|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 18, 2022 16:28:25 GMT
Three new electoral orders have been published: The North Yorkshire (Structural Changes) Order 2022 (S.I. 2022/328). Dissolves the district councils in North Yorkshire with effect from April 2023. Elections for North Yorkshire county council are to be held in 2022, 2027 and every four years thereafter. New division boundaries are introduced for the May 2022 election, with each new division electing one county councillor except for Selby West division which returns two. Elections for North Yorkshire districts in 2022 (ie for the whole of Harrogate council and one-third of Craven council) are cancelled, with councillors' terms extended to abolition in April 2023. All parish councils in North Yorkshire will be up for election in 2022, 2027 and every four years thereafter, with councillors' terms varied as appropriate. Charter Trustees are established for Harrogate and Scarborough. The Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022 (S.I. 2022/329). Dissolves the district councils in Somerset with effect from April 2023. Elections for Somerset county council are to be held in 2022, 2027 and every four years thereafter. New division boundaries are introduced for the May 2022 election; these are the same as the current county divisions but returning two county councillors instead of one, with the exception of the Glastonbury and Street county division which is split into two two-member county divisions. All parish councils in Somerset will be up for election in 2022 (rather than 2023), 2027 and every four years thereafter, with councillors' terms varied as appropriate. The Cumbria (Structural Changes) Order 2022 (S.I. 2022/331). Dissolves Cumbria county council and the district councils in Cumbria, together with the elected mayoralty for Copeland, with effect from April 2023; and creates two new unitary district councils: Cumberland (covering the present Allerdale, Carlisle and Copeland council areas), and Westmorland and Furness (covering the present Barrow-in-Furness, Eden and South Lakeland council areas). Elections for Cumberland council and Westmorland and Furness council are to be held in 2022, 2027 and every four years thereafter. The councils will exist in shadow form until April 2023 when they take up their full powers. The Cumberland council elections are to be held using the present county division boundaries with each division one councillor. The Westmorland and Furness council elections are to be held using new ward boundaries. Elections for Cumbria county council and for Cumbria districts in 2022 (ie for one-third of Carlisle and South Lakeland councils) are cancelled, with councillors' terms extended to abolition in April 2023.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Mar 31, 2022 11:03:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Mar 31, 2022 12:01:01 GMT
Much the same approach as in Birmingham. I expect, like in Birmingham, a number of the proposed single member wards will be combined into 2 member wards following consultation. The LGBCE clearly found proposals “finely balanced” in a number of cases. The single 3 member ward is very odd in context. Clearly they can’t find good boundaries, but even so….
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Mar 31, 2022 13:41:57 GMT
Much the same approach as in Birmingham. I expect, like in Birmingham, a number of the proposed single member wards will be combined into 2 member wards following consultation. The LGBCE clearly found proposals “finely balanced” in a number of cases. The single 3 member ward is very odd in context. Clearly they can’t find good boundaries, but even so…. On the whole I personally think the proprosals for Liverpool are decent In terms of partisan impact as well I think all the represented parties will be content. Labour are the biggest losers but given their dominant posistion that was to be expected with a seat reduction and it certainly could have been a lot worse, Lib Dems will be pleased, Greens will be very happy and Radford will be content that it could have been vastly worse for him and his crew and as things stand the changes probably won't effect his councillor tally.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,516
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 31, 2022 23:54:43 GMT
Much the same approach as in Birmingham. I expect, like in Birmingham, a number of the proposed single member wards will be combined into 2 member wards following consultation. The LGBCE clearly found proposals “finely balanced” in a number of cases. The single 3 member ward is very odd in context. Clearly they can’t find good boundaries, but even so…. On the whole I personally think the proprosals for Liverpool are decent In terms of prtisan impact as well I think all the represneted parties will be content. Labour are the biggest losers but given their dominant posisiton that was to be expected with a seat reduction and it certainly could have been a lot worse, Lib Dems will be pleased, Greens will be very happy and Radford will be content that it could have been vastly worse for him and his crew and as things stand the chnages probably wont effect his councillor tally. I've just had a cursory glance, but I'd agree with that assessment. It gives the Lib Dems & Greens some ins in wards where they struggle to make an impact ward-wide but have areas of strength within them (and in some cases potential strength which aren't exploited as the ward as a whole is a pointless exercise on current boundaries and the local situation). Can see some potential incursions for other parties into the city centre/unis area on those boundaries, Lib Dems in West Derby and potentially some of their old northern stomping grounds and Wavertree/Picton etc for the Greenies with little threat in the areas they currently have all three seats in. But of course, if this pattern, or something similar holds, some very, very local results could take hold if you get a committed candidate in wards across the city.
