|
Post by therealriga on Jul 28, 2021 15:55:01 GMT
And in Northern Ireland terms the whole business of forcing the NI Local Government Boundary Commission to spend time and money creating wards within a 10% threshold is a useless waste of time anyway since the wards have no function in their own right but are just used as building blocks for district electoral areas (which are effectively wards) or Westminster constituencies. That leads to some wards being a total mess. Waterworks in Belfast links the nationalist areas of lower Cliftonville and Newington with areas across a peaceline that were previously in the unionist Crumlin ward containing the north Shankill. The Limavady area is a particular mess with 2 wards putting urban areas on the edge of the town in with villages 10 miles away. It would be far better just to create small building blocks without regard to size and only change them when residential development patterns such as new housing estates require it. In that scenario, the number of councillors elected for district electoral areas would be based on the number of voters, not on the number of wards. I'm tempted to write a response suggesting ward name changes just to see what the reaction/response is. Go for it. There are quite a few in Belfast that could easily revert to a former name. Beersbridge > The Mount Blackstaff > Donegall Turf Lodge > Upper Springfield Forth River > Glencairn Ballygomartin > Highfield Innisfayle > Castleview
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 28, 2021 16:19:12 GMT
Thanks for this. Let me refine my suggestions. - Perhaps there should be a rule that no new LGBCE review may commence within a certain time before the cut-off date for the next scheduled Parliamentary review. Maybe two years? Or is that too short or too long? I'm not wedded to two years but the basic idea is that at a certain point the LGBCE should be relieved of new business so that it can focus its resources on completing reviews that are already under way.
- I want to put all wards that beat the cut-off on the same footing, regardless of whether they've actually been used for a local election. So: how about a rule that after the LGBCE has completed its final recommendation, but before the SI is laid in Parliament, the LA must decide the PDs? I'd accompany this with a requirement on all LAs to publish maps of PDs and for a comprehensive list of Parliamentary electorates for every PD nationally to be published at the outset of every Parliamentary review.
Would that do? Edited to add: Also, I don't really like the term 'polling district', which is clumsy and bureaucratic. In the US the roughly equivalent concept is called a 'precinct', which is a nice succinct name that we don't use for anything else. If they are to become more important, let's call them that.
But, to repeat my previous point, US precincts are recognisable groups of human socio-geography, our polling districts are arbitary slices of wards that happen to be convenient to get to the library or the swimming pool for this year's election. Next year's election may hold the vote in the community centre, next year's polling districts will be whatever is convenient to get people to the community centre. It takes about 90 seconds on Dave's Redistricting App to realise that this is nonsense. In any case, all boundaries are arbitrary to some extent and physical proximity does tend to create community ties (i. e. I feel more connected to places I can easily walk to than ones I cannot), so it's only rarely a problem. To the extent it needs dealing with, you can just tweak the guidance by making local authorities consider community identity as well as distance from the polling station when creating boundaries. Incidentally, I'd suggest if you want an alternative term, something like 'locality' or 'neighbourhood' is probably a better bet.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 28, 2021 16:45:40 GMT
I do think it's interesting that the default below-ward unit for Scotland now that it has gone to STV seems to be postcode sectors. I know they're not designed to reflect community ties etc, but clearly they do tend to group together places that by simple proximity most likely have some affinity to each other.
The fundamental problem is that there is a conflict between boundaries designed to reflect community ties, boundaries designed for administrative convenience, and boundaries designed for electoral equality. In some places wards are unable to achieve all of these objectives, so it would make sense to have something below them on a more formalised basis. But still then the conflicting interests may be hard to reconcile at this lower level.
Edit:
A rough guess would be the following:
Parishes - meet 1 and 2 Polling Districts - meet 2 and to some extent 3 (and perhaps by accident 1) Wards - meet 3 and to some extent 1 Local Authorities - meet 1 and 2 Postcode Sectors - meet 2
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 28, 2021 17:06:52 GMT
I do think it's interesting that the default below-ward unit for Scotland now that it has gone to STV seems to be postcode sectors. I know they're not designed to reflect community ties etc, but clearly they do tend to group together places that by simple proximity most likely have some affinity to each other. The fundamental problem is that there is a conflict between boundaries designed to reflect community ties, boundaries designed for administrative convenience, and boundaries designed for electoral equality. In some places wards are unable to achieve all of these objectives, so it would make sense to have something below them on a more formalised basis. But still then the conflicting interests may be hard to reconcile at this lower level. Edit: A rough guess would be the following: Parishes - meet 1 and 2 Polling Districts - meet 2 and to some extent 3 (and perhaps by accident 1) Wards - meet 3 and to some extent 1 Local Authorities - meet 1 and 2 Postcode Sectors - meet 2 I can think of a few parishes that fail to meet any of those! Usually where the growth of towns has impinged on parishes which used to be clearly outside the town, but now aren't.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 28, 2021 22:21:59 GMT
Four new electoral orders have been published: The Bracknell Forest (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/887). Introduces new ward boundaries for Bracknell Forest council, with effect from the May 2023 election, and makes consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Binfield, Bracknell, Sandhurst, Warfield and Winkfield. There are fifteen new wards, of which four elect two councillors and eleven elect three councillors. The New Forest (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/888). Introduces new ward boundaries for New Forest council, with effect from the May 2023 election, and makes consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Fawley, Hythe and Dibden, Lymington and Pennington, New Milton, Ringwood, and Totton and Eling. There are twenty-six new wards, of which six are single-member, eighteen elect two councillors and two (Milford and Hordle, and Totton North) elect three councillors. The Mid Devon (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/889). Introduces new ward boundaries for Mid Devon council, with effect from the May 2023 election, and makes consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Crediton, Cullompton and Tiverton. There are twenty-two new wards, of which seven are single-member, ten elect two councillors and five elect three councillors. The St Albans (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/900). Introduces new ward boundaries for St Albans council, with effect from the May 2022 election, restores the system of election by thirds in following years, and makes consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the parishes of Colney Heath, Harpenden Town, London Colney, St Michael, St Stephen, Sandridge and Wheathampstead. There are twenty new wards, of which one (Colney Heath) is single-member, two (Marshalswick West and Redbourn) elect two councillors and seventeen elect three councillors.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 29, 2021 6:04:03 GMT
Some of those new wards in the New Forest have ridiculous names - the worst ones being: - Ashurst, Bramshaw, Copythorne, and Netley Marsh
- Bransgore, Burley, Sopley, and Ringwood East
- Fawley, Blackfield, Calshot, and Langley
I thought some of the Scottish constituencies had excessively long names - they look fine compared to these!
