Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 17, 2016 13:49:07 GMT
Starting in January 2017 (and continuing until at least the first quarter of 2021) the number of councillors elected to the unitary authorities across Wales will change. Overall the number of councillors will reduce from 1,254 that will be elected in May to 1,211 that will be elected in May 2022 (a reduction of 3.4%) in the following proportions.
Cardiff 75 (no change), Blaenau Gwent 38 (-4), Bridgend 49 (-5), Caerphilly 66 (-7), Merthyr Tydfil 30 (-3), Newport 49 (-1), Rhondda Cynon Taff 75 (no change), Swansea 75 (+3), Torfaen 40 (-4), Conwy 53 (-6), Flintshire 63 (-7), Neath and Port Talbot 58 (-6), Vale of Glamorgan 51 (+4), Wrexham 55 (+3), Carmarthenshire 75 (+1), Ceredigion 38 (-4), Denbighshire 47 (no change), Gwynedd 67 (-8), Anglesey 33 (+3), Monmouthshire 46 (+3), Pembrokeshire 62 (+2), Powys 66 (-7)
Electoral division (wards) are created from community council areas but as the review does not officially start until January 2017 there has been no guidance yet on whether they will accept split or not split areas. The community council areas are available on the Boundary Line website and the electorate data will be published in the new year and then every quarter until all 22 councils have started their review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 17, 2016 14:26:41 GMT
Hope they go for 75 single-member wards in Cardiff, not that I'm holding my breath. There, and everywhere else for that matter... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 18, 2016 0:18:04 GMT
Hope they go for 75 single-member wards in Cardiff, not that I'm holding my breath. There, and everywhere else for that matter... I don't think every Welsh authority council needs to have exactly 75 members.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 18, 2016 0:43:02 GMT
There, and everywhere else for that matter... I don't think every Welsh authority council needs to have exactly 75 members. Single member wards, I mean!  Because FPTP for multi-member wards is just awful... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 18, 2016 0:57:29 GMT
I don't think every Welsh authority council needs to have exactly 75 members. Single member wards, I mean! Because FPTP for multi-member wards is just awful... Agreed. If we can't have AMS for primary authorities, we should at least have uniformly single-member wards. For community councils, on the other hand, multi-member wards are more justifiable. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 18, 2016 1:07:46 GMT
Single member wards, I mean! Because FPTP for multi-member wards is just awful... Agreed. If we can't have AMS for primary authorities, we should at least have uniformly single-member wards. For community councils, on the other hand, multi-member wards are more justifiable. Or if we can't have STV, which some of us prefer (agree to disagree?). Also, for psphelogical mapping purposes, having all single-member wards does make mapmaking substantiall easier. As for community councils, well I suppose there's only so far you can split a place down into single-member divisions, before the short to medium term population shifts render early boundary changes necessary (that, and possibly issues pertaining to the integrity of the secret ballot). |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 18, 2016 1:14:21 GMT
Agreed. If we can't have AMS for primary authorities, we should at least have uniformly single-member wards. For community councils, on the other hand, multi-member wards are more justifiable. Or if we can't have STV, which some of us prefer (agree to disagree?). Also, for psphelogical mapping purposes, having all single-member wards does make mapmaking substantiall easier. As for community councils, well I suppose there's only so far you can split a place down into single-member divisions, before the short to medium term population shifts render early boundary changes necessary (that, and possibly issues pertaining to the integrity of the secret ballot). Anyone advocating the use of STV for a meaningful election (i.e. 'proper' council or legislature) on any grounds other than pure psephological interest needs their head examined. It is more likely that if single-member wards are used exclusively at community council level, most councillors will be returned unopposed. Even with larger multi-member wards it's likely that many candidates will be known personally to the voters. I wouldn't mind STV being employed for this layer of government. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 18, 2016 1:20:40 GMT
Anyone advocating the use of STV for a meaningful election (i.e. 'proper' council or legislature) on any grounds other than pure psephological interest needs their head examined. Well...that's just your opinion. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 18, 2016 10:21:12 GMT
This is what the commission have to say about the number of members per ward
40 The Commission takes the view that in the first instance; it is desirable that each electoral ward should return a single member. The Commission may, however, recommend that wards be represented by up to three members in cases supported by evidence as to the character of the ward and in the interests of electoral parity. The Commission believes that it is desirable to not have more than three members in a ward as having four or more members is not appropriate in a first-past-the-post electoral system and that this many members would dilute accountability to an excessive amount. Furthermore, from an administrative point of view, an election is increasingly difficult for electoral administrators and returning officers to administrate where there are more than three members. Accordingly, the Commission will not recommend any new multi-member wards with more than three members.
