YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 3, 2012 17:35:12 GMT
This time round making a change in Carlisle could mess up Crewe, so it's not as easy for them. Well, not quite, as there's a fairly strong consensus on treating Cumbria as a sub-region. In Yorkshire, I'm pretty sure the West Yorks/North Yorks border will end up being respected, so at least we won't have to live with the absurd Leeds NW & Nidderdale. Both the Tories and Shipley CLP have shown that it simply isn't necessary to cross that border even with the no ward splitting policy, and in the light of that I can't see an argument for doing so. However, there are still likely to be some pretty bad seats in the areas around Leeds and Sheffield unless the Commission changes its mind on splitting wards. Jonathan Harston, the former Sheffield Lib Dem councillor who maintains an excellent website on Sheffield election results, has put his comments online: mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/per13/Comments.doc |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 18:26:11 GMT
Which is ironic as in Wales and Northern Ireland (but clearly not in Scotland), ward splitting is entirely unnecessary don;t get me on NOT ward splitting but it is total errant nonsense and we know it. Shame the political parties are so thick not to accept ward splitting is a far more equitable outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Apr 3, 2012 23:05:25 GMT
Which is ironic as in Wales and Northern Ireland (but clearly not in Scotland), ward splitting is entirely unnecessary don;t get me on NOT ward splitting but it is total errant nonsense and we know it. Shame the political parties are so thick not to accept ward splitting is a far more equitable outcome. The BCE’s view is therefore that, in the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances – having regard to the specific factors identified in Rule 5 – it would not be appropriate to divide wards in cases where it is possible to construct constituencies that meet the statutory electorate range without dividing them. The Labour Party are the only one to explicitly rule out ward splitting - and so construct one seat with parts of Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton - your move. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 23:21:49 GMT
I can not speak on behalf of the party, regional or national. However as I said at the meeting in front of Ian Reilly I believe they were wrong not to ward split.
They could have put a compelling argument for it, Dadge did and make logical, rational boundaries that is not gerrymandering but fits areas. For example splitting Oscott between Perry Barr and Kingstanding makes totally rational sense for anyone who knows the area. Even splitting us makes sense given the two miles of green belt in our ward.
It is the refusal to split wards that led to the mess we will have. the prime objective should have not to be cross boundaries where splitting would have eased this. Shard end into Meridan FFS, that is such a nonsense no one can defend that. Meridan don;t want it, Shard end certainly do not want it yet without the split the Maths dictate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by septimus on Apr 3, 2012 23:59:52 GMT
Overall I thought labours West Midlands suggestion was the neatest (assuming the Commission won't split wards in this area) but it would be better to have a Walsall South and Wednesbury seat with 4 wards each from Walsall and Sandwell, and a Dudley North and Bilston seat.
The Sandwell wards are a particularly awkward size but it is possible to have a Sandwell-only seat running in an arc south of Wednesbury, along with 2 Birmingham-Sandwell seats each containing 3 Birmingham wards and 3 Sandwell wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Apr 4, 2012 13:56:43 GMT
It is the refusal to split wards that led to the mess we will have. the prime objective should have not to be cross boundaries where splitting would have eased this. Shard end into Meridan FFS, that is such a nonsense no one can defend that. Meridan don;t want it, Shard end certainly do not want it yet without the split the Maths dictate it. No they don't. You can construct seats very easily that don't have Shard End in Meriden. In fact in doing so you could screw the Tories out of a seat because it would probably mean merging Meriden and Knowle with Kenilworth, and moving Chelmsley Wood and Castle Bromwich into a seat with Stechford where they more naturally fit IMO. Half the problem is people thinking that because the Commission come up with a load of toot that must be because of the Rules, not because of the Commission. Sit down with some maps and a calculator for half an hour and prove yourself wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 16:09:08 GMT
the thing is Stepney if they keep to the broad outline of the original proposals it will be a complete and utter mess for the new Meridan seat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 7:19:35 GMT
The Conservative, and as it happens Liberal Democrat, proposal for Carlisle  The Labour proposal for Carlisle  |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 8, 2012 21:30:24 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on May 8, 2012 21:37:17 GMT
I will believe that when I see it.......
