|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 18:56:44 GMT
The LGBC have reported, 77 wards, 24 2-member, 53 single member, looks like a right dog's breakfast.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 15, 2015 19:13:12 GMT
The LGBC have reported, 77 wards, 24 2-member, 53 single member, looks like a right dog's breakfast. My word "Glebe Farm and Tile Cross" immediately stands out as hideous and ridiculous in equal measure stretching as it does all the way to the eastern edge of Alum Rock.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 15, 2015 19:20:19 GMT
This would have been easier if the LGBC had also recommended that Sutton Coldfield be allowed to split off from the city of Birmingham and form its own borough council, which would also give Birmingham fewer electors per councillor (making their work easier; Birmingham has the worst elector-to-councillor ratio in Britain by a substantial margin).
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Dec 15, 2015 19:24:01 GMT
The problem starts with Kershaw's proposals being rubbish. The fact that the proposal is also rubbish is not then surprising.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 15, 2015 19:27:33 GMT
On the other hand, this proposed map will make redrawing relatively equal-sized constituencies in Birmingham which can match community identities much easier than before (due to the size of 3-member wards in Birmingham).
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 19:29:18 GMT
The LGBC have reported, 77 wards, 24 2-member, 53 single member, looks like a right dog's breakfast. My word "Glebe Farm and Tile Cross" immediately stands out as hideous and ridiculous in equal measure stretching as it does all the way to the eastern edge of Alum Rock. Sparkbrook is hilarious, Tyseley has very little of Tyseley proper in it, Yardley West's strange lurch to the city boundary is epic and the yoghurt knitters of Moseley will be preparing their wicker man.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 19:31:20 GMT
This would have been easier if the LGBC had also recommended that Sutton Coldfield be allowed to split off from the city of Birmingham and form its own borough council, which would also give Birmingham fewer electors per councillor (making their work easier; Birmingham has the worst elector-to-councillor ratio in Britain by a substantial margin). Which isn't the job of the LGBC and would leave an undersize district and Birmingham with even more financial problems. Surely you don't think that the separation of Sutton would have still meant 101 councillors for Birmingham?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 15, 2015 19:35:53 GMT
It should have given how oversized Birmingham's existing wards already are compared to other metropolitan boroughs, even boroughs within West Yorkshire (which have some very large wards in terms of electorate per ward, particularly in Leeds).
I know Sutton Coldfield is wealthy, especially by West Midlands standards, but I am pretty sure Birmingham is not financially dependent on it being joined with 'proper' Birmingham.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 15, 2015 19:42:52 GMT
My word "Glebe Farm and Tile Cross" immediately stands out as hideous and ridiculous in equal measure stretching as it does all the way to the eastern edge of Alum Rock. Sparkbrook is hilarious, Tyseley has very little of Tyseley proper in it, Yardley West's strange lurch to the city boundary is epic and the yoghurt knitters of Moseley will be preparing their wicker man. Yardley West is an utterly ridiculous name for that ward, I doubt there is a single resident of it that would claim to live in Yardley. Then you have Yardley East which should simply take the name South Yardley. Most of the core part of Yardley itself is in the Stechford East ward. I take some comfort that Sheldon has retained fairly sensible boundaries, as has Acocks Green.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 19:59:38 GMT
It should have given how oversized Birmingham's existing wards already are compared to other metropolitan boroughs, even boroughs within West Yorkshire (which have some very large wards in terms of electorate per ward, particularly in Leeds).
It shouldn't have reduced at all, but it did. Sutton is a net payer into the system, by some margin.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,280
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Dec 15, 2015 20:47:13 GMT
On the other hand, this proposed map will make redrawing relatively equal-sized constituencies in Birmingham which can match community identities much easier than before (due to the size of 3-member wards in Birmingham). Not for a while, as the existing wards will be used for the coming review. AIUI this is the case even in Sheffield and other areas with boundary changes in 2016, where the existing wards will have already been abolished for all other purposes by the time the provisional recommendations are released. Of course the real way to solve this problem is for the Boundary Commission for England to accept splitting the odd ward in these areas with big wards. There's no need to let the problems of parliamentary reviews affect the way wards are drawn for local government.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 20:52:38 GMT
I take some comfort that Sheldon has retained fairly sensible boundaries, as has Acocks Green. I am rather pleased by our annexation of the Birmingham Railway Museum. I'm trying to work out what sort of crazy mind produced the Sparkbrook/Tyseley/Yardley West boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 15, 2015 21:20:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 15, 2015 22:03:32 GMT
On the other hand, this proposed map will make redrawing relatively equal-sized constituencies in Birmingham which can match community identities much easier than before (due to the size of 3-member wards in Birmingham). Not for a while, as the existing wards will be used for the coming review. AIUI this is the case even in Sheffield and other areas with boundary changes in 2016, where the existing wards will have already been abolished for all other purposes by the time the provisional recommendations are released. Of course the real way to solve this problem is for the Boundary Commission for England to accept splitting the odd ward in these areas with big wards. There's no need to let the problems of parliamentary reviews affect the way wards are drawn for local government.