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Apr 1, 2022 18:00:06 GMT
On the whole I personally think the proprosals for Liverpool are decent In terms of prtisan impact as well I think all the represneted parties will be content. Labour are the biggest losers but given their dominant posisiton that was to be expected with a seat reduction and it certainly could have been a lot worse, Lib Dems will be pleased, Greens will be very happy and Radford will be content that it could have been vastly worse for him and his crew and as things stand the chnages probably wont effect his councillor tally. I've just had a cursory glance, but I'd agree with that assessment. It gives the Lib Dems & Greens some ins in wards where they struggle to make an impact ward-wide but have areas of strength within them (and in some cases potential strength which aren't exploited as the ward as a whole is a pointless exercise on current boundaries and the local situation). Can see some potential incursions for other parties into the city centre/unis area on those boundaries, Lib Dems in West Derby and potentially some of their old northern stomping grounds and Wavertree/Picton etc for the Greenies with little threat in the areas they currently have all three seats in. But of course, if this pattern, or something similar holds, some very, very local results could take hold if you get a committed candidate in wards across the city. If I had to give my detailed assessment (I'd be interested in your thoughts as well) the ones to watch are as follows (sorry for the long post) For Radford and his crew Tuebrook Larkhill and Tuebrook Edinburgh Park will easily go Liberal, the risk for them is the new Stoneycroft which as well as containing some of Radford's (relative) weaker areas also contains a larger proportion of new areas not in the old Tuebrook ward compared to the other two sucessor seats. Whats worse for Radford is that unlike the other two seats the new areas added have never been represented by Radford even on pre 04 boundaries so they will have no personal experience with him. So on paper Stoneycroft is the vulnerable seat and on GE turnout against a generic Radford yesman I'd say Labour could be in with a chance but Radford actually lives in this ward so if he had any sense he'd stand here personally and leave the safer wards to his minions ensuring 3 Liberal victories, whether his ego will allow for that is another matter. For the Lib Dems they should have no issues at all winning Calderstones, Woolton Park, Grassendale, Menlove (my pick for what will be the safest Lib Dem seat) and the 2 seater Childwall. The new Aigburth and Mossley Hill wards should both also be easy Lib Dem wins but with potential challanges from the Greens medium to long term. Gateacre is quite a bit more Labour friendly on these boundaries away from the rest of Woolton but it should still be a comfortable Lib Dem win. The main pieces of the old Allerton and Hunts Cross will be very interesting and look to continue the hyper competive streak in the area. Much Woolton and Hunts Cross will be a very close contest between the Libs and Labour but by taking in more Woolton territory the Lib Dems are probably slight favorites. The new Springwood as well will be close between Lab and Libs but I think the Libs go into that battle as favorites as well. Looking further North for the Lib Dems they must really like their odds in the New Wavertree Garden Suburb which combines most of their strongest bits from the old Wavertree ward and into North Liverpool proper Sandfield Park and West Derby Leyfield look like very plausible short to medium term targets. Looking into the future now seperated from their monolithically Labour voting neighbours even the likes of Broadgreen, West Derby Muirhead, West Derby Deysbrook and Croxteth Park start to look like plausible targets long term. There is danger for Lib Dems as well though. The new Church ward bears little resemblanece to the old one and I honestly think the Lib Dems might be squeezed into third by Labour and the Greens, it will be a tight three way marginal regardless. The new Penny Lane as well will be targeted heavily by the Greens as it takes in some of their best territory from the old Greenbank and demographically its very good for them, I'd have the Lib Dems as clear favorities but a possible headache medium term. Then there is the new Garston South and Cressington ward, Garston North is clearly a write off for the Lib Dems but they might have been hopeful in Garston South since it contains some very good areas for them around Cressington Park but on the whole I just cant see them taking this even in the long term save for a major Labour collapse in Liverpool. Then we have the picture for the Greens. The sucessors to their heartlands in St Micheals should all easily stay Green, Sefton Park monolithically so, the new St Micheals slightly more Labour support but still a comfortable Green hold. The only risk comes from the new Festival Gardens ward, the Green vote here is very much of the middle class anti Labour tactical voting kind and freed from BoHo Green strongholds around Lark Lane they might decide to opt for the Lib Dems instead? But I reckon the Greens have probably built up enough local support to keep the voters loyal and the new territory added to the ward around City and Armstrong Queys while predominanlty Labour voting is demographically