Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 8:18:09 GMT
Much though I agree with the media being tosh, can't see what's hugely wrong with that report? There is the silly comment about the Tories losing the same number of seats as the majority (irrelevant as the opposition loses more), but the criticisms of the register are all legitimate even if you don't agree with them. There was a political decision taken to bring forward the post IER scrub against the advice of the EC and it's not surprising the opposition are drawing attention to that. And the 650-600 reduction does mean that more MPs are threatened than in the past, though obviously the notion that Osborne et al might be without a seat is a little fanciful.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,972
|
Post by maxque on Sept 13, 2016 8:37:55 GMT
68 unchanged constituencies.
E Midlands: 7 Eastern: 6 London: 4 NE: 3 (Tyneside, Tynemouth, Sunderland Central) NW: 14 SE: 15 SW: 9 West Midlands: 7 Yorkshire / Humber: 3 (Beverley & Holderness, East Yorkshire, Elmet & Rothwell)
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 13, 2016 8:46:33 GMT
The no ward splitting rule is daft. Though the rules may prevent them from doing that unless they have accurate polling district data (to ensure quota) They do have accurate polling district data, the December 2015 register is published by polling district. It's just the BCE can't be bothered to use it.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 13, 2016 8:48:34 GMT
The BCE just published polling district electorate figures alongside the recommendations.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,587
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 13, 2016 9:05:50 GMT
68 unchanged constituencies. E Midlands: 7 Eastern: 6 London: 4 NE: 3 (Tyneside, Tynemouth, Sunderland Central) NW: 14 SE: 15 SW: 9 West Midlands: 7 Yorkshire / Humber: 3 (Beverley & Holderness, East Yorkshire, Elmet & Rothwell) Scarborough & Whitby
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Sept 13, 2016 9:51:06 GMT
68 unchanged constituencies. E Midlands: 7 Eastern: 6 London: 4 NE: 3 (Tyneside, Tynemouth, Sunderland Central) NW: 14 SE: 15 SW: 9 West Midlands: 7 Yorkshire / Humber: 3 (Beverley & Holderness, East Yorkshire, Elmet & Rothwell) Scarborough & Whitby ... is not unchanged: it gains Filey.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2016 10:17:52 GMT
I've just voted for 'could be worse' because ... well, it could be.
Hours of pleasure await as we all pore over the proposals in detail and, doubtless, suggest changes ranging from minor tweaks to wholesale revisions. So this is very much an initial reaction based on a quick glance over the English proposals (I haven't even looked at Wales yet).
- So far as I can see there isn't a single ward split anywhere in England and, if so, the Commission is to be congratulated on this - especially in areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield where ward splits must have been very tempting.
- That said, the actual plans in both these cities are well short of what they could be, with too much LA boundary-crossing and some long, stringy seats. For me, Birmingham Ladywood is the standout, although Sheffield C & W will doubtless have its advocates (but fair do to the Commission for coming up with a non-split Sheffield plan that none of us thought of). Various plans here, including mine, show that it's possible to draw non-split plans in these areas with more respect for LA boundaries and more compact and logical seats; so there's scope for improvement (without ward splits) before the plans are finalized.
- I must congratulate the Commission on coming up with a non-split plan for Brighton that neither divides Seaham nor retroswaps Woodingdean out of Brighton. This eluded everyone that commented here. Well done, chaps. (Actually, the Commission's boundaries in the Kent / E Sussex area, which I think we all found tricky, are not bad overall.)
- A general observation is that there's a lot of unnecessary crossing of LA boundaries. London is an especially striking example.
- The London proposals tend to confirm my view that crossing the lower Lea creates far, far more problems than it solves.
- Pete Whitehead must be delighted with the proposals in Glos, which adopt his method of rescuing Tewkesbury. But I still think a more substantial redrawing would have been preferable.
- It's interesting that only about 65 seats stay unchanged (or changed only to align with new wards), given that this is normally a priority for the Commission and it's certainly possible to get this number up to 80-ish without too much trouble.
