|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 30, 2020 21:20:02 GMT
Is the New Forest my spiritual home I wonder. Although the Pennington ward name remains absurdly short. Perhaps you should make a submission to the draft consultation. Pennington, Lower Pennington & Upper Pennington might work.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 30, 2020 21:27:20 GMT
I see there's a Tony Hancock fan in the LGBCE. Maybe the one voter made a fuss?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 21:35:46 GMT
I hadn't even noticed Pennington 🙃
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 30, 2020 21:39:06 GMT
I see there's a Tony Hancock fan in the LGBCE. Maybe the one voter made a fuss? It was probably Sidney James tricking them into doing it, so he could win a bet.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,249
|
Post by peterl on Jun 30, 2020 21:47:51 GMT
Part of me feels like putting in a submission just to tell them to cut the length of some of those names. "Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury & Lepe" is particularly bad, not only two long but a grammatically unsound double "and" gives this name a very clumsy feel. They can and should do better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 21:52:37 GMT
I'm going to put that longest one on a tshirt.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 30, 2020 21:57:16 GMT
Part of me feels like putting in a submission just to tell them to cut the length of some of those names. "Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury & Lepe" is particularly bad, not only two long but a grammatically unsound double "and" gives this name a very clumsy feel. They can and should do better. It looks like they've just listed every parish contained in that ward, 'Exbury & Lepe' being one of these. I'd like to see them try this in that East Yorkshire ward which contains 28 parishes. Just call it Beaulieu ffs
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 30, 2020 22:09:45 GMT
Especially since the Beaulieu Motor Museum is the most prominent feature of that proposed new ward.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 30, 2020 22:24:49 GMT
Bizzarely Hither Green ward electorate is predicted to fall by 900 voters over 5 years. Never seen that sort of fall for any other London ward. I don't know, maybe Lewisham has a few demolition plans for the next five years, but some of the polling district level electorate forecasts look wrong. I've had doubts about the credibility of forecasts used by the LGBCE in other cases as well. Hither Green seems to be forecast to lose 900 voters mostly from the part of the ward currently in Lewisham Central. Lewisham Central as a whole is forecast to gain nearly 2000 voters - but at the polling district level this works out at +3000 for one district and losses elsewhere, up to 20% of the electorate in one case. The same thing happens in the other two wards (Evelyn and New Cross) with significant growth forecast. It looks as if they've calculated the electorate for the ward, then tried to shoehorn new housing developments into their particular polling districts, so the rest of the ward has to take a hit to make the numbers fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 22:47:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 1, 2020 9:57:40 GMT
Bizzarely Hither Green ward electorate is predicted to fall by 900 voters over 5 years. Never seen that sort of fall for any other London ward. I don't know, maybe Lewisham has a few demolition plans for the next five years, but some of the polling district level electorate forecasts look wrong. I've had doubts about the credibility of forecasts used by the LGBCE in other cases as well. Hither Green seems to be forecast to lose 900 voters mostly from the part of the ward currently in Lewisham Central. Lewisham Central as a whole is forecast to gain nearly 2000 voters - but at the polling district level this works out at +3000 for one district and losses elsewhere, up to 20% of the electorate in one case. The same thing happens in the other two wards (Evelyn and New Cross) with significant growth forecast. It looks as if they've calculated the electorate for the ward, then tried to shoehorn new housing developments into their particular polling districts, so the rest of the ward has to take a hit to make the numbers fit. I agree the disparity in the projected figures for the polling districts in the existing Lewisham Central is very weird. I had a look on Google maps at the existing polling district in Lewisham Central which accounts for the bulk of the projected fall in electorate in the proposed Hither Green ward and it’s all 20 year old new build housing or Victorian/Edwardian housing, no postwar estates or residential institutions where proposed demolition might account for the drop. I have concerns about the transparency of the calculations provided by local Councils given that the background material justifying the projected electorates is never published on the LGBCE website for public scrutiny. This is by far the strangest example I have ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 1, 2020 10:12:24 GMT
