carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,579
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 16, 2022 22:10:09 GMT
The order for Derbyshire Dales: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/776/contents/made, reduction to 34 (-5) councillors. Five (n/c) three-member, three (-1) two-member, thirteen (-3) one-member wards. In force for 2023. The order for Fylde: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/664/contents/made, a substantial reduction to 37 (-14) councillors, and four (-8) three-member, twelve (+6) two-member, and one (-2) one-member wards. In force for 2023. The order for Mansfield: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/777/contents/made, no change to number of councillors (36), or number of wards (36 single-member wards). The order for Oldham: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/778/contents/made, no change to number of councillors (60) or wards. In force for 2023. The order for Stoke-on-Trent: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/665/contents/made, no change to number of councillors (44). There will be 2 (+1) three-member, 6 (+1) two-member, and 26 (-5) one-member wards. In force for 2023. The order for Tameside: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/661/contents/made, no change to number of wards or councillors. In force for 2023.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2022 17:20:23 GMT
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,579
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Jul 21, 2022 18:18:14 GMT
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on Jul 22, 2022 7:48:47 GMT
I think we may be due a review in the Jewel on the basis of the disparity of ward sizes, we are counting the numbers, but does anyone know how it happens officially? do ‘they’ know our numbers and inform us we have to have a review or do ‘we’ have to count them and fess up if it is the case?
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 22, 2022 15:25:47 GMT
I think we may be due a review in the Jewel on the basis of the disparity of ward sizes, we are counting the numbers, but does anyone know how it happens officially? do ‘they’ know our numbers and inform us we have to have a review or do ‘we’ have to count them and fess up if it is the case? There is a spreadsheet on the LGBCE website using data from the December electoral registers which tracks whether each Council has met the LGBCE intervention criteria for electoral inequality. So they do monitor these things. There is then discussion with the Council about whether that electoral inequality is likely to ease or worsen over the next few years. If it won’t get better by itself then they will discuss a potential review timetable with the Council. Which Council are you?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on Jul 22, 2022 15:45:28 GMT
I think we may be due a review in the Jewel on the basis of the disparity of ward sizes, we are counting the numbers, but does anyone know how it happens officially? do ‘they’ know our numbers and inform us we have to have a review or do ‘we’ have to count them and fess up if it is the case? There is a spreadsheet on the LGBCE website using data from the December electoral registers which tracks whether each Council has met the LGBCE intervention criteria for electoral inequality. So they do monitor these things. There is then discussion with the Council about whether that electoral inequality is likely to ease or worsen over the next few years. If it won’t get better by itself then they will discuss a potential review timetable with the Council. Which Council are you? The Jewel of the North (Bradford Met)
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 22, 2022 18:07:41 GMT
There is a spreadsheet on the LGBCE website using data from the December electoral registers which tracks whether each Council has met the LGBCE intervention criteria for electoral inequality. So they do monitor these things. There is then discussion with the Council about whether that electoral inequality is likely to ease or worsen over the next few years. If it won’t get better by itself then they will discuss a potential review timetable with the Council. Which Council are you? The Jewel of the North (Bradford Met) Doesn’t meet the intervention criteria yet.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,380
|
Post by Crimson King on Jul 23, 2022 6:39:31 GMT
The Jewel of the North (Bradford Met) Doesn’t meet the intervention criteria yet. cheers, saved me some work
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 23, 2022 12:47:53 GMT
I think we may be due a review in the Jewel on the basis of the disparity of ward sizes, we are counting the numbers, but does anyone know how it happens officially? do ‘they’ know our numbers and inform us we have to have a review or do ‘we’ have to count them and fess up if it is the case? I've been told that the LGBCE are looking to do review for all of the Mets over the next few years anyway (so Coventry is expecting one in time for the 2026 elections, even though our wards aren't anywhere near disparate enough to qualify for a review at the moment).
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Jul 23, 2022 12:53:03 GMT
I think we may be due a review in the Jewel on the basis of the disparity of ward sizes, we are counting the numbers, but does anyone know how it happens officially? do ‘they’ know our numbers and inform us we have to have a review or do ‘we’ have to count them and fess up if it is the case? I've been told that the LGBCE are looking to do review for all of the Mets over the next few years anyway (so Coventry is expecting one in time for the 2026 elections, even though our wards aren't anywhere near disparate enough to qualify for a review at the moment). They already started, they just finished all Greater Manchester and are also currently reviewing all districts unchanged since before 2000.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Aug 2, 2022 11:37:41 GMT
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,579
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Aug 2, 2022 11:51:09 GMT
Proposing 98 councillors, which is a reduction of 49(!), moving it from first to joint fifth in size.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,284
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Aug 2, 2022 12:48:20 GMT
Just had a scan through. I've seen far worse draft proposals, and all the more impressive as the LGBCE have rejected all the party submissions and gone for their own in several areas and done quite a good job.
Lib Dems will be pleased with the tight Winslow and Chesham boundaries, Aylesbury all looks like tweaks apart from a new ward for the massive housing developments on the northern boundary which is quite unusual but probably the right answer. Less so with the Ivinghoe ward that dilutes a pocket of LD strength.
