john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,541
|
Post by john07 on Sept 30, 2015 12:37:24 GMT
The other point that I realised when looking at Southwark, was that there is an advantage in having multi-member wards for areas where building / population growth means that electorates are not perfectly stable. Having single member wards means that there will be a need for a boundary review / that there will be more unequal electorates far more quickly than with multi-member wards. Whilst I don't know Birmingham well - I can't believe that future electorate growth will be stable across all areas. Birmingham is a nightmare to break into wards no matter how it is done unless you accept say 180 councillors. With three member wards they are likely to be far to large. This has knock on consequences for Parliamentary Boundaries given the reluctance to split wards. It will be a mess no matter how it is done.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 30, 2015 13:02:27 GMT
The other point that I realised when looking at Southwark, was that there is an advantage in having multi-member wards for areas where building / population growth means that electorates are not perfectly stable. Having single member wards means that there will be a need for a boundary review / that there will be more unequal electorates far more quickly than with multi-member wards. Whilst I don't know Birmingham well - I can't believe that future electorate growth will be stable across all areas. Birmingham is a nightmare to break into wards no matter how it is done unless you accept say 180 councillors. With three member wards they are likely to be far to large. This has knock on consequences for Parliamentary Boundaries given the reluctance to split wards. It will be a mess no matter how it is done. Having just had more of a look at this, I now see what you mean and understand the issue more - basically Birmingham is just far too large for anything sensible. Presumably the only realistic long-term solution would be a thorough re-organisation of the Metropolitan Counties that make up the West Midlands. (Could just be a case of splitting Brum up and leaving the rest, but if you are doing it anyway...)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 30, 2015 17:08:10 GMT
I wish I'd known this. I tried drawing up single member wards and reached an impasse (actually several impasses as I tried from a number of starting points). No doubt I could have come up with something plausible with a mixture of 1,2 and 3 members. I might have another go just for the crack
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,282
|
Post by Sibboleth on Sept 30, 2015 17:51:10 GMT
Breaking up Birmingham is the solution of the electoral nerd who has never considered that local government has functions other than to provide them with data to slobber over. There is a strong argument (given the size of the city) for boroughs of some sort within the city, but that is really not the same thing at all...
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 30, 2015 19:12:44 GMT
The other point that I realised when looking at Southwark, was that there is an advantage in having multi-member wards for areas where building / population growth means that electorates are not perfectly stable. Having single member wards means that there will be a need for a boundary review / that there will be more unequal electorates far more quickly than with multi-member wards. Whilst I don't know Birmingham well - I can't believe that future electorate growth will be stable across all areas. It can work both ways. If one particular area of the city experiences high growth, you might be able to replace three large old wards with four smaller new wards while leaving surrounding areas completely unchanged. With three member wards you often get knock on effects where A loses 1000 voters to B which means B has to lose 1000 to C etc, ending up with virtually all the wards changed at least slightly.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 6, 2015 20:29:17 GMT
I was on holiday so didn't make a submission. Was very surprised to see both labour and Conservatives recommending so many 2 member wards against the Kershaw Review. Shows the persistence of local parties wanting as little change as possible as 2 member wards on a 100 council are only a wee bit smaller than 3 member wards on the existing basis. Too many councillors not wanting change. Almost all the proposed 2 member wards can simply be cut in half.
Am very sorry now I didn't spend the time making my submission for single member wards. If we have to have this change in Birmingham, then let's have wards of a sensible size of c7500 which match the size of urban wards elsewhere - which is of course why Kershaw recommended it.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2015 21:41:49 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 7, 2015 1:05:24 GMT
I was on holiday so didn't make a submission. Was very surprised to see both labour and Conservatives recommending so many 2 member wards against the Kershaw Review. Shows the persistence of local parties wanting as little change as possible as 2 member wards on a 100 council are only a wee bit smaller than 3 member wards on the existing basis. Too many councillors not wanting change. Almost all the proposed 2 member wards can simply be cut in half. Am very sorry now I didn't spend the time making my submission for single member wards. If we have to have this change in Birmingham, then let's have wards of a sensible size of c7500 which match the size of urban wards elsewhere - which is of course why Kershaw recommended it..... I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions but I would be grateful if you could give me a single good reason as to why Kershaw's recommendations should be considered with anything other than loathing and contempt.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 9, 2015 14:34:05 GMT
I was on holiday so didn't make a submission. Was very surprised to see both labour and Conservatives recommending so many 2 member wards against the Kershaw Review. Shows the persistence of local parties wanting as little change as possible as 2 member wards on a 100 council are only a wee bit smaller than 3 member wards on the existing basis. Too many councillors not wanting change. Almost all the proposed 2 member wards can simply be cut in half. Am very sorry now I didn't spend the time making my submission for single member wards. If we have to have this change in Birmingham, then let's have wards of a sensible size of c7500 which match the size of urban wards elsewhere - which is of course why Kershaw recommended it..... I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions but I would be grateful if you could give me a single good reason as to why Kershaw's recommendations should be considered with anything other than loathing and contempt. Because they are a political fact, regardless of what one feels about government intervention in our local affairs. This is a highly centralised country, and if the central government decides something will happen, then it will happen.
And I have been of the view that Birmingham wards are absurdly large since I moved here, so this element of the recommendations can be supported.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,611
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 9, 2015 19:47:53 GMT
Am very sorry now I didn't spend the time making my submission for single member wards. If we have to have this change in Birmingham, then let's have wards of a sensible size of c7500 which match the size of urban wards elsewhere - which is of course why Kershaw recommended it..... Is this the same Bob Kershaw who was Chief Exec in Sheffield where we have wards of 14,500 ? A point of clarification: do you mean single member wards of 7500 or 3-member wards of 7500?