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 29, 2021 8:04:40 GMT
I do think it's interesting that the default below-ward unit for Scotland now that it has gone to STV seems to be postcode sectors. I know they're not designed to reflect community ties etc, but clearly they do tend to group together places that by simple proximity most likely have some affinity to each other. The fundamental problem is that there is a conflict between boundaries designed to reflect community ties, boundaries designed for administrative convenience, and boundaries designed for electoral equality. In some places wards are unable to achieve all of these objectives, so it would make sense to have something below them on a more formalised basis. But still then the conflicting interests may be hard to reconcile at this lower level. Edit: A rough guess would be the following: Parishes - meet 1 and 2 Polling Districts - meet 2 and to some extent 3 (and perhaps by accident 1) Wards - meet 3 and to some extent 1 Local Authorities - meet 1 and 2 Postcode Sectors - meet 2 I can think of a few parishes that fail to meet any of those! Usually where the growth of towns has impinged on parishes which used to be clearly outside the town, but now aren't. True, but that tends to be a legacy thing and is easily changed by a parish review order. That's entirely within the power of local authorities to do, I just think a lot of them don't necessarily realise they can or are supposed to.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 29, 2021 11:23:09 GMT
Do both parishes have to agree to that for local authorities to consider it? Certainly local authority boundaries would get updated much more regularly if only the annexing authority needed to agree.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 29, 2021 11:35:02 GMT
The have to take their views into account as part of the consultation process for a 'Community Governance Review', but I don't believe the parishes have a veto as such.
A Community Governance Review can create, abolish, merge, or alter the boundaries of parishes. It essentially puts parishes completely at the mercy of the local authority.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,270
|
Post by peterl on Jul 29, 2021 11:39:01 GMT
Do both parishes have to agree to that for local authorities to consider it? Certainly local authority boundaries would get updated much more regularly if only the annexing authority needed to agree. As I've posted on another thread, Dorset Council are just starting a Community Governance Review and have published documents explaining all about the ins and outs of the process if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 29, 2021 12:47:42 GMT
The have to take their views into account as part of the consultation process for a 'Community Governance Review', but I don't believe the parishes have a veto as such. A Community Governance Review can create, abolish, merge, or alter the boundaries of parishes. It essentially puts parishes completely at the mercy of the local authority. That is my understanding too.
|
|
stash
Forum Regular
Posts: 50
|
Post by stash on Aug 3, 2021 10:48:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 3, 2021 10:52:10 GMT
Greenwich final recommendations published with changes in Eltham and Kidbrooke.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
|
Post by European Lefty on Aug 3, 2021 11:48:35 GMT
It would have been much simpler just to say "we have adopted the Liberal Democrats' proposal" and published a map
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Aug 3, 2021 11:53:21 GMT
While we considered both schemes to be good proposals, we have largely based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ scheme, although we have incorporated elements of the Labour scheme where we considered these more appropriate. This decision was based on a number of factors, including improved levels of electoral equality in the Liberal Democrat scheme and more detailed supporting evidence in the submission.
Summary document error
11 January 2021 - Publication on final recommendations
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 3, 2021 12:04:55 GMT
I can’t tell for sure on my phone, but was the Labour submission just the one page PDF and then an Excel file? Any images/arguments?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 3, 2021 12:10:44 GMT
On the Derbyshire Dales page, it says ... but there is no further explanation and the previously published "final recommendations" are still available.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 3, 2021 12:18:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 3, 2021 12:50:25 GMT
Draft recs for Bolton. consultation.lgbce.org.uk/have-your-say/24340More radical than I anticipated, including a very undersized Kearsley ward. The changes make sense on their own terms but some of the names do not (Bradshaw and Bromley Cross ward does not include Bromley Cross).
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 3, 2021 15:14:57 GMT
Draft recs for Bolton. consultation.lgbce.org.uk/have-your-say/24340More radical than I anticipated, including a very undersized Kearsley ward. The changes make sense on their own terms but some of the names do not (Bradshaw and Bromley Cross ward does not include Bromley Cross). That seems very odd. Normally when an undersized ward is proposed, it's for an isolated area in the final recommendations after they get a lot of pushback against all the logical solutions. I'm unconvinced that Kearsley really falls into the category, especially for the initial recommendations.
|
|