iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,743
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Jan 7, 2020 19:29:56 GMT
There were changes in the further draft recommendations, but the effect of the final recommendations appears to be to have reversed all of this back to the original draft proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 7, 2020 21:04:56 GMT
There were changes in the further draft recommendations, but the effect of the final recommendations appears to be to have reversed all of this back to the original draft proposal. Yes I see they proposing moving HRB polling district (area East of Hendon Way) back into West Hendon and have now opted again to remove it. That area is crucial in determining whether the Conservatives can win that ward
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 7, 2020 21:24:57 GMT
I think there are improvements that could be made...
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 11, 2020 14:01:12 GMT
Islington is getting an extra ward and this is it. The other wards do indeed mostly get minimal change, although this is obviously greater for those neighbouring the new ward, plus the ward straddling the City Road. Inevitably the new ward is “bits left over”. I’d call it Highbury Corner, and rename the Highbury ward as Highbury Fields to avoid confusion. Generally the ward pattern looks sensible to me. Final recommendations published and they did rename the proposed 'Central' ward. They have called it Laycock instead, not a name I would have chosen but I am not local.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 17, 2020 21:44:53 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (anaw 1), an Act of the National Assembly for Wales to rename the National Assembly for Wales, to extend the right to vote in Senedd elections, to amend the law relating to disqualification from membership of the Senedd, to make provision regarding oversight of the work of the Electoral Commission, to make miscellaneous changes to the law relating to the government of Wales and for related purposes. Part 3 of the Act relates to elections. Section 10 extends the franchise for Senedd elections to 16- and 17-year-olds. Section 11 extends the franchise for Senedd elections to "qualifying foreign citizens"; this is defined by section 12 as a person who is not a UK, Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen and who has or doesn't require leave to enter or remain in the UK. Both of these changes apply from the next ordinary Senedd election in May 2021. Sections 12 to 27 relate to electoral registration, and make the necessary amendments to set up the machinery for registering 16- and 17-year-olds. Section 12 provides that 16-year-olds and qualifying foreign citizens also have the right to vote in Welsh local government elections. Section 15 confers a power on the Welsh Ministers to make regulations about invitations to register for under-16s. Section 19 allows under-18s being looked after by a local authority, or living in secure accommodation, to be registered under a declaration of local connection. Section 20 allows under-18s living with parents who are serving in the military to be registered under a service declaration in the same way as their parents. Sections 24 to 26 restrict the publication by registration officers of information relating to under-16s. These sections come into force in June 2020. The remaining provision in Part 3 is section 28 and Schedule 2, which relate to oversight of the adminsitration of elections and make changes to the work of the Electoral Commission. This will come into force on a date yet to be appointed. Part 4 of the Act (sections 29 to 35 and Schedule 3) comes into force at the 2021 Senedd election and relates to disqualification. The main changes are that peers and members of Welsh county or county borough councils are now disqualified from being Members of the Senedd; however, they are eligible to stand for election to the Senedd. Peers elected as MSs, or MSs elevated to the peerage, have eight days' grace to regularise their position. For councillors elected as MSs or vice versa, the disqualification doesn't kick in until they take the oath of allegiance or sign their acceptance of office; and if there is an ordinary Senedd or local government election due within 372 days of the election they get to see out their pre-existing term.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 30, 2020 22:26:31 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2), an Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about the holding of referendums throughout Scotland. Eight new electoral changes orders have been published: The Halton (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/60). Introduces new ward boundaries for Halton council to come into effect at the 2020 election, and restores the system of election by thirds in following years. There are sixteen new wards, all of which elect three councillors. The Rotherham (Electoral Changes) (Amendment) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/62). Corrects an error in the Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Order 2018, which provided for Bramley parish council to have seven members when it should have said 13. The Isle of Wight (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/64). Introduces new ward boundaries for Isle of Wight council to come into effect at the 2021 election, and makes associated changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Cowes, Freshwater, Newport and Carisbrooke, Ryde, Sandown, Shalfleet, Shanklin and Ventnor. There are thirty-nine new divisions, all of which are single-member. The London Borough of Ealing (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/65). Introduces new ward boundaries for Ealing council to come into effect at the 2022 election. There are twenty-four new wards, of which two (Southall Broadway and Southall West) elect two councillors and twenty-two elect three councillors. The London Borough of Brent (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/66). Introduces new ward boundaries for Brent council to come into effect at the 2022 election. There are twenty-two new wards, of which nine elect two councillors and thirteen elect three councillors. The London Borough of Hillingdon (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/71). Introduces new ward boundaries for Hillingdon council to come into effect at the 2022 election. There are twenty-one new wards, of which one (Harefield Village) is single-member, eight elect two councillors and twelve elect three councillors. The London Borough of Harrow (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/72). Introduces new ward boundaries for Harrow council to come into effect at the 2022 election. There are twenty-two new wards, of which eleven elect two councillors and eleven elect three councillors. The Northumberland (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/73). Realigns the boundary between Newsham division and Seghill with Seaton Delaval division, with effect from the 2021 election, to take account of a recent parish boundary change.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,659
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 30, 2020 22:39:03 GMT
Interesting.
