|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 28, 2020 18:34:01 GMT
Having looked at the draft recommendations for Havering which were released by the LGBCE today, I can conclude that the allegations of gerrymandering regarding new Havering wards are not in fact justified for the following reasons: 1. The new two member wards cover areas that are expected to have considerable population growth, especially Beam Park whose forecast electorate in five years' time is expected to be more than double the draft ward's current electorate. The splitting of Romford ward into Romford Town North and Romford Town South (both of which are 2-member wards) is for the same reason as the creation of Beam Park. 2. By comparison, the majority of the plan's three member wards are only expected to have below-average population growth. 3. The continuing popularity of Residents' Associations across Havering means that it is practically impossible for Labour to control Havering anyway, and overall control is difficult even for the Conservatives. I don't think you understand who was actually making the allegations.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 28, 2020 18:42:01 GMT
the picture of Jon Cruddas in the article has an ad as part of the image "find single men now"
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 28, 2020 20:12:36 GMT
Havering Council (which proposed 56 councillors when the LGBCE had already decided on 54). What on earth were they playing at?
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 28, 2020 20:15:08 GMT
Havering Council (which proposed 56 councillors when the LGBCE had already decided on 54). What on earth were they playing at? The LGBCE have previously been persuaded to alter the council size slightly when someone shows it allows a better arrangement of wards.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 28, 2020 21:49:41 GMT
What on earth were they playing at? The LGBCE have previously been persuaded to alter the council size slightly when someone shows it allows a better arrangement of wards. They have indeed. Though it’s always a risky strategy to propose a Council size different to the one the LGBCE have suggested, you have to have a very strong argument to pull it off.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 28, 2020 21:57:44 GMT
Having looked at the draft recommendations for Havering which were released by the LGBCE today, I can conclude that the allegations of gerrymandering regarding new Havering wards are not in fact justified for the following reasons: 1. The new two member wards cover areas that are expected to have considerable population growth, especially Beam Park whose forecast electorate in five years' time is expected to be more than double the draft ward's current electorate. The splitting of Romford ward into Romford Town North and Romford Town South (both of which are 2-member wards) is for the same reason as the creation of Beam Park. 2. By comparison, the majority of the plan's three member wards are only expected to have below-average population growth. 3. The continuing popularity of Residents' Associations across Havering means that it is practically impossible for Labour to control Havering anyway, and overall control is difficult even for the Conservatives. I don't think you understand who was actually making the allegations. I don’t know the area well but had a few thoughts: The new Beam Park ward looks interesting, who would that help? Brooklands ward might be a might more favourable to Labour now that it is largely the area along the main road between Chadwell Heath and Romford?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 28, 2020 23:37:56 GMT
It does make some sense at least to go unitary. Three layers of principal authority is an awful lot. What is the point in having a country council for, say, Lancashire, and the have a combined authority covering that same area plus the two UAs that used to be part of it? The move seems to be to make CAs into super-charged county councils, so there’s no need to keep a county council underneath them. Has there been any proposal for unitaries in Lancashire? It doesn't look like it'd be too hard to pair up the existing districts into unitaries, eg. Fylde+Wyre, but I suppose that these days the govt is obsessed with super-councils of 300,000+.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 28, 2020 23:51:37 GMT
It does make some sense at least to go unitary. Three layers of principal authority is an awful lot. What is the point in having a country council for, say, Lancashire, and the have a combined authority covering that same area plus the two UAs that used to be part of it? The move seems to be to make CAs into super-charged county councils, so there’s no need to keep a county council underneath them. Has there been any proposal for unitaries in Lancashire? It doesn't look like it'd be too hard to pair up the existing districts into unitaries, eg. Fylde+Wyre, but I suppose that these days the govt is obsessed with super-councils of 300,000+. In the ‘new councils’ thread.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 29, 2020 8:13:27 GMT
I don't think you understand who was actually making the allegations. I don’t know the area well but had a few thoughts: The new Beam Park ward looks interesting, who would that help? Brooklands ward might be a might more favourable to Labour now that it is largely the area along the main road between Chadwell Heath and Romford? My guess would be that in most places in London new housing will tend to be more favourable to Labour (as the occupants will be younger and there are reasonably high levels of affordable housing in most new developments.) However, even if the general principle holds, it rather depends on how much of it has been built out by 2022 - if the electorate is still quite low, it'll probably vote more like the area does now. Brooklands looks to have been Labour's best ward in Romford in 2018 and the boundary changes aren't that extensive, but whether that's enough I don't know. Either of the two Romford Town wards might also be competitive for the same reasons as Beam Park. But that's all guesswork.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,563
