J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 22, 2016 23:42:33 GMT
Incidentally, if Pat Glass' amendment was already in the relevant Act, the constituency entitlements of each region would instead be (compared to 2010 boundaries) (snippy) I think there is an argument to support that the three core components of the current review shouldn't have been done all in the same review. Equalise quotas in one review, tighten the quota in another review, shrink the House in another review.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,274
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 30, 2016 14:49:55 GMT
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,002
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2016 9:30:40 GMT
Today's the day (for England, anyway) - submissions on the BCE initial proposals must be lodged by 2359 tonight.
I made five submissions yesterday, covering: - London north of the Thames - London south of the Thames - W Mids former met county - Yorks: Sheffield in particular but also wider proposals affecting S, W and N Yorks - Kent and E Sussex
BCE expects that all submissions will be published in Feb or Mar 2017.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,826
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Dec 5, 2016 12:34:38 GMT
I have also made my submissions for a 29 seat Wales and according to the Welsh commission, all submissions will be published "early in the new Year"
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Dec 5, 2016 18:01:07 GMT
- Yorks: Sheffield in particular but also wider proposals affecting S, W and N Yorks I guess I'm not going to like this... I've only ended up making submissions in the Sheffield area and Yorkshire more widely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 18:41:54 GMT
I made one submission to split a ward in South Ribble.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 5, 2016 18:57:10 GMT
I made a submission to transfer three wards in the present Bury South in order to keep Radcliffe together.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 5, 2016 19:05:44 GMT
I prepared submissions for North East and London, but in the end only submitted for the West Midlands. This was mainly because the Boundary Commission generally only take you seriously if you live in the area.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,002
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Dec 5, 2016 20:02:36 GMT
- Yorks: Sheffield in particular but also wider proposals affecting S, W and N Yorks I guess I'm not going to like this... YL - Short answer: No you won't. Rather longer answer: But I don't think you need worry too much because the case for splitting a ward or two is stronger in Sheffield than almost anywhere else. I fully expect that this is what BCE will do. But maybe I'm wrong, and BCE will be resolute about not splitting wards (and credit to them, if so, for having the courage of their convictions). I thought that in that case it was important to show that there is at least one non-split arrangement that is a distinct improvement on (or at least, markedly less horrible than) their initial proposal. But I don't live in Sheffield and I have no particular connexion with it, so I'm sure my London postcode will ensure that scant attention will be paid to my suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 5, 2016 21:04:30 GMT
I made a submission for the East of England and will do so for Nottinghamshire.
I also believe there is a case for splitting wards in Leeds, Birmingham, Dudley just to create coherent constituencies. Other examples include to keep Lancaster University within a Lancaster & Morecambe constituency and to ensure the redrawn Tewkesbury constituency can maintain proper connections between the three Cheltenham wards and with the town of Tewkesbury; the Forest of Dean's expansion will sever that link by taking away a ward containing critical linking roads.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 5, 2016 22:49:53 GMT
I prepared submissions for North East and London, but in the end only submitted for the West Midlands. This was mainly because the Boundary Commission generally only take you seriously if you live in the area. I don't know if this is the case - I hope not. At the last review the only suggestions I made which were adopted were those for an area of North West London which I do consider part of my local area but wouldn't appear to be based on my address in St Albans. This time I have done major submissions for the Eastern region and London - the first for the 27 seats covering Herts, Cambs and Norfolk and the latter covering 8 seats in NW London, 9 in East London and 22 in South London. Now even South London is more local to me than Norfolk and I certainly know it much better but of course my proposals for Norfolk are entirely consequent upon me having to redraw the Cambridgeshire seats to avoid crossing the Herts county boundary. I hope that if only one of these sets of proposals is accepted it is the ones for London as they were much more in need of the amendments I've suggested than those in the East. I've also made a couple of very limited submissions for 6 seats in Greater Manchester and 4 seats on Teesside
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 6, 2016 1:10:17 GMT
I prepared submissions for North East and London, but in the end only submitted for the West Midlands. This was mainly because the Boundary Commission generally only take you seriously if you live in the area. I'm sure my London postcode will ensure that scant attention will be paid to my suggestion. This is my big worry. I have sent off an all-Wales solution and region-wide proposals for 6 English regions over the past few days, in addition to making my case for the South West in person last month. The last line in all of the confirmation e-mails reads: "Based on what local people have told us we might revise our proposals in the autumn of 2017." [my emphasis] I suppose I could've used my address from 2 years ago for the South East submission, but it should be clear enough from my comments about Eastbourne that I know the town 'on the ground'. The Welsh Commission actually said they wouldn't publish a postcode, so I wonder if I could've got away with just giving my home city as 'Bangor'. That would still leave 5 regions where my ideas could be safely ignored, though. Perhaps being too ambitious in scope could be the other snag. Great suggestions for certain areas could be drowned out or dismissed because of atrocious (or simply the volume of) proposals elsewhere within the same region.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Dec 6, 2016 18:42:33 GMT
Yes, they tend to take more interest in local submissions. But "local" is defined quite broadly. So for example at the zombie review my suggestion for Malvern was taken up even though I live 40-odd miles away. And from time to time they have incorporated a non-local submission when it has provided some clever insight.