We're due to have a parish governance review where - amongst other things - we're going to tidy up left-overs from the borough review. The Local Government Boundary Review stated they had no powers to change sizes and boundaries of parish councils, and they were forced to use parish external boundaries and couldn't draw new borough boundaries that left anomolies non-matches with parish external boundaries.
We had intended to tidy up the parish wards (we've got two 1-member wards and one 5-member ward, a bit of a mess), but a lot of the parish external boundaries are a bit of a mess a well. Houses being built, rivers moving, etc. Can our parishes get our external boundaries adjusted as part of the parish review, and then get the borough wards fixed to match up with them? And how do we ensure the borough knows they can do this?
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jan 31, 2020 7:13:53 GMT
Interesting. We're due to have a parish governance review where - amongst other things - we're going to tidy up left-overs from the borough review. The Local Government Boundary Review stated they had no powers to change sizes and boundaries of parish councils, and they were forced to use parish external boundaries and couldn't draw new borough boundaries that left anomolies non-matches with parish external boundaries. We had intended to tidy up the parish wards (we've got two 1-member wards and one 5-member ward, a bit of a mess), but a lot of the parish external boundaries are a bit of a mess a well. Houses being built, rivers moving, etc. Can our parishes get our external boundaries adjusted as part of the parish review, and then get the borough wards fixed to match up with them? And how do we ensure the borough knows they can do this?
Yes the District/Borough can change external boundaries of its parishes (within the district obv) and (as long ss they are only minor) can then ask LGBCE to recommend matching changes to ward and division boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 31, 2020 12:11:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 4, 2020 11:43:33 GMT
Latest updates: www.lgbce.org.uk/mediaFinal recommendations made for new Camden wards. Draft recommendations made for new wards in Mid Devon, Reading, and St Albans.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 4, 2020 19:13:46 GMT
Latest updates: www.lgbce.org.uk/mediaFinal recommendations made for new Camden wards. Draft recommendations made for new wards in Mid Devon, Reading, and St Albans. The St Albans proposals are interesting, not least because the Commission have proposed 4 x 2-member wards despite the council sticking to annual elections. I assume they found they could not come up with an acceptable scheme of all 3-member wards - as both we and the Tories found in the initial consultation - the Tories' proposal for a ward combining Wheathampstead with part of Chiswell Green was particularly eye-catching (!). Would be interested in Pete Whitehead 's thoughts but at first glance the draft looks something of a disaster for the Tories?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 4, 2020 19:31:31 GMT
Latest updates: www.lgbce.org.uk/mediaFinal recommendations made for new Camden wards. Draft recommendations made for new wards in Mid Devon, Reading, and St Albans. The St Albans proposals are interesting, not least because the Commission have proposed 4 x 2-member wards despite the council sticking to annual elections. I assume they found they could not come up with an acceptable scheme of all 3-member wards - as both we and the Tories found in the initial consultation - the Tories' proposal for a ward combining Wheathampstead with part of Chiswell Green was particularly eye-catching (!). Would be interested in Pete Whitehead 's thoughts but at first glance the draft looks something of a disaster for the Tories? I haven't given too much consideration to the partisan effects - I had a quick look earlier and I thought on the whole the plan looked reasonably sensible. I think it comes to 56 seats whereas they had been looking to create 57. I'd had a look at the parties' plans a while ago and thought the Tory proposals were ridiculous while the Lib Dem ones were generally OK but had the addition of areas to the South of Bricket Wood to Redbourn, which was odd to say the least. This was due to the constraints of coming up with 19 3-member wards though. Free of such constraints, it might be possible to improve on the LGBCE plans a little
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 4, 2020 20:08:10 GMT
