban Scotland. While THC has decided not to object, quite a few people are uneasy about this direction of travel. Speaking personally, I'm being punish twice: being punished for being a councillor in a predominantly rural authority who represents an urban ward with a fair degree of deprivation!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 12:21:55 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! What has basically happened is that the LGBCS is taking councillors away from rural Scotland and giving them to urban Scotland. While THC has decided not to object, quite a few people are uneasy about this direction of travel. Speaking personally, I'm being punish twice: being punished for being a councillor in a predominantly rural authority who represents an urban ward with a fair degree of deprivation! If I'm reading it right deprivation can be used as an argument for ward boundaries and size/disparity within a council area. So it might not be negative for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2014 13:02:56 GMT
I thought deprivation could only be used as an argument for disparity in the number of councillors between councils rather than within them?
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Jun 3, 2014 14:23:35 GMT
I'd agree with Benjamin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 15:43:45 GMT
I thought deprivation could only be used as an argument for disparity in the number of councillors between councils rather than within them? That's also my understanding.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Jun 4, 2014 18:15:07 GMT
In previous reviews, it was certainly the case that you couldn't have electorate:councillor ratios within a council area despite large variations in population density. If that had been allowable, you could see some obvious cases for applying different ratios particularly since most councils contain some very different areas. For example, South Lanarkshire could have had one ratio for Clydesdale but another for the remainder of the council area. But you would need some concrete definitions of sub-areas so that tiny areas aren't constantly reclassified as being in a different sub-area to achieve the outcome the council thinks is desirable. Again using South Lanarkshire, Stonehouse was in Hamilton District Council, but is now in a ward with Strathaven which was in East Kilbride District, but for some advantage it might be suggested that actually it should be considered in Clydesdale. Perhaps if all service delivery for a town like this was moved from Hamilton to Lanark for example, you might accept it as legitimately in a different sub-area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 18:19:26 GMT
Draft ward boundaries are published tomorrow, I understand. Shame I'll be up a hillside on a planning site visit for much of tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 18, 2015 18:23:14 GMT
Odd timing. Is it a cunning plan to ensure most interested parties will be too busy with the election to object?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 18:40:29 GMT
The timing is indeed odd. The consultation with councils begins tomorrow and ends on 19th May. The public consultation begins in July and ends in October.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Mar 19, 2015 9:35:32 GMT
I see the commission has changed its proposals for Angus, now only a reduction of 1 councillor. However, it is cutting a councillor from the most deprived ward!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 14:04:19 GMT
The LGBCS has done a similar thing for the Highlands. We are now going down to 74 instead of 72, but the rural wards are being protected at the expense of urban ones.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Mar 23, 2015 15:11:03 GMT
If you browse through the meeting papers you can find maps of some of the potential schemes.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Mar 23, 2015 16:57:52 GMT
If you browse through the meeting papers you can find maps of some of the potential schemes. And the minutes outline which proposals are chosen as provisional recommendations.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Mar 25, 2015 19:44:41 GMT
Glasgow and Edinburgh etc now up. In order to see which options are picked you have to marry up what was said in the minutes with what's in the meetings papers. So for example in Glasgow they will be proposing Option B and in Edinburgh Option B.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 20:39:50 GMT
Options C and D for Edinburgh are hideous, so I'm pleased that they will recommend Option B, which is the minimal change option.
|
|