|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 1, 2020 13:28:31 GMT
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? Well I don't think anyone here is a sockpuppet for Boldre parish council but you never know - there is one member of this forum who likes to get involved in the business of every parish within about a 20 mile radius of Bournemouth so anything's possible. Alternatively, it may have been mis-transcribed and was actually a request not to be associated with Liam Pennington, in which case it could have been anyone here really
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 1, 2020 13:38:43 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. But the district numbers readily available in the spreadsheet published at the very beginning of the process. The 2019 and 2025 columns are next to each other... EDIT: Oh wait, are you saying the problem lies with the 2019 numbers?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 1, 2020 13:53:56 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? The 1998 figures are on page ix: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/7966/london-westminster_6162-5766__e__.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2020 17:16:19 GMT
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? Well I don't think anyone here is a sockpuppet for Boldre parish council but you never know - there is one member of this forum who likes to get involved in the business of every parish within about a 20 mile radius of Bournemouth so anything's possible. Alternatively, it may have been mis-transcribed and was actually a request not to be associated with Liam Pennington, in which case it could have been anyone here really Rude 😘
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 1, 2020 20:36:23 GMT
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. But the district numbers readily available in the spreadsheet published at the very beginning of the process. The 2019 and 2025 columns are next to each other... EDIT: Oh wait, are you saying the problem lies with the 2019 numbers? The problem appears to be with the 2025 figures predicting an unusually large decline in electorate in one polling district c. 900 voters, which appears to have a reasonably stable population and housing stock. Perhaps a one digit mistake made all the difference. I haven’t read through all the objections received on the review to see if anyone raised it. But it is not mentioned in the draft or final reports. Not all email queries made about electorate forecasts get logged as ‘objections’ anyway.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 1, 2020 20:47:53 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? The 1998 figures are on page ix: s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/7966/london-westminster_6162-5766__e__.pdfI don’t think the total ward electorate compared to what had been predicted necessarily matters that much, the main test used by the LGBCE what proportion of the local authority’s wards are oversized or undersized by exceeding the +/- 10% threshold. If the review avoids any undersized or oversized wards in 5 years time it will have done a good job. Variances between the electorates of individual wards are inevitable as time progresses but the main objective is to keep them with the maximum and minimum thresholds to avoid over or under representation.
|
|
|
Post by redvers on Jul 2, 2020 9:10:18 GMT
|
|
Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells
Independent
Standing for election to the position of Chief Cyber Yob of VUK Forum
Posts: 2,089
Member is Online
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 3, 2020 1:00:47 GMT
Right,here's my take as someone who is relatively local and knows Bracknell politics and geography to some extent.I'm going to deal with this in 3 sections. The north of the borough is a bit of an abomination,but we must recognise that it is difficult to make this part of the borough work with 2 and 3 councillor wards. The Binfield North & Warfield West is the worst,it's a shame to split Binfield but it has to be done to create reasonably equal sized ward electorates and most of the ward is connected by 1 or 2 major roads. Warfield East is much better because most of the built up area is well connected and clustered in the southern part of the ward. Winkfield North isn't so great for the connections within the ward, but I feel like it's the best they could have done with the stupid borough boundary through Ascot. Winkfield South I feel should be renamed Martins Heron after the main area of settlement in the ward and the well known local station but otherwise,the ward works quite well. Binfield South with Jennett's Hill feels like another leftovers ward with no significant road link within the ward,however Jennett's Hill fits better with Binfield demographically than it does with neighbouring Great Hollands. In contrast,the centre of the borough has been given quite coherent and sensibly drawn wards. Priestwood and Garth works well as a ward.The new Central Bracknell ward is a great creation as well, clearly identifiable and obviously good transport links. Bullbrook and the Parks is decently drawn,the only downside I find is that Bullbrook is separated from its nearest station and amenities at Martins Heron. Harmans Water and Crown Wood is the worst of the more central wards because of the chunk of Forest Park and the Warren being taken out of it,but moving them back into this ward would have too great a knock on effect on Winkfield South and all other wards in the north of the Borough.The Easthampstead and Wildridings ward is well drawn. Hanworth is also well drawn but should be renamed Hanworth and Birch Hill to better reflect the areas in the ward.Great Hollands is coherent. The wards in the south of the Borough are a mixed bag again. Crowthorne is perfectly coherent as it contains the eponymous community which are served by amenities in the ward. Sandhurst is fairly drawn apart from the eastern boundary,which should follow the A321 and Rackstraw Road. The same applies to Owlsmoor and College Town.
