|
|
Post by stepney on Jan 30, 2013 19:19:01 GMT
I understand that the reason the English Commission were so opposed to ward splitting (after earlier indicating in guidance that it would be ok although discouraged) is because they went for cheaper software than the BCS and the BCW. On the part of the BCE it might just have had more to do with the ruling in R. v. BCE ex parte Foot (1983) that "the ward is the smallest unit of electors for the purposes of the Commission's deliberations". And they were of course rather backed up in this view by the two main parties of state and a number of individuals. That essentially means (and I wouldn't expect a member of any Lib Dem Focus team to understand this) local ties aren't everything and if there's a decent scheme that doesn't split wards it's better than one that does, even if the latter has slightly better (and this would always be subjective) local ties. But, y'know, you continue to believe in a conspiracy theory about crap software and wicked collusion against splitting wards if it makes you feel better about your sanctimonious, misleading whining about Tory Poynton going into marginal Hazel Grove being rejected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 19:22:53 GMT
Isn't that partly due to the relative number of seats? The South West and Scotland are the only regions where you have large numbers of Lib Dem seats bordering each other, and even those are only in small parts of the regions. Outside of those areas your MPs are clearly separated from one another and defending one is unlikely to endanger another. Similarly, Labour had very few problems in southern England, because we're down to a few core urban seats and almost all our targets are based upon urban areas where the best configuration for us is obvious. But where we had vast numbers of MPs in close proximity to one another and some of them were bound to lose out, it would be very hard to be dictatorial. Indeed, when North West Labour tried it, they got Birkenhead CLP briefing against them to the press. That was mostly Frank Field being his usual charming self. Imagine what it would have been like if it was actually hanging MPs out to dry. It doesn't matter how dictatorial you are, those ructions couldn't be kept in the quiet.None of this stoipped us taking a position. We had a position in the North West evcen though Cumbria and Manchester lost seats. In Yorkshire (and North East too) we just sold the pass. Anything would have been bettter that nothing. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jan 30, 2013 19:24:41 GMT
For the record I supported the principle of equalising electorates but thought that the 10% tolerance was too tight unless the Boundary Commission were willing to split wards. The proposals for Birmingham were an abomination and I am glad they will not be implemented. Pretty much my view too (with "Birmingham" replaced by various other places). As for Labour in Yorkshire, there were a couple of decentish counter-proposals for West Yorkshire worked out by local Labour parties (one ward-splitting, one not); it was unfortunate that the national party's waste of space of a submission was given the privileged position of "official Labour response". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 19:30:23 GMT
[sigh]
Oh Stepney, please, back up now and give a brother room.
It doesn't take too much smarts to notice that the BCE had far less detailed maps and far less background detail than BCS, which pointed to the fact that they didn't have, or refused to use, anything more than the least costly programming for the review. It's also a point of record - check Tricky being bitch-slapped in Manchester - that the Commission had a U-turn over split wards, a concept they entertained initially but then lost during their website's relaunch.
Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron entertain ward splitting, with Wales not having the excuse of alternative voting systems. England did not - and that discrimination has to be considered or explained away somehow
|
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Jan 30, 2013 20:04:14 GMT
[sigh] Oh Stepney, please, back up now and give a brother room. It doesn't take too much smarts to notice that the BCE had far less detailed maps and far less background detail than BCS, which pointed to the fact that they didn't have, or refused to use, anything more than the least costly programming for the review. It's also a point of record - check Tricky being bitch-slapped in Manchester - that the Commission had a U-turn over split wards, a concept they entertained initially but then lost during their website's relaunch. Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron entertain ward splitting, with Wales not having the excuse of alternative voting systems. England did not - and that discrimination has to be considered or explained away somehow (melodramatic patronising sigh) Oh, Dok, you pretty little thing, rest your silly little head, back up, and give it a rest. Leave it to someone who knows a bit more about it, eh? Do you truly think that the BCE, which was dealing with the one of the four nations which makes up, what, 40 of the 50 million electors in the UK, made some sort of conscious decision not to go the way of the other three Commissions out of malice and spite towards the Lib Dems? Even a cretin (or the BCE) with no software whatsoever than an Excel spreadsheet with ward electorates and a phone line to the relevant borough council's ERO could have split any ward by polling district as they chose. The BCE clearly took a conscious decision not to do so. They didn't just say "Ooh this spreadsheet doesn't let me do it. That rules that out then." The BCS had to deal with a nation which has gone over to entirely 3, 4 and 5 member wards for the purposes of the STV which Scotland has and England doesn't. Would it have been possible to actually create seats within quota in Edinburgh and Glasgow without dividing wards? Probably not. The BCS have used discretion on ward-splitting and in doing so have conformed a lot more to the rules on not crossing authority boundaries. Insofar as they didn't actually need to divide wards to create