Latest updates: www.lgbce.org.uk/mediaFinal recommendations made for new Camden wards. Draft recommendations made for new wards in Mid Devon, Reading, and St Albans. The St Albans proposals are interesting, not least because the Commission have proposed 4 x 2-member wards despite the council sticking to annual elections. I assume they found they could not come up with an acceptable scheme of all 3-member wards - as both we and the Tories found in the initial consultation - the Tories' proposal for a ward combining Wheathampstead with part of Chiswell Green was particularly eye-catching (!). Would be interested in Pete Whitehead 's thoughts but at first glance the draft looks something of a disaster for the Tories? The LGBCE admitted as much: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Eastern/Hertfordshire/St%20Albans/Draft/StAlbans-report%20WEB.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 7, 2020 18:08:53 GMT
The St Albans proposals are interesting, not least because the Commission have proposed 4 x 2-member wards despite the council sticking to annual elections. I assume they found they could not come up with an acceptable scheme of all 3-member wards - as both we and the Tories found in the initial consultation - the Tories' proposal for a ward combining Wheathampstead with part of Chiswell Green was particularly eye-catching (!). Would be interested in Pete Whitehead 's thoughts but at first glance the draft looks something of a disaster for the Tories? The LGBCE admitted as much: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/Eastern/Hertfordshire/St%20Albans/Draft/StAlbans-report%20WEB.pdfIt's a shame they didn't adopt the same attitude with Three Rivers where the case for this was even stronger Latest updates: www.lgbce.org.uk/mediaFinal recommendations made for new Camden wards. Draft recommendations made for new wards in Mid Devon, Reading, and St Albans. The St Albans proposals are interesting, not least because the Commission have proposed 4 x 2-member wards despite the council sticking to annual elections. I assume they found they could not come up with an acceptable scheme of all 3-member wards - as both we and the Tories found in the initial consultation - the Tories' proposal for a ward combining Wheathampstead with part of Chiswell Green was particularly eye-catching (!). Would be interested in Pete Whitehead 's thoughts but at first glance the draft looks something of a disaster for the Tories? There are some clear downsides from the Conservative point of view, but I don’t know that this does represent a disaster overall. I think that apart from the loss of two seats in Redbourn and Wheathampstead (the latter of which is of course an unmitigated Tory loss while that in Redbourn may or may not be), you may be seeing the abolition of the safe Tory Sandridge ward as part of this disaster. It could equally be an opportunity, but I’ll return to that. In the south of the district the most obvious disadvantage to the Tories is the loss of Napsbury Park by London Colney. It’s hard to see how that could have been averted – two 2-member wards covering the whole of LC parish might have been a possibility, but this is probably the most logical move. The Conservatives struggle to win LC as it is with Napsbury Park included and the task is made harder, though I guess not quite impossible in a very good year. It would have made more sense here to add the part of North Cottages which is in Cunningham ward (AEC PD) so that this area will not be so cut off from the rest of Park Street. Alternatively/additionally they could add all the area West of Shenley Lane, therefore bringing in the small London Colney stretch of Harper Lane and linking the area to Harperbury which is itself pretty cut off from the rest of the ward. Park Street anyway is a diffuse ward and it will fit in well enough. I guess the changes to Park Street are about neutral from a Tory point of view. Bricket wood East may have been a little more Tory than the ward as whole but not a lot and Napsbury Park certainly gives them a boost. Reuniting all of Bricket Wood in one ward again is obviously a good thing regardless of the political impact. The Conservatives can still count on 12 seats in Harpenden as a bare minimum on their path to a majority (or if they cannot, that is not a consequence of the boundary changes which add some probably favourable areas to the two more marginal wards). The core city is virtually a Tory desert now with just the one seat remaining in Marshalswick South which will almost certainly be lost in May. The boundary changes which translate that ward into Bernards Heath (excellent name btw) are certainly most unhelpful to the Conservatives, but they are finished in Marshalswick South in the medium term anyway. St Peters is also unwinnable for the foreseeable, so the perhaps slightly unhelpful boundary changes don’t make too much odds there. Verulam is completely unchanged. The really interesting area is in the three new wards which effectively replace Colney Heath, Sandridge and Marshalswick North. While the current arrangements provide for two pretty safe Conservative seats in Sandridge and five virtually unwinnable ones in the other two wards (they have elected councillors in Colney Heath and Marshalswick North only a couple of times each in the last four decades) - on these boundaries I think all seven seats are winnable. For sure they are all ‘loseable’ too but I’d see that as a