As I say, this is very much a first reaction and I'm sure I'll want to revise and refine it in due course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 10:24:07 GMT
I've just voted for 'could be worse' because ... well, it could be.
Hours of pleasure await as we all pore over the proposals in detail and, doubtless, suggest changes ranging from minor tweaks to wholesale revisions. So this is very much an initial reaction based on a quick glance over the English proposals (I haven't even looked at Wales yet).
- So far as I can see there isn't a single ward split anywhere in England and, if so, the Commission is to be congratulated on this - especially in areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield where ward splits must have been very tempting.
- That said, the actual plans in both these cities are well short of what they could be, with too much LA boundary-crossing and some long, stringy seats. For me, Birmingham Ladywood is the standout, although Sheffield C & W will doubtless have its advocates (but fair do to the Commission for coming up with a non-split Sheffield plan that none of us thought of). Various plans here, including mine, show that it's possible to draw non-split plans in these areas with more respect for LA boundaries and more compact and logical seats; so there's scope for improvement (without ward splits) before the plans are finalized.
- I must congratulate the Commission on coming up with a non-split plan for Brighton that neither divides Seaham nor retroswaps Woodingdean out of Brighton. This eluded everyone that commented here. Well done, chaps. (Actually, the Commission's boundaries in the Kent / E Sussex area, which I think we all found tricky, are not bad overall.)
- A general observation is that there's a lot of unnecessary crossing of LA boundaries. London is an especially striking example.
- The London proposals tend to confirm my view that crossing the lower Lea creates far, far more problems than it solves.
- Pete Whitehead must be delighted with the proposals in Glos, which adopt his method of rescuing Tewkesbury. But I still think a more substantial redrawing would have been preferable.
- It's interesting that only about 65 seats stay unchanged (or changed only to align with new wards), given that this is normally a priority for the Commission and it's certainly possible to get this number up to 80-ish without too much trouble.
As I say, this is very much a first reaction and I'm sure I'll want to revise and refine it in due course. On the whole I agree with islington about East London, and regard his proposals for that area as preferable to those of the Commission. A constituency covering Chingford and Edmonton would be horrible, but is probably the lesser available evil within the parameters we have been given.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,474
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 13, 2016 10:37:26 GMT
Except the more rigid restriction of 5% variance makes quite a big difference in practice. As we have seen (again)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,504
|
Post by Khunanup on Sept 13, 2016 10:37:46 GMT
I've just voted for 'could be worse' because ... well, it could be.
Hours of pleasure await as we all pore over the proposals in detail and, doubtless, suggest changes ranging from minor tweaks to wholesale revisions. So this is very much an initial reaction based on a quick glance over the English proposals (I haven't even looked at Wales yet).
- So far as I can see there isn't a single ward split anywhere in England and, if so, the Commission is to be congratulated on this - especially in areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield where ward splits must have been very tempting.
- That said, the actual plans in both these cities are well short of what they could be, with too much LA boundary-crossing and some long, stringy seats. For me, Birmingham Ladywood is the standout, although Sheffield C & W will doubtless have its advocates (but fair do to the Commission for coming up with a non-split Sheffield plan that none of us thought of). Various plans here, including mine, show that it's possible to draw non-split plans in these areas with more respect for LA boundaries and more compact and logical seats; so there's scope for improvement (without ward splits) before the plans are finalized.
- I must congratulate the Commission on coming up with a non-split plan for Brighton that neither divides Seaham nor retroswaps Woodingdean out of Brighton. This eluded everyone that commented here. Well done, chaps. (Actually, the Commission's boundaries in the Kent / E Sussex area, which I think we all found tricky, are not bad overall.)
- A general observation is that there's a lot of unnecessary crossing of LA boundaries. London is an especially striking example.
- The London proposals tend to confirm my view that crossing the lower Lea creates far, far more problems than it solves.
- Pete Whitehead must be delighted with the proposals in Glos, which adopt his method of rescuing Tewkesbury. But I still think a more substantial redrawing would have been preferable.