As usual I was on the last minute making my submissions, and I only made them for the areas I'd done Google maps for, i.e. about half the country.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 6, 2016 21:55:08 GMT
I did a fairly detailed submission for the North East (though I had to junk some of the maps, as it turns out you can only put five attachments in a submission.) I then rushed together a submission for the East at the last minute when I realised the deadline was coming up. I had started with Bedfordshire and spent a lot of time pointing out the proposals were good (net effect: probably nil) and finished up with Essex, so they'll probably reject my suggestions there for lack of evidence.
I suspect my non-local status will harm the prospects of my North-East submission, but I decided to make a virtue of it by writing my submission with a general message of, "even this stupid outsider can see that your proposals just don't make sense."
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Dec 7, 2016 1:52:40 GMT
Yes, they tend to take more interest in local submissions. But "local" is defined quite broadly. So for example at the zombie review my suggestion for Malvern was taken up even though I live 40-odd miles away. And from time to time they have incorporated a non-local submission when it has provided some clever insight. As usual I was on the last minute making my submissions, and I only made them for the areas I'd done Google maps for, i.e. about half the country. I have made proposals that differ from those of the Commission for towns as far as 375km away from me! I only made submissions just before the deadline despite taking the shortcut of using Boundary Assistant maps (with appropriate copyright cited, naturally) and have already noticed evidence of a rush job. Even in the North West – a region I spent a lot of time on – I have happened upon a better arrangement for Liverpool that doesn't leave Central ward out of the 'Liverpool Central' seat, and in Wales I accidentally left in the split ward in Wrexham too. I did a fairly detailed submission for the North East ( though I had to junk some of the maps, as it turns out you can only put five attachments in a submission). I then rushed together a submission for the East at the last minute when I realised the deadline was coming up. I had started with Bedfordshire and spent a lot of time pointing out the proposals were good (net effect: probably nil) and finished up with Essex, so they'll probably reject my suggestions there for lack of evidence. I suspect my non-local status will harm the prospects of my North-East submission, but I decided to make a virtue of it by writing my submission with a general message of, "even this stupid outsider can see that your proposals just don't make sense." You can put the maps into a PowerPoint file. If this comes to over 10MB, just split them into two or put the slides into a Word document. Too late for that at this stage of the review, of course (except for Scotland, which I'm not going to attempt). We can only hope there is time to correct ourselves and add more information during the second consultation phase. Does anyone recall how this functioned at the zombie review?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 7, 2016 9:37:56 GMT
I suspect my non-local status will harm the prospects of my North-East submission, but I decided to make a virtue of it by writing my submission with a general message of, "even this stupid outsider can see that your proposals just don't make sense." That's quite a good approach. I made no mention of my local connections or lack of them anywhere, but I did have a subconscious view that if someone like me living 230 miles from Stockton and never having even been to the place felt moved to comment on what a bad idea splitting the town centre from the rest of the town is, then it probably is a bad idea. Whether the BC will see it that way is another question
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 12, 2016 19:18:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 12, 2016 19:29:24 GMT
I made a submission for the East of England and will do so for Nottinghamshire. I also believe there is a case for splitting wards in Leeds, Birmingham, Dudley just to create coherent constituencies. Other examples include to keep Lancaster University within a Lancaster & Morecambe constituency and to ensure the redrawn Tewkesbury constituency can maintain proper connections between the three Cheltenham wards and with the town of Tewkesbury; the Forest of Dean's expansion will sever that link by taking away a ward containing critical linking roads. Why on earth does that matter to anybody for any conceivable reason?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 12, 2016 19:54:37 GMT
Christ - how is one going to get a hearing amidst that many? - I suppose though a good number of them will be several repetitious one-line submissions of the 'Dunstable shouldn't be put with Luton' variety
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 12, 2016 20:44:00 GMT
Last time round, if you were local, and if you made a reasoned submission that referred to the rules that the Boundary Commission had to follow, and you considered the knock-on effects elsewhere, the Commission usually name checked you, and gave reasons for rejecting your views (or very occasionally as in one of Pete's submissions accepting them). Most submissions are complete rubbish, as you will see when they are published.
I think we have speculated before on whether the Commission reads this thread. My guess is that they do, and posters here can expect respectful consideration, although understandably the Commission has a preference for its own recommendations.
|
|