reasonable trade from the Tory point of view. Colney Heath & Sandridge brings together the two respective ‘village’ areas from their eponymous wards, shorn of the suburban territory (Highfield and Jersey Farm respectively). This combines the more Conservative bit of Colney Heath ward with the less Conservative bit of Sandridge and will surely be a very competitive ward. Jersey Farm, reckoned to be the strongest Conservative element in Sandridge will then form about half the electorate of Marshalswick East & Jersey Farm, with Marshalswick East providing the Lib Dem counterbalance. Finally, Marshalswick West brings together probably the slightly better half of Marshalswick North and by far the most Conservative part of Marshalswick South. All three of these wards look to be potentially close between Conservative and Lib Dem and while it would be a tall order for the Conservatives to hold all seven seats in the area at any one time, the chances are they would improve on the two they have now. A word or two about Ashley and Clarence, which aren’t likely to have much bearing on Tory prospects but are interesting in their own right. Ashley is utterly transformed by these proposals, losing the majority of its existing electorate in the area West of Ashley Road to be replaced by much more modern suburban developments from Colney Heath. This will remove the majority of Labour voters too and this looks like a ward that Labour would never have been competitive in, maybe not even in the late 1990s. The name really ought to change as well to reflect this. Whereas currently Ashley Road runs through the centre of the ward and separates the dingy ‘inner-city’ areas between Hatfield and Camp Roads from the suburban area to the East, it will now form the Western boundary of the ward. I should have thought that Hill End would be a more appropriate name for this ward. The character of Clarence ward is also changed by the removal of the AGB PD close to the city centre and the addition of AFB from Ashley which includes Dellfield and the Campfield area. This will still be a safe Lib Dem ward but there will be more of a Labour presence – perhaps they would have won here in the 1990s. Although it retains the bulk of the existing ward and includes Clarence Park, I would find it hard to resist the temptation to rename this ward Fleetville (it has quite similar boundaries to the pre-1979 ward of that name). So there’s certainly a very narrow path to a Tory majority which would involve winning nearly all the seats outside the core city – 12 in Harpenden, 6 in St Stephen parish (Park Street and St Stephen), 6 in the rural wards (Colney Heath & Sandridge, Redbourn and Wheathampstead) and 5 in Marshalswick. Given that at least Tony Swendell is safe in Redbourn for as long as he wants it, they’d have to win at least one other seat elsewhere – get lucky in London Colney one year or get their act together again in Verulam. It isn’t very likely, but then it isn’t likely to happen on the current boundaries anytime soon either, given that their most recent narrow majority rested on seats in wards like Batchwood and St Peters.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 8, 2020 11:08:20 GMT
Colney Heath & Sandridge brings together the two respective ‘village’ areas from their eponymous wards, shorn of the suburban territory (Highfield and Jersey Farm respectively). This combines the more Conservative bit of Colney Heath ward with the less Conservative bit of Sandridge and will surely be a very competitive ward. Jersey Farm, reckoned to be the strongest Conservative element in Sandridge will then form about half the electorate of Marshalswick East & Jersey Farm, with Marshalswick East providing the Lib Dem counterbalance. Finally, Marshalswick West brings together probably the slightly better half of Marshalswick North and by far the most Conservative part of Marshalswick South. All three of these wards look to be potentially close between Conservative and Lib Dem and while it would be a tall order for the Conservatives to hold all seven seats in the area at any one time, the chances are they would improve on the two they have now. Not sure all of this is right. Marshalswick W parish ward is if anything the stronger LD half of current Marshalswick N district ward; and nowadays I think Jersey Farm is more fertile LD ground than Sandridge village (accept it was different back in the day when we were winning the ward). Certainly agree none of those new wards is a foregone conclusion. It will also be interesting to see the impact of the changes to Park Street - while I agree probably broadly neutral right now, Napsbury long term should be better for LDs, with work, than Bricket Wood?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 8, 2020 11:26:19 GMT
