WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,134
|
Post by WJ on May 4, 2023 17:38:54 GMT
Not had chance to have a thorough look through yet. But a quick look at the map of Shropshire makes me raise my eyebrows in the Shrewsbury hinterland area and to exclaim "what the fuck" at the Shifnal area.
But maybe it'll make sense on closer inspection...
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 9, 2023 18:33:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 9, 2023 19:06:30 GMT
Obsolete parish boundaries continue to constrain the LGBCE unfortunately. Who the fuck cares about "unviable parish wards"?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 9, 2023 19:11:57 GMT
Decent map there. Do you know if North Herts will revert election by thirds following the all-out elections next year, and if not will it have the next election in 2027 so that it follows the same cycle as most of the other councils which have all out elections?
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on May 9, 2023 19:26:12 GMT
Decent map there. Do you know if North Herts will revert election by thirds following the all-out elections next year, and if not will it have the next election in 2027 so that it follows the same cycle as most of the other councils which have all out elections? It’s all outs on the 2024/2028/2032 cycle I think. The boundary commission seem more prepared to move shire districts away from the 23/27/31 all out cycle these days, which probably will slightly even up the seats contested nationally each year over time as those on this years cycle continues to reduce.
|
|
|
Post by carolus on May 9, 2023 19:29:34 GMT
Decent map there. Do you know if North Herts will revert election by thirds following the all-out elections next year, and if not will it have the next election in 2027 so that it follows the same cycle as most of the other councils which have all out elections? They'll be moving to all outs - I can't see anything to suggest that they'll be trying to align themselves with the big cycle. www.north-herts.gov.uk/electoral-cycle-changes "The new arrangement from May 2024 will mean that all Councillors are elected at the same time for a four-year term of office." which suggests they'll be off cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 9, 2023 19:48:39 GMT
That's annoying. North Herts has always been annoying as it has so many fallow wards every year. Now they finally put a stop to that situation but end up out of synch with the rest of the county. They obviously didn't consider the needs of anoraks who want to produce an election map of the whole county from a single year, or produce results for imaginary Lander seats and fantasy D'Hondt Unitary authorities and such like. Actually the whole thing needs ripping up and starting again now. It turns out the Heath-Walker reforms were the least bad piece of local government reorganisation to occur in my lifetime. What a fucking mess
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 13, 2023 7:56:08 GMT
1. WTF has gone on in Prudhoe? 2. Something has happened to Widdrington Station. 3. Seaton Delaval and New Hartley, yeah, uh, ok, I guess. On 3, that does look like a horrible division, but the numbers are awkward. The parish of Seaton Valley has, with a 69 member council, 3.39 quotas, so with a 10% tolerance it needs to be combined with something else. The 10% tolerance isn't strict -- they have a 14% deviation in Alnwick -- but I can see why they didn't want to go with the Council's suggestion of three divisions all with 13% deviation. And the internal geography of the current Hartley division means that if you're going to try to trim it you're more or less inevitably going to split New Hartley. (I suppose you could put the northern part of the coastal area into a division with Blyth, but would that be any better?) I think my compromise might be to accept one 13% deviation by retaining the existing Hartley division, thus avoiding splitting New Hartley, and move a little more of Seaton Delaval into the New Delaval division to balance the electorates. The other question is whether to group Seaton Valley with Blyth, as the LGBCE have, or with Cramlington. The numbers would work for Cramlington too, and at least a division combining bits of Seaton Delaval with the east side of Cramlington would be more compact than the LGBCE's proposed New Delaval division. But I do not know this area, and I'm not going to try to work out a pattern of eight Blyth divisions and how to adjust the Cramlington map to extend the eastern division into Seaton Delaval. On 2, I did find a way of avoiding splitting Widdrington Station: - move the part of it in the LGBCE's Druridge Bay division, together with all of Widdrington Village CP, into their Longhirst division (which at this point might be renamed Widdrington); - move Hebron CP from Longhirst division to Longhorsley division; - move Felton CP and Thirston CP from Longhorsley division to (Felton &) Druridge Bay division; - move the West Chevington parish ward (which does seem to be already a parish ward, in spite of its tiny electorate) from Longhirst division to Druridge Bay division. The numbers all work (Widdrington 3627, Felton & Druridge Bay 4117, Longhorsley 3745), but the inland extension to Druridge Bay division might be seen as undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 23, 2023 14:00:16 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 23, 2023 17:39:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2023 18:34:05 GMT
Quite significant that the number of councillors in Calderdale will increase by 3, since Calderdale has relatively low population growth. Pity it is not abandoning the by thirds model (it is not really a "metropolitan" borough).
