Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2021 15:51:01 GMT
Looking at the last few posts, is the LGBCE okay?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 3, 2021 19:59:52 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. Kearsley is a surprisingly isolated area and very much out on a limb within the borough. In electorate terms there's nothing wrong with the current Farnworth, Harper Green and Kearsley wards. The reason the LGBCE drew such a small Kearsley ward is that they adopted the submission of Farnworth and Kearsley First, who clearly want to get rid of Harper Green ward (which they can't win, because it includes Lever Edge which is not Farnworth). The boundary between the proposed Farnworth North and Great Lever wards is the old Bolton-Farnworth borough boundary. The problem with this approach is that Farnworth and Kearsley boroughs between them only have the electorate for eight councillors.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 3, 2021 21:18:35 GMT
Given that the proposed Kearsley ward extends beyond the motorway when the submissions they received clearly said those areas don't consider themselves to be Kearsley, would the numbers work if they made Kearsley a 2-member ward instead and just cut the number of councillors by one?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Aug 4, 2021 8:43:08 GMT
Given that the proposed Kearsley ward extends beyond the motorway when the submissions they received clearly said those areas don't consider themselves to be Kearsley, would the numbers work if they made Kearsley a 2-member ward instead and just cut the number of councillors by one? Not in a metropolitan borough, not in a thirds council. Also, if you do that Little Lever will want its own two-seat ward as well and the Commission rejected that. The area they got the complaints from was Long Causeway which is Farnworth by any reasonable measure, but a name change to "Kearsley and Farnworth South" would sort that. Still trying to work out what to counterpropose here, but it will involve leaving the south of the borough (including the current Farnworth and Kearsley wards) substantially unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 4, 2021 8:49:25 GMT
There's a presumption against one or two-member wards in a thirds council, but my understanding was that it's not a legal requirement for mets? Though the bar the LGBCE imposes for one- or two-member wards in thirds districts seems to vary in height almost at random depending on who at the LGBCE is actually conducting the review.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 4, 2021 8:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Aug 4, 2021 9:59:46 GMT
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. Kearsley is a surprisingly isolated area and very much out on a limb within the borough. In electorate terms there's nothing wrong with the current Farnworth, Harper Green and Kearsley wards. The reason the LGBCE drew such a small Kearsley ward is that they adopted the submission of Farnworth and Kearsley First, who clearly want to get rid of Harper Green ward (which they can't win, because it includes Lever Edge which is not Farnworth). The boundary between the proposed Farnworth North and Great Lever wards is the old Bolton-Farnworth borough boundary. The problem with this approach is that Farnworth and Kearsley boroughs between them only have the electorate for eight councillors. Looking at those boundaries, including parts of the old Harper Green in both Farnworth North and Farnworth south risks FKF losing both of the Farnworth wards to labour. They are nowhere near as strong in Farnworth as they are in Kearsley, and the margin was quite small last time (definitely smaller than labour's lead in Harper Green).
|
|
|
Post by cmarsh on Aug 8, 2021 18:39:28 GMT
The boundary changes for Camden are awful. Too much focus on arbitrary population quotas, rather than communities. Camden Town doesn’t need a ward that focuses on the market, commercial area and hardly anything else. Asinine to pair Primrose Hill with Swiss Cottage. Why split Kentish Town? They should also rename Frognal as Hampstead West. Town should be Hampstead East.
|
|
|
Post by cmarsh on Aug 8, 2021 18:41:19 GMT
I’ve never liked Camden as a borough anyhow. Awkward shape, connects a lot of disparate areas. Bloomsbury and Holborn should be added to Westminster to unify central London. Areas close to Golders Green and Kilburn are worlds apart from the outskirts of the city.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,696
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 8, 2021 20:44:12 GMT
I’ve never liked Camden as a borough anyhow. Awkward shape, connects a lot of disparate areas. Bloomsbury and Holborn should be added to Westminster to unify central London. Areas close to Golders Green and Kilburn are worlds apart from the outskirts of the city. I often wonder how much opposition many of these proposals faced at the time. Probably almost none. If you were in charge you may have been able to do almost whatever you liked with the boundaries. I can’t remember where I read this but I believe there was some opposition in Hamstead from the conservatives, fearing being outvoted by the ‘reds in Holborn’
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 8, 2021 21:03:37 GMT
I often wonder how much opposition many of these proposals faced at the time. Probably almost none. If you were in charge you may have been able to do almost whatever you liked with the boundaries. I can’t remember where I read this but I believe there was some opposition in Hampstead from the conservatives, fearing being outvoted by the ‘reds in Holborn’ Holborn, like Finsbury, was a small borough and therefore the "reds in Holborn" would have had little impact. The borough of St Pancras was the largest and clearly most dominant contributor to Camden by some measure.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 8, 2021 21:30:28 GMT
St Pancras became a nationally famous far left council in the 1950s. Previously rather moderate, things changed when John Lawrence, a Trotskyite, got elected as a Labour councillor and became council leader in 1956. He had national headlines in 1958 when the council flew the red flag on May Day. The Labour Party nationally had him thrown out, and Labour lost control in the 1959 council election, but St Pancras Labour councillors were generally on the left from the 1960s on.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 8, 2021 21:45:37 GMT
I’ve never liked Camden as a borough anyhow. Awkward shape, connects a lot of disparate areas. Bloomsbury and Holborn should be added to Westminster to unify central London. Areas close to Golders Green and Kilburn are worlds apart from the outskirts of the city. I often wonder how much opposition many of these proposals faced at the time. Probably almost none. If you were in charge you may have been able to do almost whatever you liked with the boundaries. Pretty much all of them were opposed by someone, as the existing boroughs had good ideas of who they wanted to go in with, which strangely didn't match the proposed boroughs.