|
|
|
Post by londonseal80 on Jul 4, 2020 18:22:22 GMT
Any idea how this is likely to impact on the control of the Council as this is probably the only London borough the Conservatives have a good chance of gaining in 2022? The Residents may increase their presence too. The new Hackbridge Ward could be a good target for them. The Beddington and Wallington parts of the borough were of course the Resident strongholds back in the 60s and 70s.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 14, 2020 20:36:44 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020 (asp 12), an Act of the Scottish Parliament to reform certain aspects of the law relating to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, including length of terms; to make provision about the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to those elections; to confer functions on the Electoral Management Board for Scotland in relation to Scottish parliamentary elections; to rename and make provision about the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland; and for connected purposes. Part 1 of the Act (sections 1 to 9) contains general reforms. Sections 1 and 2 relate to term lengths. Section 1 extends the term length of the Scottish Parliament from four years to five. Section 2 extends the term length of Scottish local councillors from four years to five. Section 3 provides for general elections of the Scottish Parliament to be postponed in certain circumstances. Sections 4 to 7 relate to Scottish local government elections. Section 4 allows wards to be drawn with between two and five councillors (rather then 3 or 4 as at present). Section 5 prohibits double voting in Scottish local elections. Section 6 provides for electronic voting in Scottish local elections. Section 7 provides that pilot schemes in Scottish local elections should be reported on by the Electoral Commission rather than by the local council involved. Section 8 amends the Representation of the People Act 1983 to enable 14-year-olds to register to vote in Scottish local government elections, the register to indicate the age on which they become eligible to vote. Part 2 (sections 9 to 23) relates to and confers various functions on the Electoral Commission and Part 3 (sections 24 to 27) amends the functions of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland as described above. Part 4 (sections 28 to 33 and the Schedule) relate to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is to be renamed as "Boundaries Scotland" (section 28). Boundaries Scotland will be required to review all Scottish local council electoral arrangements every fifteen years, with the next review to report no later than December 2028. Boundaries Scotland will also be responsible for reviewing Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries; the next review has been postponed to report by May 2025, as opposed to the previous deadline of May 2022. There are various other procedural changes. Part 5 (sections 34 to 36) provides for ancillary provision, commencement and the short title. Part 5 came into force on 9th July 2020; the rest of the Act will come into force on a day or dates to be appointed.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,047
|
Post by peterl on Jul 15, 2020 9:17:10 GMT
Section 6 provides for electronic voting in Scottish local elections. Horrible. Just horrible.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jul 15, 2020 10:41:35 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 15, 2020 11:49:55 GMT
Section 6 provides for electronic voting in Scottish local elections. Horrible. Just horrible. Electronic voting would be good IMO if it could ever be made reliably fraud proof. If.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 15, 2020 11:52:06 GMT
Section 6 provides for electronic voting in Scottish local elections. Horrible. Just horrible. YIKES.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 15, 2020 12:25:39 GMT
Electronic voting would be good IMO if it could ever be made reliably fraud proof. If. If it has to be introduced, then I would make electronic voting polling-day only. Surely the vast majority of people must be somewhere with internet access at some point in the day. My concern with early electronic voting is people casting their vote on impulse after seeing something in the news or online, which subsequently turns out to be fake news, but it is too late - their vote is cast.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,167
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 15, 2020 13:00:46 GMT
Electronic voting would be good IMO if it could ever be made reliably fraud proof. If. If it has to be introduced, then I would make electronic voting polling-day only. Surely the vast majority of people must be somewhere with internet access at some point in the day. My concern with early electronic voting is people casting their vote on impulse after seeing something in the news or online, which subsequently turns out to be fake news, but it is too late - their vote is cast. Already a big concern with early postal voting, of course.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 15, 2020 14:07:31 GMT
A pair of videos going through the problems with electronic voting:
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2020 14:29:00 GMT
Electronic voting would be good IMO if it could ever be made reliably fraud proof. If. If it has to be introduced, then I would make electronic voting polling-day only. Surely the vast majority of people must be somewhere with internet access at some point in the day. My concern with early electronic voting is people casting their vote on impulse after seeing something in the news or online, which subsequently turns out to be fake news, but it is too late - their vote is cast. If it's electronic voting is must not be internet voting.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 15, 2020 15:10:37 GMT
Section 6 provides for electronic voting in Scottish local elections. Horrible. Just horrible. I should probably point out that this is not detailed stuff and there's nothing to suggest this is coming in imminently. All section 6 actually does is provide that votes in Scottish local elections transmitted by electronic means count as valid votes. There's no machinery in this Act or (as far as I know) anywhere else setting up an actual scheme for electronic voting. EDIT: The explanatory notes to the original bill have this to say:
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 15, 2020 16:49:19 GMT
If it has to be introduced, then I would make electronic voting polling-day only. Surely the vast majority of people must be somewhere with internet access at some point in the day. My concern with early electronic voting is people casting their vote on impulse after seeing something in the news or online, which subsequently turns out to be fake news, but it is too late - their vote is cast. If it's electronic voting is must not be internet voting. How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet.
|
|