Member is Online
|
Post by pl on Jul 29, 2020 9:55:45 GMT
I don’t know the area well but had a few thoughts: The new Beam Park ward looks interesting, who would that help? Brooklands ward might be a might more favourable to Labour now that it is largely the area along the main road between Chadwell Heath and Romford? My guess would be that in most places in London new housing will tend to be more favourable to Labour (as the occupants will be younger and there are reasonably high levels of affordable housing in most new developments.) However, even if the general principle holds, it rather depends on how much of it has been built out by 2022 - if the electorate is still quite low, it'll probably vote more like the area does now. Brooklands looks to have been Labour's best ward in Romford in 2018 and the boundary changes aren't that extensive, but whether that's enough I don't know. Either of the two Romford Town wards might also be competitive for the same reasons as Beam Park. But that's all guesswork. In London in general, new developments often have a high proportion of social housing. New social is often very heavily BME due to them being over represented in the housing lists. This is a group with slim pickings for the Conservatives. Even in a 60% private development, where the Conservatives get 60% of the private vote, they will lose. Mainly because of the large number of non-voters (Europeans and others) in the private. Most social tenants will have the right to vote, most will vote Labour.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 14, 2020 18:59:50 GMT
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,047
|
Post by peterl on Aug 14, 2020 19:28:09 GMT
So it seems that it IS possible to consider the impact of corona on elections and take appropriate action without this wholly preventing a government from managing the crisis. Who would have thought it.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 14, 2020 19:49:02 GMT
So it seems that it IS possible to consider the impact of corona on elections and take appropriate action without this wholly preventing a government from managing the crisis. Who would have thought it. Let's get a sense of perspective. Right now, an election count in Greater Manchester would be an illegal gathering and everybody in the counting hall would potentially be on the hook for a £100 fine. We are a long way off the stage where we can start thinking about administering elections again, and I doubt we will be at that stage by May next year. I don't like it, you don't like it, but if you are deriving any form of satisfaction or entertainment from anything then you are doing lockdown wrong. The Scottish Government has had to publish these instruments because there are by-elections scheduled for 1st October. That concentrates minds. There is still plenty of time for those polls to get called off but the legislation will still be on the books when it's ready to be used.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,047
|
Post by peterl on Aug 14, 2020 20:17:45 GMT
Well that's Manchester. In much of the country it would be perfectly safe. From tommorow, conference centers can open. Is an election count more dangerous than a conference or exhibition?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 14, 2020 20:28:01 GMT
Well that's Manchester. In much of the country it would be perfectly safe. From tommorow, conference centers can open. Is an election count more dangerous than a conference or exhibition? No, and besides, we can always count using a machine if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 14, 2020 20:35:59 GMT
Well that's Manchester. In much of the country it would be perfectly safe. From tommorow, conference centers can open. Is an election count more dangerous than a conference or exhibition? No, and besides, we can always count using a machine if necessary. And how do we have confidence that the machines are giving us the correct result?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 14, 2020 20:43:56 GMT
No, and besides, we can always count using a machine if necessary. And how do we have confidence that the machines are giving us the correct result? By programming them correctly.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 14, 2020 20:51:32 GMT
And how do we have confidence that the machines are giving us the correct result? By programming them correctly. Even if they use open source software where I can verify that it is programmed correctly, how do I as a candidate or agent know that the counting machines are using the software they are supposed to be using?
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 14, 2020 21:04:09 GMT
Well that's Manchester. In much of the country it would be perfectly safe. From tommorow, conference centers can open. Is an election count more dangerous than a conference or exhibition? Maybe the answer is to impose martial law on Manchester for being Manchester.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 14, 2020 21:35:17 GMT
Well that's Manchester. In much of the country it would be perfectly safe. From tommorow, conference centers can open. Is an election count more dangerous than a conference or exhibition? No, and besides, we can always count using a machine if necessary. What sort of machine can count ballot papers? And then identify their validity and intention?
|
|