41 Where a four and five member ward is present in the existing arrangements, the Commission would consider alternative arrangements providing for wards with three members or fewer. If the Commission received substantial evidence that there is local support for the existing arrangement from members and their electorate and that it can be evidenced that it is working effectively and is convenient for local government then the Commission may consider recommending maintaining the existing arrangement.
42 The Commission considers that multi-member electoral wards are more likely to be effective and convenient in urban areas than in rural areas. In areas of denser population, such as is found in urban areas, it is possible that many of the issues which a councillor may be called upon might be broadly similar in nature and would allow multiple councillors to deal with similar issues.
43 The Commission supports the principle that each electoral ward should reflect the requirements of the community or communities it covers and will endeavour to recommend this but recognises that sometimes multi-member wards are the most effective means of balancing the criteria and therefore may also recommend them in rural areas.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Nov 18, 2016 17:44:34 GMT
This is what the commission have to say about the number of members per ward 40 The Commission takes the view that in the first instance; it is desirable that each electoral ward should return a single member. The Commission may, however, recommend that wards be represented by up to three members in cases supported by evidence as to the character of the ward and in the interests of electoral parity. The Commission believes that it is desirable to not have more than three members in a ward as having four or more members is not appropriate in a first-past-the-post electoral system and that this many members would dilute accountability to an excessive amount. Furthermore, from an administrative point of view, an election is increasingly difficult for electoral administrators and returning officers to administrate where there are more than three members. Accordingly, the Commission will not recommend any new multi-member wards with more than three members. Thanks for that. I think the Commission should have stopped after this bit. There is no need for points 41, 42 and 43 at all. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 22, 2016 13:22:20 GMT
The first councils to be reviewed in the first quarter of 2017 are to be Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Powys (with the reviews slated to end in the third quarter of 2018 for Ceredigion and Gwynedd and the fourth quarter of 2018 for Powys). Under the proposals Ceredigion will lose four councillors (38 in total), Gwynedd will lose eight (67 in total) with Powys losing seven (66 in total). Each of the wards proposed will be made up of community council areas and so as a result I have downloaded that data from the OS Boundary Line website as well as QGIS2.18 to access it (but cannot seem to do so). As I have never used a GIS programme before, can someone tell me what I may be doing wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 17, 2016 18:57:18 GMT
This is what the commission have to say about the number of members per ward 40 The Commission takes the view that in the first instance; it is desirable that each electoral ward should return a single member. The Commission may, however, recommend that wards be represented by up to three members in cases supported by evidence as to the character of the ward and in the interests of electoral parity. The Commission believes that it is desirable to not have more than three members in a ward as having four or more members is not appropriate in a first-past-the-post electoral system and that this many members would dilute accountability to an excessive amount. Furthermore, from an administrative point of view, an election is increasingly difficult for electoral administrators and returning officers to administrate where there are more than three members. Accordingly, the Commission will not recommend any new multi-member wards with more than three members. 41 Where a four and five member ward is present in the existing arrangements, the Commission would consider alternative arrangements providing for wards with three members or fewer. If the Commission received substantial evidence that there is local support for the existing arrangement from members and their electorate and that it can be evidenced that it is working effectively and is convenient for local government then the Commission may consider recommending maintaining the existing arrangement. 42 The Commission considers that multi-member electoral wards are more likely to be effective and convenient in urban areas than in rural areas. In areas of denser population, such as is found in urban areas, it is possible that many of the issues which a councillor may be called upon might be broadly similar in nature and would allow multiple councillors to deal with similar issues. 43 The Commission supports the principle that each electoral ward should reflect the requirements of the community or communities it covers and will endeavour to recommend this but recognises that sometimes multi-member wards are the most effective means of balancing the criteria and therefore may also recommend them in rural areas. I wonder in that case how the remaining 4-member and 5-member wards in Wales (which are the only remaining wards with more than 3 members in Britain outside of Scotland) will be split?