Labour won't be happy with Buckingham - a single 3 member ward together with a swathe of rural villages; I'd expect counter-proposals to form an urban 2-member ward and a rural 1-member ward even if it means taking a slice out of North Buckingham.
I don't know the south as well but the area between Wycombe and Amersham looks like a mess; they've taken a chunk out of Wycombe and another out of Beaconsfield to make a ward with +13% variance. Huh?
They seem to have followed parish boundaries wherever they can - a wise move.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 2, 2022 12:55:13 GMT
The ugliness round Wycombe seems to be a consequence of them keeping most of the wards in the Beaconsfield seat right at the lower limit (or beyond in one case) and consequently needing to grab electors elsewhere. It's ugly, but the large size of the villages there and their tendency to blend into one another does tend to promote ugliness.
Buckingham plus one other parish would probably be enough for a three-member ward, the issue seems to be that the LGBCE weren't happy with a ward curving round the north and south sides of Buckingham.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,288
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 2, 2022 18:54:19 GMT
The ugliness round Wycombe seems to be a consequence of them keeping most of the wards in the Beaconsfield seat right at the lower limit (or beyond in one case) and consequently needing to grab electors elsewhere. It's ugly, but the large size of the villages there and their tendency to blend into one another does tend to promote ugliness. I'm a little surprised by how much electoral inequality they've accepted, with three wards (including Buckingham, which is very slightly over) beyond the 10% threshold and a number of others very close to it. If you take the six proposed wards which cover the former South Bucks district (including Chalfont St Peter, which is mostly outside it) then I make the entitlement 14.87 on the 2027 forecast they've used, but they've assigned 16 councillors in total.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Aug 2, 2022 19:23:07 GMT
The ugliness round Wycombe seems to be a consequence of them keeping most of the wards in the Beaconsfield seat right at the lower limit (or beyond in one case) and consequently needing to grab electors elsewhere. It's ugly, but the large size of the villages there and their tendency to blend into one another does tend to promote ugliness. I'm a little surprised by how much electoral inequality they've accepted, with three wards (including Buckingham, which is very slightly over) beyond the 10% threshold and a number of others very close to it. If you take the six proposed wards which cover the former South Bucks district (including Chalfont St Peter, which is mostly outside it) then I make the entitlement 14.87 on the 2027 forecast they've used, but they've assigned 16 councillors in total. But they’ve made a big effort to produce sensible community boundaries, which is in my view to be welcomed.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,026
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 2, 2022 20:27:34 GMT
I'm a little surprised by how much electoral inequality they've accepted, with three wards (including Buckingham, which is very slightly over) beyond the 10% threshold and a number of others very close to it. If you take the six proposed wards which cover the former South Bucks district (including Chalfont St Peter, which is mostly outside it) then I make the entitlement 14.87 on the 2027 forecast they've used, but they've assigned 16 councillors in total. But they’ve made a big effort to produce sensible community boundaries, which is in my view to be welcomed. Not naming wards after every single parish therewithin is also to be welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by BucksDucks on Aug 2, 2022 23:25:55 GMT
Just had a scan through. I've seen far worse draft proposals, and all the more impressive as the LGBCE have rejected all the party submissions and gone for their own in several areas and done quite a good job. Lib Dems will be pleased with the tight Winslow and Chesham boundaries, Aylesbury all looks like tweaks apart from a new ward for the massive housing developments on the northern boundary which is quite unusual but probably the right answer. Less so with the Ivinghoe ward that dilutes a pocket of LD strength. The Aylesbury boundaries seem quite sensible. The new Berryfields, Buckingham Park & Watermead ward is a good choice linking all those communities north of the River Thame together. The Bierton & Kingsbrook ward is also another good choice especially with the large increase housing that has happened and will continue to happen. Also a nice tweak to Aylesbury East to take in the new Aston Reach development next to Bedgrove on the edge of the town.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 3, 2022 9:00:57 GMT
The ugliness round Wycombe seems to be a consequence of them keeping most of the wards in the Beaconsfield seat right at the lower limit (or beyond in one case) and consequently needing to grab electors elsewhere. It's ugly, but the large size of the villages there and their tendency to blend into one another does tend to promote ugliness. I'm a little surprised by how much electoral inequality they've accepted, with three wards (including Buckingham, which is very slightly over) beyond the 10% threshold and a number of others very close to it. If you take the six proposed wards which cover the former South Bucks district (including Chalfont St Peter, which is mostly outside it) then I make the entitlement 14.87 on the 2027 forecast they've used, but they've assigned 16 councillors in total. I think they only count it as beyond 10% when it rounds to 11%, so effectively the limit is 10.5% either way.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Aug 3, 2022 18:37:17 GMT
I'm a little surprised by how much electoral inequality they've accepted, with three wards (including Buckingham, which is very slightly over) beyond the 10% threshold and a number of others very close to it. If you take the six proposed wards which cover the former South Bucks district (including Chalfont St Peter, which is mostly outside it) then I make the entitlement 14.87 on the 2027 forecast they've used, but they've assigned 16 councillors in total. I think they only count it as beyond 10% when it rounds to 11%, so effectively the limit is 10.5% either way. That, if so, explains a few anomalies I’ve seen over the years that I’d put down to being mistakes.
|
|