|
Post by John Chanin on May 29, 2020 7:49:30 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 29, 2020 11:51:58 GMT
Oddly, one of the 22 missing representations is from yet another grouping of Conservatives, complete with hand-drawn maps. I'm amazed at how relaxed the other parties were about the process. (One of the 22 is my representation. It didn't say anything particuarly important, but I did wonder why it didn't appear online.)
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 29, 2020 12:36:07 GMT
The Labour proposal looks like a right dog's dinner in Chingford. Not quite sure what they think they're gaining from messing around with their worst wards in the borough.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on May 29, 2020 12:51:48 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step. What, I am afraid to ask, is surprising about that fact? After all, a perusal of the documents relating to the LGBCE review of Enfield Council seems to reveal that no representations were received from Enfield Council or the Labour Party during the consultation there on warding arrangements (though some were received during later consultations), resulting in final recommendations that reflected the submission on warding arrangements by Enfield North Conservative Association with regard to the general overall pattern of wards, and of the actual wards and their boundaries over at least half of the borough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2020 13:03:41 GMT
At both local and Parliamentary level, the Conservatives seem far more tuned into boundary review proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 29, 2020 13:29:16 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step.The Boundary Commission explicitly say that impacts on house prices cannot be taken into consideration in terms of ward boundaries anyway.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 29, 2020 15:42:36 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step.The Boundary Commission explicitly say that impacts on house prices cannot be taken into consideration in terms of ward boundaries anyway. That was my point.......
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on May 29, 2020 17:21:07 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step.The Boundary Commission explicitly say that impacts on house prices cannot be taken into consideration in terms of ward boundaries anyway. I predict quite a few representations from south Trafford discounted for this reason as we go through the process!!
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 29, 2020 19:22:06 GMT
This may well relate to the surprising fact that no representations were received from Waltham Forest Council or the Labour Party, so that the recommendations were based on the Conservative submission. If the missing 22 had been from Joe Bloggs complaining about reduced house prices I doubt they would have taken such a drastic step. What, I am afraid to ask, is surprising about that fact? After all, a perusal of the documents relating to the LGBCE review of Enfield Council seems to reveal that no representations were received from Enfield Council or the Labour Party during the consultation there on warding arrangements (though some were received during later consultations), resulting in final recommendations that reflected the submission on warding arrangements by Enfield North Conservative Association with regard to the general overall pattern of wards, and of the actual wards and their boundaries over at least half of the borough. Con gain Enfield next time then?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 30, 2020 6:10:32 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 (asp 6), an Act of the Scottish Parliament to enfranchise certain persons in respect of Scottish parliamentary and local government elections; to extend to certain persons the right to vote at, stand for election at, and hold office as elected members following, Scottish parliamentary and local government elections; and for connected purposes. Part 1 of the Act, which comes into force on a day yet to be appointed, enables qualifying foreign nationals to vote in Scottish Parliamentary and Scottish local elections and to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government. For the purpose of the franchise "qualifying foreign nationals" are persons who are not Commonwealth or Irish citizens who have or do not require leave to enter or remain in the UK. The rules with respect to foreign nationals standing for election in Scotland are slightly stricter, excluding those with limited leave to remain apart from EU citizens with pre-settled status. Part 2 of the Act, which comes into force on a day yet to be appointed, provides that people who received a severance payment under the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2006 are no longer disqualified from being local councillors in Scotland. This relates to a one-off scheme made as part of the change to PR at the 2007 local elections: long-serving councillors who stood down at that election were awarded severance payments of £10,000 or more based on their length of service, and accepting a severance payment had previously disqualified them from being councillors again. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 (Commencement) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/162) have now been made, bringing Parts 1 and 2 of the Act into force on 3 August 2020.
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on May 30, 2020 15:56:09 GMT
And Kingston too: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/kingston-upon-thamesWe have identified that due to an administrative error seven submissions made during our first phase of consultation were not considered. Given the importance of considering every local voice fairly and equally, the Commission has decided to halt the consultation that started on 3 March, and take a fresh look at all of the submissions made during the warding pattern consultation on the review. It will then identify draft recommendations for publication. We apologise for any inconvenience
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on May 30, 2020 17:53:18 GMT
And Kingston too: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/kingston-upon-thamesWe have identified that due to an administrative error seven submissions made during our first phase of consultation were not considered. Given the importance of considering every local voice fairly and equally, the Commission has decided to halt the consultation that started on 3 March, and take a fresh look at all of the submissions made during the warding pattern consultation on the review. It will then identify draft recommendations for publication. We apologise for any inconvenience I now make a habit of checking that my representations have been uploaded to the LGBCE website - I have found them missing.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 2, 2020 10:46:43 GMT
Hammersmith and Fulham final recommendations published today by LGBCE.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 19, 2020 6:39:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 19, 2020 15:22:03 GMT
London ward boundary reviews superimposed on current parliamentary constituencies. Green: Electoral Change Order made. Blue: Final recommendations published.
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Jun 19, 2020 17:03:00 GMT
Does anyone have any views on which London boroughs become more or less pro or anti Labour (I say them as they are the largest party in the Capital) as a result of these boundary changes?
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 19, 2020 19:24:43 GMT
London ward boundary reviews superimposed on current parliamentary constituencies. Green: Electoral Change Order made. Blue: Final recommendations published. It’s not too dramatic but with 5% tolerance it could make a difference between a sensible constituency boundary being viable or not.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 19, 2020 19:29:19 GMT
Does anyone have any views on which London boroughs become more or less pro or anti Labour (I say them as they are the largest party in the Capital) as a result of these boundary changes? You have to look at both the changes to ward boundaries and the changes to the number of councillors allocated to each ward. Some Councils are increasing their number of councillors and others reducing them. Fewer, larger wards generally favour the two big parties as the Lib Dems, Greens and Independents find it harder to build support across large wards which have very different elements within them or which require more campaigners to cover the territory. At a spatial level the allowances built into the new boundaries to allow for growth in the electorate means regeneration areas with large planned residential developments will initially be over represented and established residential areas with little housing development will be underrepresented. This will even out over time, but not by the next local elections in 2022. So areas with large development zones such as Stratford, Tottenham, Colindale, Cricklewood, Old Oak, White City, Brentford will get increased representation and correspondingly existing areas of Victorian/Edwardian/interwar housing get less. This helps Labour in Barnet, Harringay, Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Jun 20, 2020 22:14:11 GMT
What, I am afraid to ask, is surprising about that fact? After all, a perusal of the documents relating to the LGBCE review of Enfield Council seems to reveal that no representations were received from Enfield Council or the Labour Party during the consultation there on warding arrangements (though some were received during later consultations), resulting in final recommendations that reflected the submission on warding arrangements by Enfield North Conservative Association with regard to the general overall pattern of wards, and of the actual wards and their boundaries over at least half of the borough. Con gain Enfield next time then? I can’t see Enfield ever going Con again The only borough I could see the Conservatives gaining in 2022 would be Sutton from the Liberal Democrats but with possibility of losing Wandsworth to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 21, 2020 0:33:18 GMT
Con gain Enfield next time then? I can’t see Enfield ever going Con again The only borough I could see the Conservatives gaining in 2022 would be Sutton from the Liberal Democrats but with possibility of losing Wandsworth to Labour. Ever is a very long time. There is absolutely no way any of us can predict the political landscape and geography of, say, 2070 when all the existing parties will (assuming they are still around) have undergone significant policy shifts and numerous events we can't predict will have shifted the political climate and Overton Window.
|
|