Bizzarely Hither Green ward electorate is predicted to fall by 900 voters over 5 years. Never seen that sort of fall for any other London ward. I don't know, maybe Lewisham has a few demolition plans for the next five years, but some of the polling district level electorate forecasts look wrong. I've had doubts about the credibility of forecasts used by the LGBCE in other cases as well. Has anyone ever gone back over historical reviews to see how the predicted electorates compared with the actual figures?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 1, 2020 10:55:41 GMT
I don't know, maybe Lewisham has a few demolition plans for the next five years, but some of the polling district level electorate forecasts look wrong. I've had doubts about the credibility of forecasts used by the LGBCE in other cases as well. Has anyone ever gone back over historical reviews to see how the predicted electorates compared with the actual figures? I looked at the Westminster figures for the previous review in 2000. The forecast electorate bore no relation to the actual electorate five years after the review.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 1, 2020 12:01:45 GMT
I don't know, maybe Lewisham has a few demolition plans for the next five years, but some of the polling district level electorate forecasts look wrong. I've had doubts about the credibility of forecasts used by the LGBCE in other cases as well. Hither Green seems to be forecast to lose 900 voters mostly from the part of the ward currently in Lewisham Central. Lewisham Central as a whole is forecast to gain nearly 2000 voters - but at the polling district level this works out at +3000 for one district and losses elsewhere, up to 20% of the electorate in one case. The same thing happens in the other two wards (Evelyn and New Cross) with significant growth forecast. It looks as if they've calculated the electorate for the ward, then tried to shoehorn new housing developments into their particular polling districts, so the rest of the ward has to take a hit to make the numbers fit. I agree the disparity in the projected figures for the polling districts in the existing Lewisham Central is very weird. I had a look on Google maps at the existing polling district in Lewisham Central which accounts for the bulk of the projected fall in electorate in the proposed Hither Green ward and it’s all 20 year old new build housing or Victorian/Edwardian housing, no postwar estates or residential institutions where proposed demolition might account for the drop. I have concerns about the transparency of the calculations provided by local Councils given that the background material justifying the projected electorates is never published on the LGBCE website for public scrutiny. This is by far the strangest example I have ever seen. Looks like neither Lewisham Council nor the LGBCE have done their jobs. In the first case it perhaps isn’t widely realized that there basically aren’t any planning staff any more, simply people administering the minimum statutory requirements of planning law. So some hapless clerk was probably asked to do the estimates of future housebuilding and demography, and made a mess of it. But the LGBCE does this stuff all the time, and LA estimates are sometimes challenged during consultation. There’s no excuse for them not going back to Lewisham and saying that these estimates are a load of bollocks and they need someone to do them properly. My own (unsystematic) view is that the estimates aren’t that bad when done properly. They are often based on planning permissions, and indeed local plans where no permission has yet been sought, which turn out not to happen (or not to happen in the predicted timescale). But they are still well motivated, on the best information available. Demographic predictions are much more difficult, and it is generally simply assumed that existing trends will continue (sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t). The question is really whether we should be using predicted future electorates at all, rather than current ones. I get the idea that the aim is to try and future proof them, so that wards can remain unaltered for the normal 20 year period without getting seriously out of line. It would be very interesting for someone to do a research project on how accurate the estimates turn out to be, and the reasons why they prove inaccurate when this is the case. It might lead to a better way of doing things.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 1, 2020 12:11:47 GMT
Were the odd numbers obvious from the figures published at the earlier stages of the process?
Did anyone raise it? It seems unlikely they would ignore a forecast issue raised.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 1, 2020 12:18:12 GMT
Were the odd numbers obvious from the figures published at the earlier stages of the process? Did anyone raise it? It seems unlikely they would ignore a forecast issue raised. Obviously no-one raised it. The LGBCE has a habit of simply taking LA estimates as read - they don’t check them against existing figures for polling district, only for whole wards. So no, it wouldn’t have been obvious because no-one was looking. But they probably should have been.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 1, 2020 12:33:19 GMT
