|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 5, 2012 21:16:37 GMT
The BCE publish the representations received at noon on Tuesday while the BCS published their representations last week.
The main controversies in Scotland appear to be the splitting of Bearsden, the inclusion of the Howe of Fife in the Glenrothes & Kirkcaldy constituency and the inclusion of Clovenfords in a Midlothian constituency. Two of these are easy to fix, but Bearsden is a bit more tricky withouth causing lots of knock on changes elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 21:20:12 GMT
thanks GKR, be interested how they put my comments about WBA in it !!
|
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Mar 5, 2012 21:23:41 GMT
Yes the Howe of Fife will go back to NE Fife and Methil should stay in as well.
I also checked Dumfries and Galloway etc and there is tripartisan backing for the Galloway and Carrick constituency (although the tories want Ayr South included in the title).
Edinburgh, Lothians and Borders and possibly Falkirk should largely go through as planned with no changes as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 6, 2012 19:09:02 GMT
My written submission is reference number 008287 (it's in the London section but it also mentions a few other areas) and my verbal submissions are in 30011 and 30013.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 21:13:53 GMT
a few people moaning about the sutton split, in fact in the ones from the public every one in three seems to disagree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2012 21:16:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 6, 2012 21:50:45 GMT
Labour counter-proposal for northern Greater Manchester: BOLTON SOUTH: as per Commission's proposals. BOLTON WEST: existing constituency plus Halliwell. Not too bad so far. BURY CENTRAL AND HEYWOOD: Church, East, Moorside, Redvales, Hopwood Hall, Norden, N Heywood, W Heywood, W Middleton This will go down in Bury like a cup of cold sick. Also, why the split of Middleton? It's certainly not natural. Church ward needs to be kept with Elton - Church only has half a road link with the rest of this seat. BURY SOUTH: unchanged. ROCHDALE: unchanged. That's more like it. ROSSENDALE AND RAMSBOTTOM: Elton, N Manor, Rammy, Rossendale borough. OK, except for the fact that Elton is part of Bury and, again, only has half a road link with the rest of this seat. Why not put Tottington here? BOLTON NORTH AND DARRWEN: Earcroft, Marsh House, N Turton, Sudell, Sunnyhurst, Whitehall, Astley Bridge, Bradshaw, Bromley Cross, Crompton, Tonge wi' t' Hoff, Totty.  This is so bad it defies explanation. I could probably write pages and pages on why it's bad. In fact, I probably will do. Earcroft, Sunnyhurst, Sudell, Marsh House, Whitehall: Darwen town. Nestled in a deep north-facing valley in the West Pennine Moors. An adjunct to Blackburn with Blackburn postcodes, Blackburn telephone numbers and Blackburn Rovers fans. Has about a dozen surnames. Local accent pronounces R's. N Turton, Bromley Cross, Bradshaw: Turton urban district as was. Has been in a Darwen seat before. Edgworth, Chapeltown, Egerton, Dunscar, Bromley Cross, Bradshaw, Harwood. Transitions from wild and beautiful moorland at the top to middle-class Bolton suburbia at the bottom. Bolton postcodes and telephone numbers. Bolton Wanderers and Man City fans. R's not pronounced. Two main links with Darwen: the single track railway line under the top with one train an hour, the A666 road over the top which lives up to its devilish number with an appaling fatal accident record. That's except if you live in Edgworth, in which case you need to take the Roman Road, which probably hasn't been resurfaced since the Coronation. Note I didn't say which Coronation. Tottington: over a hill from the rest of the constituency. Middle-class adjunct to Bury and has never previously been out of a Bury seat. Bolton telephone numbers, Bury postcodes. Bury and Man City fans. Road links to Bury and Ramsbottom good, to Bolton indirect, to Darwen appalling to non-existent. On the Irwell Valley side of the hill and should be in a seat to match. Astley Bridge, Crompton, Tonge with The Haulgh: part of Bolton proper. Astley Bridge is middle-class, Tonge with The Hoff is white working-class and very much inner Bolton, Crompton is Asian and very much inner Bolton including part of the town centre. Bolton telephone numbers and postcodes, Bolton Wanderers fans. R's not pronounced. What I'm trying to get at here is that Bolton and Darwen are two very different towns, culturally, physically - even the dialect is different - which shouldn't be in the same constituency at all. And Tottington should never have got anywhere near this seat in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Mar 15, 2012 22:41:04 GMT
I think Doktorb should be made aware that the link to the pdf of the NW LD submission on the BCE website is broken.
It's a shame because I was looking forward to reading the justifaction for 'Mid Lancashire'.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 15, 2012 23:37:53 GMT
Link seems OK to me.
The BCE have now published the number of representations received from each current constituency. No surprise that Sutton Coldfield is top with 2039, followed by Gillingham & Rainham (1898), Hexham (977), Lewes (778) and Hampstead & Kilburn (423).
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 15, 2012 23:51:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Mar 16, 2012 8:39:34 GMT
Were the commission supposed to put our home addresses next to our submission on their website?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 16, 2012 9:28:19 GMT
Yes I understood this was going to happen
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 16, 2012 10:23:02 GMT
Were the commission supposed to put our home addresses next to our submission on their website? Yes - they always made it clear that they would. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 16, 2012 10:30:14 GMT
Link seems OK to me. The BCE have now published the number of representations received from each current constituency. No surprise that Sutton Coldfield is top with 2039, followed by Gillingham & Rainham (1898), Hexham (977), Lewes (778) and Hampstead & Kilburn (423). Where does it say that? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 16, 2012 10:49:36 GMT
I wonder how they've calculated these. A number of submissions such as my own will have been for whole regions or parts of regions. Would they count my submission for the Eastern region for example against each constituency in the region?
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 16, 2012 12:13:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 16, 2012 12:24:36 GMT
I see that would make sense. The vast majority of submission I guess would be relating solely to the constituency of the person making the submission
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 16, 2012 13:44:54 GMT
I have found it! consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/news/existing-constituencies-look-up-feature/They have labelled the submissions according to the current constituencies from which they come, not the proposed constituencies to which they refer. There is a long bit of waffle to explain why it would be too difficult to do the latter. I have just finished reading through all the submissions from Croydon (Central 42, North 5, South 33) and a random sample of those from Carshalton & Wallington (c.300), and it is clear that: (a) There is broad support in Croydon for the proposed boundaries, but not for the names; (b) Almost everybody says that "Croydon Central & St Helier" is the wrong name, and almost all of those suggest that "Croydon Central & Wandle" would be better; (c) A lot of people want "Croydon East" to be "Croydon East & New Addington", and many want "Purley & Carshalton" to be renamed as "Coulsdon & Carshalton"; (d) People in Carshalton & Wallington are almost unanimously outraged about the illogical, ridiculous, divisive, irrational, lots of other adjectives, proposals to divide Carshalton and Wallington, and to combine them with bits of Croydon; (e) But the people in Carshalton & Wallington have proposed very few counter-proposals as alternatives to the BCE's proposals. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Mar 16, 2012 19:52:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 16, 2012 20:35:19 GMT
I've added up the totals for each parties proposal (figures in brackets are the number of "safe" seats)
BCE PROPOSAL
Con 29(19)
Lab 33(25)
LD 6(3)
CONSERVATIVE PROPOSAL
Con 30(21)
Lab 32(26)
LD 6(3)
LABOUR PROPOSAL
Con 26(18)
Lab 37(30)
LD 5(3)
LIB DEM PROPOSAL
Con 29(17)
Lab 33(24)
LD 6(4)
|
|