seats within quota, I'd happily argue they misdirected themselves. You, bless you, wouldn't know what I meant by that. As for the BCW, there was no need whatsoever for splitting Welsh wards and I am disgusted that they did. Splitting it because of community councils was unacceptable. If I'd had time, I'd have come up with 30 seats for Wales with no split wards and taken the BCW to judicial review for not using it. The BCE didn't have a U-turn over split wards per se. They went for no split wards, then were lazy enough to just go with the Assistant Commissioners for the South West over split wards in Gloucester. In that case the ACs really did mis-direct themselves and confused "popular support" for "compelling and exceptional circumstances". That one (if this review really was going through) deserved judicial review and I argued as such in my submissions. As with Tricky, you're just bitter that the stupid Vales [sic] of Ribble and Lune wasn't a flyer and think "If only wards were split my lovely abomination would go through". As someone who got about 80 of his proposed seats accepted by the BCE (with split wards utterly ruled out) I beg to differ. |
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jan 30, 2013 21:44:41 GMT
Isn't that partly due to the relative number of seats? The South West and Scotland are the only regions where you have large numbers of Lib Dem seats bordering each other, and even those are only in small parts of the regions. Outside of those areas your MPs are clearly separated from one another and defending one is unlikely to endanger another. You might think that is true but it actually isn't. Lib Dem seats are pretty clumpy and this certainly holds true in the North West. 3 of our seats border each other and our best development prospects tend to be neighbours too. |
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jan 30, 2013 21:51:09 GMT
Actually Stepney the guidance was changed in the website relaunch. There was one document before it and the text was changed for the final version.
I don't think they got lesser software to spite the Lib Dems, I think they just got lesser software. I don't think there was a conspiracy, just a duff decision.
Also if you look at the way the notional results changed between draft and final proposals I was quite comfortable with what happened.
As for you saying that it was only the Lib Dems who didn't want Poynton put in Manchester, neither did the local Tory MP but the national Conservative Party overruled him and the Conservatives wanted to put Poynton into Stockport. Fortunately Lib Dem votes helped the people of Poynton out. It will be interesting to see how the good people of Poynton vote when reminded of that on a regular basis.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,861 
|
Post by Crimson King on Jan 30, 2013 22:41:45 GMT
Isn't that partly due to the relative number of seats? The South West and Scotland are the only regions where you have large numbers of Lib Dem seats bordering each other, and even those are only in small parts of the regions. Outside of those areas your MPs are clearly separated from one another and defending one is unlikely to endanger another. You might think that is true but it actually isn't. Lib Dem seats are pretty clumpy and this certainly holds true in the North West. 3 of our seats border each other and our best development prospects tend to be neighbours too. also true in West Yorkshire |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Jan 30, 2013 23:24:29 GMT
So unless there is new legislation, this process will be repeated in 2016-18 using the December 2015 electorate figures?
|
|
tricky
Lib Dem
Building a stronger economy and a fairer society so everyone can get on in life
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by tricky on Jan 30, 2013 23:33:32 GMT
Yepp. Won't that be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Jan 30, 2013 23:38:22 GMT
At least we will have the new Cheshire East and West wards to work with, but still the giant ones in Leeds and Birmingham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 23:38:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jan 30, 2013 23:59:59 GMT
We might have even larger wards in Leeds/West Yorks if elected mayors are imposed/voted through...and the whole structure of local govt. changes.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jan 31, 2013 0:30:35 GMT
At least we will have the new Cheshire East and West wards to work with, but still the giant ones in Leeds and Birmingham. I would imagine that whoever forms the next government will introduce new legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 31, 2013 5:12:12 GMT
In the debates during the passage of the Act, it was obvious that the mood of the House of Commons was that ward-splitting would be a sensible and reasonable thing to do, and that most MPs were expecting it to happen in a few places where large wards would otherwise make it difficult to fit within the 5% limit.
To that extent, it was impertinent and misguided of the BCE to make a unilateral decision to avoid ward-splitting despite such expectations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 6:26:00 GMT
and despite many people asking there was no reason given why the BCE would not split and why the Tories and labour parties accepted it.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,820
|
Post by john07 on Jan 31, 2013 10:57:32 GMT
and despite many people asking there was no reason given why the BCE would not split and why the Tories and labour parties accepted it. Yet presumably there was no problem in splitting wards in Scotland? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 11:26:35 GMT
and despite many people asking there was no reason given why the BCE would not split and why the Tories and labour parties accepted it. Yet presumably there was no problem in splitting wards in Scotland? indeed so what was the issue in England for everyone, it makes no sense |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2013 14:07:41 GMT
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,240
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 31, 2013 14:53:15 GMT
Cost was £4.7 million.  |
|