- It's interesting that only about 65 seats stay unchanged (or changed only to align with new wards), given that this is normally a priority for the Commission and it's certainly possible to get this number up to 80-ish without too much trouble.
As I say, this is very much a first reaction and I'm sure I'll want to revise and refine it in due course. Apart from East Kent (and the unchanged seats obviously) the Kent/East Sussex plan is shocking and completely unnecessary. High Weald, Tonbridge & The Weald and Lewes & Uckfield are terrible with no consideration given at all to terrain, geography or communication in creating them.
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Sept 13, 2016 11:10:17 GMT
Of course, we would have much fewer ridiculous splits if we had larger constituencies with multiple members...
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Sept 13, 2016 11:34:00 GMT
The BCE just published polling district electorate figures alongside the recommendations. Which makes it odd. Why make it public side by side with their recommendations when they haven't used it.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,474
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 13, 2016 11:39:52 GMT
Of course, we would have much fewer ridiculous splits if we had more constituencies with greater flexibility... This, as well
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,272
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Sept 13, 2016 11:45:47 GMT
I've just voted for 'could be worse' because ... well, it could be.
Hours of pleasure await as we all pore over the proposals in detail and, doubtless, suggest changes ranging from minor tweaks to wholesale revisions. So this is very much an initial reaction based on a quick glance over the English proposals (I haven't even looked at Wales yet).
- So far as I can see there isn't a single ward split anywhere in England and, if so, the Commission is to be congratulated on this - especially in areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield where ward splits must have been very tempting.
- That said, the actual plans in both these cities are well short of what they could be, with too much LA boundary-crossing and some long, stringy seats. For me, Birmingham Ladywood is the standout, although Sheffield C & W will doubtless have its advocates (but fair do to the Commission for coming up with a non-split Sheffield plan that none of us thought of). Various plans here, including mine, show that it's possible to draw non-split plans in these areas with more respect for LA boundaries and more compact and logical seats; so there's scope for improvement (without ward splits) before the plans are finalized.
IMO (although I don't think J.G.Harston agrees) Sheffield C & W is not that bad (Ecclesall and Broomhill wards are better connected in reality than they look on the map); it's Hallam & Stocksbridge which is the atrocity. How you think this is preferable to just splitting a ward or two in a handful of places to allow just about every other criterion to be better followed is beyond me, but I agree that your most recent version of South Yorkshire is not as bad as what they've come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Sept 13, 2016 12:16:08 GMT
The BCE just published polling district electorate figures alongside the recommendations. Which makes it odd. Why make it public side by side with their recommendations when they haven't used it. Where can you see these figures? I have tried clicking on the maps but it does not bring up the fiigures?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 12:26:12 GMT
I've just voted for 'could be worse' because ... well, it could be.
Hours of pleasure await as we all pore over the proposals in detail and, doubtless, suggest changes ranging from minor tweaks to wholesale revisions. So this is very much an initial reaction based on a quick glance over the English proposals (I haven't even looked at Wales yet).
- So far as I can see there isn't a single ward split anywhere in England and, if so, the Commission is to be congratulated on this - especially in areas such as Birmingham and Sheffield where ward splits must have been very tempting.
As I say, this is very much a first reaction and I'm sure I'll want to revise and refine it in due course. We potentially have a LA boundary review before the 2019 elections, so by 2020 GE (assuming) there are likely to be cross constituency wards, most probably around Peasdown St John - on the NE Somerset/ Bath boundary
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2016 12:26:34 GMT
Owen Jones has called the proposals ruthless Tory gerrymandering.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,690
|
Post by iain on Sept 13, 2016 12:33:38 GMT
Could someone like islington explain to me why they value ward boundaries above all else. Particularly when, as in Sheffield or B'ham, the wards no longer exist.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 13, 2016 12:45:47 GMT
I'm wondering whether somebody is going to take the polling district data and come up with a 2% deviation scheme for the entire country.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Sept 13, 2016 13:10:10 GMT
I'm wondering whether somebody is going to take the polling district data and come up with a 2% deviation scheme for the entire country. He's been banned.
But don't worry, he'll be back in a few weeks.
|
|