favourbale to the Greens so they wont have much difficulty entrenching themselves there. As for Green targets the new Greenbank ward should be an easy Green win, it essentially takes in their best areas from the old Greenbank ward whilst shaving off the more Labour bits to the new Arundel and Smithdown which I think will both remain safely Labour for the forseebale since the Greens will no doubt turn their attention elseswhere. As I mentioned earlier I think the Greens will have their eyes on one or both of the new Penny Lane or Chruch wards which opens up the prospect of some kind of anti Labour alliance between the Lib Dems and Greens? As you mentioned though the Greens will really have their eyes on the City centre, now that its shaved off the peripheral monolothically Labour voting bits of Kensington, Granby and Toxteth that were attached suddenly both the two seater City Centre North and South wards look winnable as does the new Paddington. There is a real risk even that the Greens could become over ambitious and target too broadly and miss out everywhere hence if I were them I'd focus on their most likely targets those being the monolothically studenty two seater Brownlow Hill and the also very student and nightlife heavy Ropewalks ward both of which are demographically near perfect for the Greens. On these boudnaries its honestly not too difficult to see the Greens trebling their councillor base on a good day. A final note on one particular ward, I'm fascinated as to how my own ward the proposed Waterfront South will vote? I'd imagine it would go Labour by default and I'm all but certain the Labour candidate would be the incumbent Central councillor Nick Small who for all his faults is a hard worker but demographically the ward is fairly unique in Liverpool and I could honestly see the Greens, Lib Dems or even the Tories* making a show of it *Given its basically the Liverpool equivalent of a Yuppie ward and the unsubstantiated rumour that the Tories actually topped the poll in the Waterfront electoral district in the 2015 election
|
|
|
Post by jamesgroves on May 10, 2022 12:49:52 GMT
The LGBCE publishes its final recommendations for Lancaster City Council: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/lancasterThere will be 61 seats (rather than 60), with the majority of boundary changes being south of the River Lune. Many readers of this forum will be pleased to know that our University Ward has been preserved (and will now be just the campus, rather than University & Scotforth Rural). Fans of extremely small parish wards will note the new 'University Parish Ward' of Scotforth Parish Council, which literally consists of a single building, between the A6 and the railway line, which hasn't quite finished being built yet. J
|
|
|
Post by jm on May 10, 2022 13:24:51 GMT
This is yet to be officially announced but I am told the LGBCE will be conducting a review of Bassetlaw in late 2023 with a view to implementing the new ward boundaries for the 2027 elections.
The last review was in 2000 so well overdue. Hopefully they will reduce the number of councillors as 48 is far too many for a small district council.
|
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 305
|
Post by Ports on May 10, 2022 21:39:09 GMT
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/southampton-unitary-authority-ua - draft recommendations for Southampton released. My submission was not heeded in the slightest! However, I'm satisfied with the pattern of wards produced (the names, less so, one day we will get Thornhill ward). Based on the recent local elections I wouldn't expect any wards to have changed hands but the new Bargate North ward would've been Labour.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on May 13, 2022 1:18:38 GMT
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/southampton-unitary-authority-ua - draft recommendations for Southampton released. My submission was not heeded in the slightest! However, I'm satisfied with the pattern of wards produced (the names, less so, one day we will get Thornhill ward). Based on the recent local elections I wouldn't expect any wards to have changed hands but the new Bargate North ward would've been Labour. Why don't you write a submission requesting that Bitterne ward be renamed Thornhill? From looking at the maps it does seem like a nonsensical name, but I have no local knowledge whatsoever. Are there any alternative names to Bargate North and South? Which ward will the Bargate actually fall in?
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on May 13, 2022 2:23:16 GMT
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/southampton-unitary-authority-ua - draft recommendations for Southampton released. My submission was not heeded in the slightest! However, I'm satisfied with the pattern of wards produced (the names, less so, one day we will get Thornhill ward). Based on the recent local elections I wouldn't expect any wards to have changed hands but the new Bargate North ward would've been Labour. Why don't you write a submission requesting that Bitterne ward be renamed Thornhill? From looking at the maps it does seem like a nonsensical name, but I have no local knowledge whatsoever. Are there any alternative names to Bargate North and South? Which ward will the Bargate actually fall in? The Bargate will be well into Bargate South (indeed, it's closer to Bevois than it is to Bargate North).