Also (and as we've covered before) there were quite a few areas proposed to go into the new GLC area which successfully argued that they should not be included.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 8, 2021 21:47:24 GMT
The boundary changes for Camden are awful. Too much focus on arbitrary population quotas, rather than communities. Camden Town doesn’t need a ward that focuses on the market, commercial area and hardly anything else. Asinine to pair Primrose Hill with Swiss Cottage. Why split Kentish Town? They should also rename Frognal as Hampstead West. Town should be Hampstead East. Did you make these points to the LGBCE?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 8, 2021 21:54:23 GMT
St Pancras became a nationally famous far left council in the 1950s. Previously rather moderate, things changed when John Lawrence, a Trotskyite, got elected as a Labour councillor and became council leader in 1956. He had national headlines in 1958 when the council flew the red flag on May Day. The Labour Party nationally had him thrown out, and Labour lost control in the 1959 council election, but St Pancras Labour councillors were generally on the left from the 1960s on. Lawrence was variously a member of (deep breath)..
CPGB RWL WIL RCP (under the influence of the American SWP) UK section of the Fourth International.
The Club
Labour back to the CPGB Solidarity (no, not that one. Or that one) Syndicalist Workers Federation
I may well have missed one or two out. And some of these memberships were held similtaneously.
Oddly and like Brian Behan before him, he ended up in Shoreham (the place in Sussex, not an obscure political grouping you've never heard of).
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Aug 8, 2021 22:39:07 GMT
I often wonder how much opposition many of these proposals faced at the time. Probably almost none. If you were in charge you may have been able to do almost whatever you liked with the boundaries. Pretty much all of them were opposed by someone, as the existing boroughs had good ideas of who they wanted to go in with, which strangely didn't match the proposed boroughs.
Also (and as we've covered before) there were quite a few areas proposed to go into the new GLC area which successfully argued that they should not be included. Though I can't imagine too many people opposed the plans in Harrow.
|
|
|
Post by cmarsh on Aug 9, 2021 12:34:06 GMT
The boundary changes for Camden are awful. Too much focus on arbitrary population quotas, rather than communities. Camden Town doesn’t need a ward that focuses on the market, commercial area and hardly anything else. Asinine to pair Primrose Hill with Swiss Cottage. Why split Kentish Town? They should also rename Frognal as Hampstead West. Town should be Hampstead East. Did you make these points to the LGBCE? I have not no. Rough draft at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Aug 9, 2021 12:41:32 GMT
I often wonder how much opposition many of these proposals faced at the time. Probably almost none. If you were in charge you may have been able to do almost whatever you liked with the boundaries. I can’t remember where I read this but I believe there was some opposition in Hamstead from the conservatives, fearing being outvoted by the ‘reds in Holborn’ I don't think it was the 'reds in Holborn' as this small borough was Conservative-run when it was absorbed into Camden and voted Conservative at the first two council elections in 1964(which Labour narrowly won) and 1968. It was only in 1971 when it fell to Labour the (which has remained the case since then). The then wards of Bloomsbury and Brunswick which included parts of the old Holborn borough also elected Conservatives in 1978 and 1982. The abolition of the business vote in 1969 changed the political make-up of the area. The Political History of Camden by Piers Wauchope provided a useful insight into its political history even if I disagreed with some of its content. It was very much seen as a toss-up borough when it was first created which was shown in the 1964 result which was a pretty strong year for Labour in London.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,696
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Aug 9, 2021 13:38:12 GMT
I can’t remember where I read this but I believe there was some opposition in Hamstead from the conservatives, fearing being outvoted by the ‘reds in Holborn’ I don't think it was the 'reds in Holborn' as this small borough was Conservative-run when it was absorbed into Camden and voted Conservative at the first two council elections in 1964(which Labour narrowly won) and 1968. It was only in 1971 when it fell to Labour the t(which has remained the case since then). The then wards of Bloomsbury and Brunswick which included parts of the old Holborn borough also electing Conservatives in 1978 and 1982. The abolition of the business vote in 1969 changed the political make-up of the area. The Political History of Camden by Piers Wauchope provided a useful insight into its political history even if I disagreed with some of its content. It was very much seen as a toss-up borough when it was first created which was shown in the 1964 result which was a pretty strong year for Labour in London. As noted by a couple of other posters already I of course meant St Pancras not Holborn as the ‘red borough’. I was only half remembering something I must’ve read a couple of years ago and I am not at all familiar with London political geography.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 9, 2021 18:34:01 GMT
Did you make these points to the LGBCE? I have not no. Rough draft at this stage. I’m confused. Aren’t you about two years too late?
|
|