Comparison of forecast electorate in LGBCE review of Westminster and actual electorate.   | Forecast Electorate | Actual Electorate | % variance | WARD | Mid 2003 | 1 Dec 2003 | | Abbey Road | 6,482 | 6,515 | +0.51 | Bayswater | 6,587 | 7,087 | +7.59 | Bryanston and Dorset Square | 6,829 | 6,642 | -2.74 | Church Street | 6,868 | 6,541 | -4.76 | Churchill | 6,758 | 5,940 | -12.10 | Harrow Road | 6,416 | 6,944 | +8.23 | Hyde Park | 6,925 | 6,473 | -6.53 | Knightsbridge and Belgravia | 6,867 | 6,279 | -8.56 | Lancaster Gate | 6,867 | 7,258 | +5.69 | Little Venice | 6,650 | 6,464 | -2.80 | Maida Vale | 6,846 | 6,638 | -3.04 | Marylebone High Street | 6,857 | 6,401 | -6.65 | Queen's Park | 6,794 | 7,098 | +4.47 | Regent's Park | 6,736 | 6,902 | +2.46 | St James's | 6,479 | 6,307 | -2.65 | Tachbrook | 6,726 | 6,256 | -6.99 | Vincent Square | 6,635 | 6,209 | -6.42 | Warwick | 6,662 | 6,494 | -2.52 | West End | 6,792 | 6,382 | -6.04 | Westbourne | 6,824 | 7,316 | +7.21 | | | | | TOTAL | 134,600 | 132,146 | |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jul 1, 2020 13:02:12 GMT
Comparison of forecast electorate in LGBCE review of Westminster and actual electorate. | Forecast Electorate | Actual Electorate | % variance | WARD | Mid 2003 | 1 Dec 2003 | | Abbey Road | 6,482 | 6,515 | +0.51 | Bayswater | 6,587 | 7,087 | +7.59 | Bryanston and Dorset Square | 6,829 | 6,642 | -2.74 | Church Street | 6,868 | 6,541 | -4.76 | Churchill | 6,758 | 5,940 | -12.10 | Harrow Road | 6,416 | 6,944 | +8.23 | Hyde Park | 6,925 | 6,473 | -6.53 | Knightsbridge and Belgravia | 6,867 | 6,279 | -8.56 | Lancaster Gate | 6,867 | 7,258 | +5.69 | Little Venice | 6,650 | 6,464 | -2.80 | Maida Vale | 6,846 | 6,638 | -3.04 | Marylebone High Street | 6,857 | 6,401 | -6.65 | Queen's Park | 6,794 | 7,098 | +4.47 | Regent's Park | 6,736 | 6,902 | +2.46 | St James's | 6,479 | 6,307 | -2.65 | Tachbrook | 6,726 | 6,256 | -6.99 | Vincent Square | 6,635 | 6,209 | -6.42 | Warwick | 6,662 | 6,494 | -2.52 | West End | 6,792 | 6,382 | -6.04 | Westbourne | 6,824 | 7,316 | +7.21 | | | | | TOTAL | 134,600 | 132,146 | |
Do you have the actual electrorates at the time of redistribution? Just to try to see whether the forecasts were on the whole successful at reducing variance over time. (in other words, is there less disparity between wards now than there would have been had they not used forecast numbers). Obviously can't show that definitively, because the ward boundaries would have been different if based on actual rather than forecast numbers. But should be able to get an indication?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jul 1, 2020 13:15:59 GMT
Part of me feels like putting in a submission just to tell them to cut the length of some of those names. "Beaulieu, Boldre, East Boldre & Exbury & Lepe" is particularly bad, not only two long but a grammatically unsound double "and" gives this name a very clumsy feel. They can and should do better. It looks like they've just listed every parish contained in that ward, 'Exbury & Lepe' being one of these. I'd like to see them try this in that East Yorkshire ward which contains 28 parishes. Just call it Beaulieu ffs I'd already reached that conclusion - and also noted that, on the basis of the figures given, the population of the four parishes concerned taken together only suffices for one councillor out of 48 between them. So perhaps the fact that four parishes are having to share just the one councillor can only be assuaged by making it clear that the councillor represents each of them. I am also both amused and impressed to note that, while the district council's proposals seem to have been adopted by the LGBCE without change over most of the rest of the district (despite a number of other local complaints about being put in an inappropriate ward), this ward seems to have been entirely the suggestion of Boldre Parish Council complaining of being lumped in with Lymington and Pennington and coming up with its own alternative - obviously a well-argued one since it also convinced the LGBCE to reduce the council size from 49 members to 48. I am rather tempted to ask (despite no serious evidence for the question) - anyone here prepared to own up?
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 1, 2020 13:25:11 GMT
Do you have the actual electrorates at the time of redistribution? Just to try to see whether the forecasts were on the whole successful at reducing variance over time. (in other words, is there less disparity between wards now than there would have been had they not used forecast numbers). Obviously can't show that definitively, because the ward boundaries would have been different if based on actual rather than forecast numbers. But should be able to get an indication? Correlation coefficient between 1998 Actual and 2003 Actual - 0.45 Correlation coefficient between 2003 Predicted and 2003 Actual - 0.04 (1.00 is perfect, 0.00 is no correlation) So in this case the boundary commission would have been more accurate if they had just ignored the predicted values, and based the wards on the actual 1998 figures.
|
|