How the splits of those 4-member and 5-member wards in Cardiff and Swansea turn out as will certainly be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Dec 18, 2016 1:44:42 GMT
As far as I can see the following 4/5 member wards currently exist: (4 member unless stated)
Bridgend: Brackla
Cardiff: Cathays, Llanishen, Pentwyn, Plasnewydd, Whitchurch and Tongwynlais
Merthyr: Dowlais, Gurnos, Town
Swansea: Castle, Cockett, Llansamlet, Morriston(5), Sketty(5), Uplands
Vale of Glamorgan: Dinas Powys, Llantwit Major
Blaenau Gwent: Tredegar Central and West
Caerphilly: Bedwas Trethomas and Machen, Penyrheol
Newport: Liswerry
Conwy: Llandrillo yn Rhos
And who thinks more councillors for Anglesey and Pembrokeshire is a good idea?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 18, 2016 10:35:41 GMT
And who thinks more councillors for Anglesey and Pembrokeshire is a good idea? Won't comment on those two, but IMO the seeming trend for reducing councillor numbers is not a good one and should be resisted. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Dec 20, 2016 10:52:34 GMT
Splitting Whitchurch and Tongwynlais will be a bitch.... its electorate is probably a bit small to have the community electing one member... adding a bit of Whitchurch to it would be problematic as you have the M4 between it and any division would be a tad artificial.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 20, 2016 23:15:38 GMT
Would a ward called 'Tongwynlais & Morganstown' (also north of the M4) be large enough for a single-member ward, cibwr? Radyr would still have enough electors to be a viable ward in that scenario. As for the other 4-member wards in Cardiff, split Cathays into Cathays and Castle Quarter, split Llanishen into Thornhill and Llanishen, give the Tredegarville part of Plasnewydd ward to Adamsdown which will reduce Plasnewydd's electorate to the point where it only needs to elect 3 councillors instead of 4, and split Pentwyn as @jamesdowden has described above. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558
|
Post by cibwr on Dec 26, 2016 10:23:03 GMT
It would though there is the river to contend with and Morganstown really is part of Radyr these days.... Though they are connected - tenuously - by the B4262 and Tongwynlais, Radyr and St Fagans were one ward prior to the building of the M4.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 3, 2017 15:06:50 GMT
Today marks the start (unofficially) of the reviews into Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Powys (which will see Ceredigion and Gwynedd's final recommendations published in the autumn of next year and Powys's by the end of next year). The number of councillors for each authority have been decided as: Ceredigion 38 (-4), Gwynedd 67 (-8) and Powys 66 (-7). Based on the electoral review for the Westminster constituencies, this makes the electoral quota for each authority as follows: Ceredigion 1,345 electors, Gwynedd 1,204 electors and Powys 1,515 electors. As my interest is specifically in Ceredigion, this is how our council stacks up (but I would be happy to post the data for Gwynedd and Powys as well, if anyone is interested)
90% of electoral quota or less: Aberaeron, Aberteifi/Cardigan - Rhyd-y-Fuwch, Aberteifi/Cardigan - Teifi, Aberystwyth Bronglais, Aberystwyth Canol/Central, Aberystwyth Gogledd/North, Capel Dewi, Llanarth, Llanbadarn Fawr - Padarn, Llanbadarn Fawr - Sulien, Llandysul Town, Llanfarian, Llangeitho, Llangybi, Llanrhystyd, New Quay, Tregaron, Troedyraur
90% to 110% of electoral quota: Aberteifi/Cardigan - Mwldan, Aberystwyth Rheidol, Beulah, Ceulanamaesmawr, Ciliau Aeron, Faenor, Llandyfriog, Llandysiliogogo, Llanwenog, Melindwr, Tirymynach, Trefeurig
110% of electoral quota or greater: Aberystwyth Penparcau, Borth, Lampeter, Llanfihangel Ystrad, Llansantffraed, Lledrod, Penbryn, Pen-parc, Ystwyth
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,506
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 5, 2017 22:54:14 GMT
Today marks the start (unofficially) of the reviews into Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Powys (which will see Ceredigion and Gwynedd's final recommendations published in the autumn of next year and Powys's by the end of next year). The number of councillors for each authority have been decided as: Ceredigion 38 (-4), Gwynedd 67 (-8) and Powys 66 (-7). Based on the electoral review for the Westminster constituencies, this makes the electoral quota for each authority as follows: Ceredigion 1,345 electors, Gwynedd 1,204 electors and Powys 1,515 electors. As my interest is specifically in Ceredigion, this is how our council stacks up (but I would be happy to post the data for Gwynedd and Powys as well, if anyone is interested) Are these reviews not supposed to – at least for the moment — take into account residents of those areas who are still allowed to vote in local but not House of Commons elections? |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,752
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 6, 2017 14:16:37 GMT
Well, to be honest, no one knows yet (which I why I said it was the unofficial start). The website states that Ceredigion, Gwynedd and Powys will start their reviews "from the 1st quarter of 2017" which was New Year's Day (Sunday) but so far there has not been any official notice that the review has started.
|
|