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on May 23, 2023 21:59:57 GMT
Coventry looks like it will be quite challenging for the commission. The Bablake ward in Coventry NW is predicted to be 31% underrepresented by 2029, while 2 of the most overrepresented wards are in Coventry South. As the commission is stuck with 3 member wards due to election by thirds, it looks like a wholesale redraw of west Coventry will be required (even wards currently in quota). greenchristian - will you be putting in a submission?
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 24, 2023 4:48:20 GMT
Quite significant that the number of councillors in Calderdale will increase by 3, since Calderdale has relatively low population growth. Pity it is not abandoning the by thirds model (it is not really a "metropolitan" borough). Clipping from 1972(?).
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 24, 2023 6:52:54 GMT
Quite significant that the number of councillors in Calderdale will increase by 3, since Calderdale has relatively low population growth. Pity it is not abandoning the by thirds model (it is not really a "metropolitan" borough). Clipping from 1972(?). Edmumd Marshall is a past Chairman of Wakefield Liberal Democrats and was my running mate when we had all out elections in Horbury & South Ossett ward after our last boundary change back in 2000.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 24, 2023 7:37:52 GMT
Clipping from 1972(?). Edmumd Marshall is a past Chairman of Wakefield Liberal Democrats and was my running mate when we had all out elections in Horbury & South Ossett ward after our last boundary change back in 2000. I wonder whether he would still stand by the views stated in that article. I can see an argument that some aspects of the Met County model didn't fit West Yorkshire that well, though I think that might be more a criticism of the actual borough boundaries chosen rather than the basic model, but I think the strategic transport authority which AIUI was brought in as part of that model is very much a positive.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 24, 2023 9:04:40 GMT
Coventry looks like it will be quite challenging for the commission. The Bablake ward in Coventry NW is predicted to be 31% underrepresented by 2029, while 2 of the most overrepresented wards are in Coventry South. As the commission is stuck with 3 member wards due to election by thirds, it looks like a wholesale redraw of west Coventry will be required (even wards currently in quota). greenchristian - will you be putting in a submission? That's probably not a bad thing - lots of Coventry's wards have weird polyps and don't seem to line up with natural dividing lines, so a wholesale redraw might allow a more cohesive set of wards.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on May 24, 2023 12:26:14 GMT
Edmumd Marshall is a past Chairman of Wakefield Liberal Democrats and was my running mate when we had all out elections in Horbury & South Ossett ward after our last boundary change back in 2000. I wonder whether he would still stand by the views stated in that article. I can see an argument that some aspects of the Met County model didn't fit West Yorkshire that well, though I think that might be more a criticism of the actual borough boundaries chosen rather than the basic model, but I think the strategic transport authority which AIUI was brought in as part of that model is very much a positive. Knowing Edmund who won a double first in maths from Oxford followed by a PhD from Liverpool in the same subject he will have seen this more from a maths perspective rather than a political perspective .
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 24, 2023 14:10:14 GMT
Coventry looks like it will be quite challenging for the commission. The Bablake ward in Coventry NW is predicted to be 31% underrepresented by 2029, while 2 of the most overrepresented wards are in Coventry South. As the commission is stuck with 3 member wards due to election by thirds, it looks like a wholesale redraw of west Coventry will be required (even wards currently in quota). greenchristian - will you be putting in a submission? I'm expecting to, probably in co-operation with some of the other parties.