Colney Heath & Sandridge brings together the two respective ‘village’ areas from their eponymous wards, shorn of the suburban territory (Highfield and Jersey Farm respectively). This combines the more Conservative bit of Colney Heath ward with the less Conservative bit of Sandridge and will surely be a very competitive ward. Jersey Farm, reckoned to be the strongest Conservative element in Sandridge will then form about half the electorate of Marshalswick East & Jersey Farm, with Marshalswick East providing the Lib Dem counterbalance. Finally, Marshalswick West brings together probably the slightly better half of Marshalswick North and by far the most Conservative part of Marshalswick South. All three of these wards look to be potentially close between Conservative and Lib Dem and while it would be a tall order for the Conservatives to hold all seven seats in the area at any one time, the chances are they would improve on the two they have now. Not sure all of this is right. Marshalswick W parish ward is if anything the stronger LD half of current Marshalswick N district ward; and nowadays I think Jersey Farm is more fertile LD ground than Sandridge village (accept it was different back in the day when we were winning the ward). Certainly agree none of those new wards is a foregone conclusion. It will also be interesting to see the impact of the changes to Park Street - while I agree probably broadly neutral right now, Napsbury long term should be better for LDs, with work, than Bricket Wood?I agree that is probably the case. As for the rest, much of a muchness probably between the two ends of Marshalswick but the broad point stands that there's a levelling out here which leaves the possibility open for either more Tory seats than currently or none in that area. Really unhappy btw with redesign of the St Albans website that now has only the last couple of years election results - it used to have results going back about 20 years (I wanted to check the parish results in Sandridge from 2015). Alex Berry was a great loss to the Electoral Services department here (also reflected in the tardiness with which nominations are posted up online nowadays, when they used to be witin about half an hour of close of nominations)
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 8, 2020 20:17:07 GMT
Interested to know what people think of the Reading draft recommendations.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 8, 2020 20:48:33 GMT
Interested to know what people think of the Reading draft recommendations. The Thames ward is predictably an absolute abomination.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 14, 2020 22:31:16 GMT
A new order relevant to this thread has been published: The Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/256). Creates two new unitary councils within the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire, makes transitional arrangements and provides for electoral matters. There is to be a new unitary district council called North Northamptonshire, covering the same area as the present districts of Corby, East Northamptonshire, Kettering and Wellingborough. There is also to be a new unitary district council called West Northamptonshire, covering the same area as the present districts of Daventry, Northampton and South Northamptonshire. These are constituted under the Local Government Act 1972 as counties without county councils. The county and council of Northamptonshire is abolished with effect from 1st April 2021. No by-elections are to be held to fill vacancies on the county council which arise after 30th September 2020. The Northamptonshire district council elections due in May 2020 are cancelled and the term of office for the current councillors is extended to 1st April 2021. No by-elections are to be held to fill vacancies on the Northamptonshire district councils which arise after 30th September 2020. Whole council elections for North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire are to be held in 2020, 2025 and then every four years. Accordingly parish council elections due in Northamptonshire in 2021 to 2023 are postponed to 2025, and parish council elections due in Northamptonshire in 2026 or 2027 are postponed to 2029. The present Northamptonshire county council divisions will be used as wards for the May 2020 elections to the new unitary councils, with each ward electing three councillors. The North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire councils elected in 2020 will take on their full responsibilities on 1st April 2021 and exist in shadow form until then. The returning officer for the 2020 Northamptonshire Police and Crime Commissioner election (who is the ARO for the Kettering constituency) will also act as the returning officer for the May 2020 elections to both North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire councils. The councils will then appoint their own returning officers to handle all future elections.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 14, 2020 22:48:27 GMT
Interested to know what people think of the Reading draft recommendations. The Thames ward is predictably an absolute abomination. Disappointed they didn't go with "Thames Banks" as a name.
|
|