I am pretty sure that the new constituency boundaries will not be finalised until after those elections conducted under new ward boundaries have already been held, though. Therefore it would make no sense to use the pre-review wards for drawing up constituencies when the time comes, especially in large cities.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 15, 2015 22:07:40 GMT
I am pretty sure that the new constituency boundaries will not be finalised until after those elections conducted under new ward boundaries have already been held, though. Therefore it would make no sense to use the pre-review wards for drawing up constituencies when the time comes, especially in large cities.
I'm pretty sure that you are completely wrong.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 15, 2015 22:18:53 GMT
I am pretty sure that the new constituency boundaries will not be finalised until after those elections conducted under new ward boundaries have already been held, though. Therefore it would make no sense to use the pre-review wards for drawing up constituencies when the time comes, especially in large cities.
I'm pretty sure that you are completely wrong. He is probably right that the new constituency boundaries won't be finalised until then but he is wrong that this means they will use the new wards. They will use the current wards as those are the ones that will exist at the start of the review.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 15, 2015 22:20:25 GMT
I take some comfort that Sheldon has retained fairly sensible boundaries, as has Acocks Green. I am rather pleased by our annexation of the Birmingham Railway Museum. I'm trying to work out what sort of crazy mind produced the Sparkbrook/Tyseley/Yardley West boundaries. 1. A nice acquisition for you 2. A mind that is either incredibly bitter and twisted or exceptionally evil.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,609
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 15, 2015 22:38:20 GMT
I'm pretty sure that you are completely wrong. He is probably right that the new constituency boundaries won't be finalised until then but he is wrong that this means they will use the new wards. They will use the current wards as those are the ones that will exist at the start of the review. You're both right... and wrong. The law requires the use of the electorate figures as published a couple of weeks ago, on 1st December 2015. The law does not compel the BC to not split wards, it's just a habit they have. If a submission makes a good argument to split the wards on the 01-Dec-2015 register, and the BC accepts that argument, then the wards on the 01-Dec-2015 wards will be split. Therefore, it is the responsibility of those making submissions to make a strong argument to support the use of ""split"" wards in their model that result in constituencies build out of non-split (or minimally split) post-2015 wards.
|
|
Roger Harmer
Lib Dem
Councillor for Acocks Green in Birmingham
Posts: 233
|
Post by Roger Harmer on Dec 15, 2015 22:42:39 GMT
My word "Glebe Farm and Tile Cross" immediately stands out as hideous and ridiculous in equal measure stretching as it does all the way to the eastern edge of Alum Rock. Sparkbrook is hilarious, Tyseley has very little of Tyseley proper in it, Yardley West's strange lurch to the city boundary is epic and the yoghurt knitters of Moseley will be preparing their wicker man. Twitter has indeed been alive with indignant of Moseley. Similarly it has not gone unnoticed by those in B27 living north of the railway line that most of the "Acocks" of Acocks Green on the official map is now in Yardley West...
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 15, 2015 22:53:47 GMT
He is probably right that the new constituency boundaries won't be finalised until then but he is wrong that this means they will use the new wards. They will use the current wards as those are the ones that will exist at the start of the review. You're both right... and wrong. The law requires the use of the electorate figures as published a couple of weeks ago, on 1st December 2015. The law does not compel the BC to not split wards, it's just a habit they have. If a submission makes a good argument to split the wards on the 01-Dec-2015 register, and the BC accepts that argument, then the wards on the 01-Dec-2015 wards will be split. Therefore, it is the responsibility of those making submissions to make a strong argument to support the use of ""split"" wards in their model that result in constituencies build out of non-split (or minimally split) post-2015 wards.
Where exactly were those electorate figures published on that date? Are they listed by local authority area? I have been busy these past two weeks so a link to those figures would be helpful.
|
|