The predicted growth within Bablake is almost entirely coming from one huge development in Kersley parish (which is currently unwarded), which does limit the options somewhat in that area.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on May 24, 2023 16:25:17 GMT
Here's my initial thoughts working solely off the current polling district boundaries (which is very unfair btw). I'd definitely make changes to the boundaries of DC and DG to follow the river and to put the Memorial Park into Earlson. I'd also trim AH to keep the rural bits in the successor to Bablake ward. And probably some make changes in the north east to make the wards a bit tidier. Binley 3 13,881 7% 14,084 2% Wood Green 3 12,478 -4% 12,858 -7% (alternatively Manor Green - couldn't think of a unifying name so this one combines bits from different suburbs) Walsgrave 3 13,834 6% 14,302 3% (alternatively Walsgrave and Wyken) Longford 3 13,728 6% 14,169 2% Foleshill 3 13,247 2% 14,093 2% Upper Stoke 3 12,308 -5% 12,535 -9% Lower Stoke 3 13,099 1% 13,320 -4% St Michael`s 3 12,218 -6% 13,023 -6% Cheylesmore and Willenhall 3 13,019 0% 13,607 -2% (alternatively Cheylesmore and Whitley, or just Whitley) Stivichall 3 14,110 9% 14,355 4% (or Styvechale) Earlsdon 3 14,203 9% 15,116 9% Canley 3 12,482 -4% 15,319 11% (or Canley and Westwood, or Westwood and Wainbody, or anything else really) Tile Hill 3 12,714 -2% 12,919 -7% Woodlands 3 13,046 0% 15,077 9% Allesley and Keresley 3 11,205 -14% 14,363 4% (alternatively Bablake if we're favouring continuity over reality) Holbrook 3 12,614 -3% 13,669 -1% Radford 3 13,705 5% 13,909 0% Sherbourne 3 12,072 -7% 12,531 -10%
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on May 24, 2023 18:29:59 GMT
Some thoughts on Calderdale. The council elects by thirds and the proposed council size is 54, so we need 18 wards, replacing the existing 17. Unsurprisingly, on the 2029 forecast electorate most of the existing wards are a little oversized for an 18 ward map, but a few are close to the right size and Luddendenfoot is undersized by about 10%. Rastrick and Brighouse wards are both close to the right size and are in a corner of the borough, so I suggest leaving them unchanged. The same can be said about Todmorden and Calder; using areas in the latter to fix the overrepresentation of Luddendenfoot would give awkward geography somewhere. (Though I dislike the name "Calder" and would suggest changing it to something which actually gives some idea of where in the borough it is.) Luddendenfoot and Warley could also be left unchanged if the lowish electorate of the former is acceptable, but I think there is a case for adjusting the boundary between them in that semi-rural fringe west of Halifax to balance their electorates. If the area moved is Warley Town PD, which it might be, then Warley would presumably need a new name. Illingworth & Mixenden needs to shed some electorate; the obvious area to move is Holmfield PD, which should move to Ovenden, which then becomes oversized as a result and will need to shed some territory in turn further south. Moving south, the areas covered by the existing Ryburn, Sowerby Bridge, Greetland & Stainland and Elland wards have a collective entitlement to 4.26 new wards. This suggests grouping part of this area with Halifax, and my suggestion would be the eastern end of the current Sowerby Bridge, essentially Spring End and Pye Nest PDs. To build a new Sowerby Bridge ward after losing that area, I suggest moving to the proposed new constituency boundary, adding White Windows, Sowerby and Triangle PDs (there are some excellent PD names here) from the existing Ryburn ward, and replacing Ryburn with a new ward covering Ripponden and the parish of Stainland and District. Once you do that Greetland needs to take on the western end of the oversized Elland ward (the hullenedge area, I note, so I hope this isn't too pitchforky). These two wards would both be quite close to 10% below quota, but I think I would be inclined to leave them like that rather than have Greetland grab Copley. There are two possibilities for which current Halifax ward the Pye Nest area goes with bits of: Park and Skircoat. If Pye Nest joins the western part of Skircoat, then the rest (essentially Skircoat Green and Copley PDs) can join the southern end of the current Town ward (Whitegate, Siddal, Southowram PDs) in a new "Salterhebble" ward spanning the lower Hebble. Then Park needs to be trimmed a bit in the east, and that eastern area joins the southern end of Ovenden, the town centre and Boothtown from the current Town and Claremount from Northowram & Shelf in a new central ward. I did try Pye Nest with King Cross instead, and while that might work better for Skircoat I found the options for replacing Town ward looked awkward (not that the existing ward isn't). That leaves the existing wards of Northowram & Shelf (less Claremount) and Hipperholme & Lightcliffe. The latter is 10% over quota and could be trimmed a little by moving some rural areas in the north to the former, but could just about be left unchanged. Thoughts?
|
|