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,861 
|
Post by Crimson King on May 8, 2012 21:42:30 GMT
The give away is the comment that postponing the review would save Nadine Dorries' seat. Who in their right mind...........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2012 22:17:16 GMT
The give away is the comment that postponing the review would save Nadine Dorries' seat. Who in their right mind........... surely the benefit that tories get from the boundary review far outweigh their dislike of the Lords plans  as for the point of party funding talk about being self destructive, they force something through, we win the next election and you can bet what is coming . any reform has to be built on cross party concensus for it not too seem like partisan measures. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 8, 2012 22:47:36 GMT
It is not even possible to postpone the review without passing new legislation. I suppose the Conservatives could vote against the proposals when the time comes but that would look rather silly after they made such a fuss about getting it through in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2012 22:52:22 GMT
It is not even possible to postpone the review without passing new legislation. I suppose the Conservatives could vote against the proposals when the time comes but that would look rather silly after they made such a fuss about getting it through in the first place. they don;t need to but the LD's could as in theory they get hurt the most anyway. I would turn it around to this, surely the prize of the boundary review is so good for tories they want to give the LD's the Lords reforms ? Or in fact is the boundary review very unpopular in the tory party itself. for example IDS's seat Mitchell is supposed to be fuming in having Kingstanding forced on him Locally here Richard Shepherd an original bastard is really pissed off in losing his Streetly base to us etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 5:12:40 GMT
Both Clegg and Cameron need their big things to go through - Cameron the boundary review, Clegg the reform of the second chamber. Unfortunately, one man getting his prize will damage the other. Both have to happen, but only one can happen.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 9, 2012 7:13:01 GMT
A lot's been made in some quarters about the effect on the winning line of these boundary changes. I've done my own calculations using UK-Elect and the differences are quite interesting
650 seat House of Commons
General Election 2010: Con 36% Lab 29% Lib Dem 23% = Con short by 19
Conservative Majority: Con 39% Lab 29% Lib Dem 23%
Labour Hung Parliament: Con 34% Lab 33% Lib Dem 22%
Labour Majority: Lab 35% Con 34% Lib Dem 21%
600 seat House of Commons
General Election 2010: Con 37% Lab 30% Lib Dem 24% = Con short by 2
Conservative Majority: Con 37% Lab 29% Lib Dem 24%
Labour Hung Parliament: Con 35% Lab 33% Lib Dem 24%
Labour Majority: Lab 37% Con 34% Lib Dem 20%
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2012 15:47:30 GMT
I've been reading the transcripts from the hearings in Scotland: www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/6th_westminster/initial_proposals/public_hearings/I've only got through the Inverness and Dundee hearings thus far, but here's a brief digest: Charles Kennedy seems to really dislike the Review and included a lot of irrelevant wittering. The Lib Dems aren't entirely happy with the link between Inverness and Skye, nor with arrangements around Strathspey. There seems to be some support for a Moray & Nairn seat. Malcolm Bruce presented the Lib Dem proposals, that accept the new Gordon seat. But he obviously wants Bridge of Don left in his seat and went on a long aside about the advantages of mixed urban-rural seats, before realising that he'd promised the Lib Dems he wouldn't embarrass them by putting forward that crap and tailing off. There's a proposal for a seat including the Glens of Angus, Carse of Gowrie and two wards of Dundee, in order to allow one seat entirely within Dundee. The guy from Angus said all parties backed this, although nobody from the SNP spoke in favour of it and one guy seemingly opposed with the SNP spoke against it on the grounds that the North East ward of Dundee didn't fit with Carnoustie. He shut up when it was pointed out that it was already in the same seat as parts of Angus. Jim McGovern genuinely doesn't seem to understand the process and was calling for one seat taking in all of Dundee. It was stunningly incoherent. Every community council chair and his dog complained about the Howe of Fife going with Kirkcaldy, and some of them may not even have been Lib Dem put-up jobs. Fife Labour didn't put up anybody to speak in favour of it, so they've probably decided not to be sly about it. Thomas Docherty put forward an interesting proposal to keep Dunfermline whole by sending the Clackmannan seat round to the north of Dunfermline as far as Cardenden. He made a convincing case for it and the Lib Dem representative sounded interested in it, but whether the Commission will go for it is another matter. Otherwise, most of the rest seemed to meet with general acceptance. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 9, 2012 15:53:51 GMT
Both Clegg and Cameron need their big things to go through - Cameron the boundary review, Clegg the reform of the second chamber. Unfortunately, one man getting his prize will damage the other. Both have to happen, but only one can happen. Although, of course, our manifesto wanted the Commons reduced by 150. We shouldn't buy into the idea that somehow reducing the size of the Commons is simply a Tory gerrymander. |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on May 9, 2012 17:30:09 GMT
To be precise I see it that the LD manifesto sugeested a serious cut in the size of the HoC going along with transfer of derious responsibilities to other places. Which is why, while I accept the 600 size I cant claim to think it is a terribly great idea. But do not see it as a gerrymander.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 17:37:58 GMT
To be precise I see it that the LD manifesto sugeested a serious cut in the size of the HoC going along with transfer of derious responsibilities to other places. Which is why, while I accept the 600 size I cant claim to think it is a terribly great idea. But do not see it as a gerrymander. isn;t 600 supposed the be the most beneficial figure for the tories 500 was supposed to be fairly neutral personally I see no argument for a reduction in numbers but more of a equalisation around with a 7.5% leeway for obvious issues like the farce of crossing 3 council boundaries for example. In fact I would argue for a bigger representation with some based on PR |
|