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 9, 2015 20:29:30 GMT
I was on holiday so didn't make a submission. Was very surprised to see both labour and Conservatives recommending so many 2 member wards against the Kershaw Review. Shows the persistence of local parties wanting as little change as possible as 2 member wards on a 100 council are only a wee bit smaller than 3 member wards on the existing basis. Too many councillors not wanting change. Almost all the proposed 2 member wards can simply be cut in half. Am very sorry now I didn't spend the time making my submission for single member wards. If we have to have this change in Birmingham, then let's have wards of a sensible size of c7500 which match the size of urban wards elsewhere - which is of course why Kershaw recommended it..... But how many of those urban wards elsewhere elect a single councillor?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 9, 2015 23:57:43 GMT
I think there's a fallacy at work here that because the 3-member ward system is pants, a 1-member ward system will be the bee's knees. In fact, there are lots of things that are bad about a 1-member ward system.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 10, 2015 10:53:07 GMT
I think there's a fallacy at work here that because the 3-member ward system is pants, a 1-member ward system will be the bee's knees. In fact, there are lots of things that are bad about a 1-member ward system. This enables me to run one of my favourite hobby horses. There are no good solutions to representing a local authority as large as Birmingham. All the possibilities are flawed. Once we have all accepted this, then we can have a sensible discussion about what the least worst answer is.
In my view the benefits of decent sized wards outweigh the disadvantages of single member wards, and the benefits of a reasonable sized council outweigh the disadvantages of reduced representation. Furthermore I have boundary reviews in mind. Parliamentary seats are also important, and the gutting of Birmingham in the abandoned proposals for the last review was absolutely appalling. We need our city properly represented in parliament too.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Nov 10, 2015 10:57:29 GMT
I think there's a fallacy at work here that because the 3-member ward system is pants, a 1-member ward system will be the bee's knees. In fact, there are lots of things that are bad about a 1-member ward system. This enables me to run one of my favourite hobby horses. There are no good solutions to representing a local authority as large as Birmingham. All the possibilities are flawed. Once we have all accepted this, then we can have a sensible discussion about what the least worst answer is.
In my view the benefits of decent sized wards outweigh the disadvantages of single member wards, and the benefits of a reasonable sized council outweigh the disadvantages of reduced representation. Furthermore I have boundary reviews in mind. Parliamentary seats are also important, and the gutting of Birmingham in the abandoned proposals for the last review was absolutely appalling. We need our city properly represented in parliament too.
What are your thoughts on the 'other' option of splitting Brum into multiple local authorites (presumably 3 would be roughly correct size-wise?)?
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 10, 2015 11:13:47 GMT
This enables me to run one of my favourite hobby horses. There are no good solutions to representing a local authority as large as Birmingham. All the possibilities are flawed. Once we have all accepted this, then we can have a sensible discussion about what the least worst answer is.
In my view the benefits of decent sized wards outweigh the disadvantages of single member wards, and the benefits of a reasonable sized council outweigh the disadvantages of reduced representation. Furthermore I have boundary reviews in mind. Parliamentary seats are also important, and the gutting of Birmingham in the abandoned proposals for the last review was absolutely appalling. We need our city properly represented in parliament too.
What are your thoughts on the 'other' option of splitting Brum into multiple local authorites (presumably 3 would be roughly correct size-wise?)? Yes I wondered afterwards if I should mention this. No-one in Birmingham wants it (other than a faction in Sutton Coldfield). Most people feel that the city is a unity, and if anything excludes areas that should be included (Great Barr, Pheasey, Castle Bromwich, Rubery). It's fairly obvious that co-ordination of services would be more difficult, and boundaries would be controversial. Obviously we already have one separate council (Solihull), which rather proves the point.
The best argument in favour is that the suburbs have been neglected in favour of developing the city centre. However that is rather double-edged, as Birmingham Council leadership of all parties have felt that improving the image of the city and the central infrastructure has regional benefits. I'm agnostic on this, but I don't believe (see above) that 3 separate bureaucracies and 180 councillors will improve the administration of the city. London is of course the model for multiple authorities, and there are a variety of views on how well that works. Perhaps if there was a sensible authoritative regional authority for Greater Birmingham it would work. Again this has to be a least worst discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 10, 2015 14:06:44 GMT
Looking from an ill informed distance, Birmingham would include Wolverhampton, Walsall, West Bromwich, Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Stourbridge, Dudley. Such a "City" would obviously require a subordinate local government structure similar to the London Boroughs. Thoughts? West Mids 'county' without Coventry, basically?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2015 15:13:11 GMT
Looking from an ill informed distance, Birmingham would include Wolverhampton, Walsall, West Bromwich, Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Stourbridge, Dudley. Such a "City" would obviously require a subordinate local government structure similar to the London Boroughs. Thoughts? Do you secretly desire to see a civil war in the West Midlands?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2015 15:54:26 GMT
Twice a year with home and away fixtures In this case it would be followed by extra time and numerous replays.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 10, 2015 20:33:12 GMT
Twice a year with home and away fixtures In this case it would be followed by extra time and numerous replays. There are plenty of people who haven't got over the last lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 20:58:01 GMT
I often wonder if an inner/outer split could work with Birmingham.
|
|