An alternative name for Bargate North could be "Polygon", reflecting a significant community which covers most of the ward. Bargate South could then return to being "Bargate"; if there was desire to change the name to reflect the fact the ward is substantially changed, then "Central" would be another option.
|
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 305
|
Post by Ports on May 16, 2022 21:21:39 GMT
www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-east/hampshire/southampton-unitary-authority-ua - draft recommendations for Southampton released. My submission was not heeded in the slightest! However, I'm satisfied with the pattern of wards produced (the names, less so, one day we will get Thornhill ward). Based on the recent local elections I wouldn't expect any wards to have changed hands but the new Bargate North ward would've been Labour. Why don't you write a submission requesting that Bitterne ward be renamed Thornhill? From looking at the maps it does seem like a nonsensical name, but I have no local knowledge whatsoever. Are there any alternative names to Bargate North and South? Which ward will the Bargate actually fall in? I have done so - I shared the above view that Bitterne doesn't fit. Historically the original area was to the west of the present day Bitterne centre. Bargate is well into Bargate South ward and the Bargate North name is ridiculous. I realise that there isn't a name which fits the whole ward, but that applies to the proposed Bevois ward too. The only other thing I suggested was a minor boundary change.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Jun 1, 2022 12:52:44 GMT
The draft proposals for Derby are out. We now have New Zealand to add to the list of wards named after countries
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jun 1, 2022 14:20:47 GMT
Final boundaries for Trafford are out. www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater-manchester/traffordNo surprise changes from the draft. The Timperley area, with two wards that are perennial Lib Dem/Con contests, are heavily redrawn. Everything in the north of the borough is solidly Labour nowadays, so hard to see them having much difficulty. A very Green part of Altrincham is being moved in Bowdon, where we came second this year, so that's interesting
|
|
|
Post by srijan on Jun 2, 2022 20:47:32 GMT
The proposals appear to make a Broadheath that crosses into Sale. Not a massive fan, as it splits the community around Woodheys, who don't use the same facilities as people in Broadheath. More fundamentally, Woodheys is in the wealthy Manor Avenue surrounds of Sale, while Broadheath is very much dominated by (ex) council estate housing. It also looks like there's some splitting of Broomwood, which is also a bit questionable in my view - it's an area with a very distinct identity compared to "Timperley" - which splits up the area.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 2, 2022 21:09:33 GMT
Consultation on a new warding pattern for North Hertfordshire, where I currently live, started yesterday: www.lgbce.org.uk/media/have-your-say-on-a-new-political-map-for-north-hertfordshire-district-councilExtensive changes are needed not only due to switching to full council elections but also due to planned developments in and around villages close to Letchworth and Stevenage in particular. Hitchin and Letchworth each lose a councillor as a result despite the number of councillors increasing by 1 to 50.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 3, 2022 8:48:25 GMT
The proposals appear to make a Broadheath that crosses into Sale. Not a massive fan, as it splits the community around Woodheys, who don't use the same facilities as people in Broadheath. More fundamentally, Woodheys is in the wealthy Manor Avenue surrounds of Sale, while Broadheath is very much dominated by (ex) council estate housing. It also looks like there's some splitting of Broomwood, which is also a bit questionable in my view - it's an area with a very distinct identity compared to "Timperley" - which splits up the area. The current Broadheath ward crosses into Sale in exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by srijan on Jun 3, 2022 9:10:39 GMT
I dislike the current Broadheath ward for similar reasons - Woodheys and Broadheath have very little in common with one another. Broadheath already as an area is a diverse mix - the council estate area of Broadheath is quite deprived, while the other side of the road is the more affluent West Timperley and further down the road you have middle class families in Stamford Brook. While I appreciate that it's difficult to balance the population of Broadheath, I don't think this is the best way to do so, not least because of the community split.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jun 10, 2022 14:12:14 GMT
For odd reasons, I've been looking at names of London neighbourhoods, and I'd like to suggest that next time there's a review of Enfield, we need to try and get Freezywater into a ward name. It's outstanding.
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,571
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 10, 2022 14:22:27 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but in a classic example of a lack of joined-up thinking, I follow my previous post with the news that Stratford district is consulting on merging with neighbouring Warwick to form a new South Warwickshire district. Personally I think it's probably just as sensible (or not) as the current situation. They are also already forming a joint Local Plan. www.southwarwickshire.org.uk/swc/As an update on this, the proposal was submitted to the Secretary of State in December, after both councils voted to approve it. Stratford-on-Avon voted 26-3 in favour with two abstentions, Warwick 23-12 with 5.
As of 12th May, this is now not happening. Formally it seems to be Warwick who voted (unanimously) to withdraw, prompted by Stratford-on-Avon unilaterally writing to the minister requesting a delay to the decision, but in the knowledge that this would cause Warwick to withdraw. Stratford wanted to delay the decision in order to complete further due diligence.
It doesn't seem as if Warwick are very happy with this - there is a letter from all five group leaders here.
There is a statement from Stratford-on-Avon here which is largely a copy of a joint statement from the two council leaders.
|
|