|
Post by greenhert on Sept 29, 2020 14:17:32 GMT
Final recommendations for Reading now available, as are draft recommendations for new wards in Bedford.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,291
|
Post by ricmk on Sept 29, 2020 15:16:56 GMT
I had a quick look at the Bedford proposals. Look sensible at first glance, although Kempston is mashed up in what looks to me an odd way. Notable that the Lib Dem proposal has been adopted almost in its entirety, and the Labour / Conservative proposals are criticised throughout.
Assuming that the Lib Dem proposals are electorally helpful for them, might be worth keeping an eye on Bedford for an area where the Lib Dems could make big advances. Very well organised, including through the Mayoralty. I could see performance here way ahead of the national situation.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Sept 29, 2020 19:05:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Sept 29, 2020 20:09:32 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors.
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Sept 29, 2020 21:45:26 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,651
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 30, 2020 9:19:25 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is. In the Scarborough review I specifically asked the commission's representatives if they had leeway to adjust the recommended number of councillors up or down by one or two if it made for a better overall model, and they stated yes. I specifically asked this to ensure it was recorded as an option and the parties and Parties knew it would be an option. In the end they did tweek up by one to get the three towns to more easily fit the numbers without artificially slicing bits of surrounding parishes.
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,291
|
Post by ricmk on Sept 30, 2020 9:48:02 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. You say that, but reading the report the local Conservatives, local Labour party, and local Greens all backed the draft boundaries. I have no local knowledge, but should they all be dismissed fined and replaced as well?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 30, 2020 10:05:27 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is.The only reason any councils keep that system is to allow for dominant parties to maintain power they do not deserve. The by thirds system, and also the by halves system, is not practiced in local government anywhere else in the world and it needs to be scrapped across England. It is worth noting the number of councils who have scrapped by thirds elections over the last 10 years, mainly due to cost.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2020 10:24:23 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. I have to heavily agree with you here. It's better than what it was,but I grew up a minute's walk away from the new Caversham-Thames boundary and the Elizabeth House estate and that large swathe of Lower Cav east of George St/south of Gosbrook Road does not fit in a ward that includes Central Reading full stop. They should just expand Reading to what it should be, then maybe we could have 3 wards for Cav/EG/Cav Park Village/Cav Heights because of the lower density of Reading outside current Reading BC boundaries. These boundary changes honestly feel like a Labour gerrymander to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2020 10:36:13 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is. Or expand the borough to what it should and then we can have 3 3 member wards plus a 1 or 2 member ward North of the River because of the lower quota. It's also an extremely short sighted decision NoTR because the new "Emmer Green" ward (a lot of Emmer Green is in Heights and the new ward mostly gets its electorate from Caversham Park Village,not Emmer Green. Peppard was a decent name because it covered mostly Caversham to the north of the Henley Road and east of the Peppard road.) might be about to get a massive development on the current Reading Golf Club site, something bitterly opposed by local residents, but, if successful, will add at least a thousand to the electorate of that ward if not more. Whitley wise, that is a very strange boundary between Church and Redlands (Church mostly covers the eastern part of Whitley historically). The Greens will be happy about that Redlands boundary though because it now includes a large block of Reading Uni halls, which is very fertile territory for them at the moment and it's a ward they picked up a councillor in last time round.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2020 10:58:04 GMT
What an utter mess. Proposing that Thames ward should get the proposals rejected, the commissioners dismissed and fined for producing such rubbish, and new commissioners appointed to consider a less stupid number of councillors. You say that, but reading the report the local Conservatives, local Labour party, and local Greens all backed the draft boundaries. I have no local knowledge, but should they all be dismissed fined and replaced as well? Being from Caversham, I can tell you why. That Thames ward takes a social housing estate and one of the most fertile areas of Lower Caversham for Labour and drops it in with an areas to which it has absolutely no local ties (the Bell Tower area in Reading, north of the Great Western Main Line and Reading station, but south of the Thames) and the new private estate on Kenavon Drive near the old Reading Gaol and the Huntley and Palmers factory, which , again , has no connection to the other areas and is physically severed from them by the same Great Western Main Line. It's a brand new safe Labour ward. The Tories are happy because that new Caversham Heights ward will be safe for them, while the old Thames ward, which had most of the Heights in, was almost about to go Labour in the last few years. The Greens like it, because as previously said, the Redlands ward now includes a large block of student halls which are fertile territory for them and this is a ward in which they gained one councillor in for the first time last year. Katesgrove boundary also isn't looking bad for them, given I believe it will be the next target ward for them to start taking on Labour as the main opposition on RBC.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Sept 30, 2020 11:18:32 GMT
Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is. Or expand the borough to what it should and then we can have 3 3 member wards plus a 1 or 2 member ward North of the River because of the lower quota. It's also an extremely short sighted decision NoTR because the new "Emmer Green" ward (a lot of Emmer Green is in Heights and the new ward mostly gets its electorate from Caversham Park Village,not Emmer Green. Peppard was a decent name because it covered mostly Caversham to the north of the Henley Road and east of the Peppard road.) might be about to get a massive development on the current Reading Golf Club site, something bitterly opposed by local residents, but, if successful, will add at least a thousand to the electorate of that ward if not more. Whitley wise, that is a very strange boundary between Church and Redlands (Church mostly covers the eastern part of Whitley historically). The Greens will be happy about that Redlands boundary though because it now includes a large block of Reading Uni halls, which is very fertile territory for them at the moment and it's a ward they picked up a councillor in last time round. No it's not
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2020 12:41:53 GMT
Or expand the borough to what it should and then we can have 3 3 member wards plus a 1 or 2 member ward North of the River because of the lower quota. It's also an extremely short sighted decision NoTR because the new "Emmer Green" ward (a lot of Emmer Green is in Heights and the new ward mostly gets its electorate from Caversham Park Village,not Emmer Green. Peppard was a decent name because it covered mostly Caversham to the north of the Henley Road and east of the Peppard road.) might be about to get a massive development on the current Reading Golf Club site, something bitterly opposed by local residents, but, if successful, will add at least a thousand to the electorate of that ward if not more. Whitley wise, that is a very strange boundary between Church and Redlands (Church mostly covers the eastern part of Whitley historically). The Greens will be happy about that Redlands boundary though because it now includes a large block of Reading Uni halls, which is very fertile territory for them at the moment and it's a ward they picked up a councillor in last time round. No it's not Explain why they hold one councillor in Redlands and all 3 in Park, wards which both contain a large amount of student housing.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Sept 30, 2020 13:03:42 GMT
Explain why they hold one councillor in Redlands and all 3 in Park, wards which both contain a large amount of student housing. Because students don't vote in local elections. You've also changed the parameters of the discussion, none of the actual halls are in Park ward and most of the student housing is in Redlands and Katesgrove
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 30, 2020 13:15:50 GMT
Explain why they hold one councillor in Redlands and all 3 in Park, wards which both contain a large amount of student housing. Because students don't vote in local elections. You've also changed the parameters of the discussion, none of the actual halls are in Park ward and most of the student housing is in Redlands and Katesgrove Some students do vote in local elections because I have canvassed in Redlands ward at the time of a local election and found 2nd/3rd year students who vote. A minority did declare their intention to vote Conservative,yes, but there was a majority of people voting either Labour or Green, a small majority of people Green over Labour locally, tactically Labour at the General Election. You are correct that there are no University owned halls in Park ward, but there is plenty of student housing, both private house-share style accommodation, mostly in the environs of Cemetery Junction and privately owned halls on Kings Road. There's some student housing in Katesgrove, but the bulk of the that ward is terraced housing populated by working class locals, not student housing of any type.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by European Lefty on Sept 30, 2020 13:31:22 GMT
Because students don't vote in local elections. You've also changed the parameters of the discussion, none of the actual halls are in Park ward and most of the student housing is in Redlands and Katesgrove Some students do vote in local elections because I have canvassed in Redlands ward at the time of a local election and found 2nd/3rd year students who vote. A minority did declare their intention to vote Conservative,yes, but there was a majority of people voting either Labour or Green, a small majority of people Green over Labour locally, tactically Labour at the General Election. You are correct that there are no University owned halls in Park ward, but there is plenty of student housing, both private house-share style accommodation, mostly in the environs of Cemetery Junction and privately owned halls on Kings Road. There's some student housing in Katesgrove, but the bulk of the that ward is terraced housing populated by working class locals, not student housing of any type. Yeah, all the students I know say they're going to vote but most of them don't. I'd be surprised if student turnout for a local election is even 10%. As for the contention that they vote Green, there may have been a peak last year around extinction rebellion but any Green boost from that has dissipated (and I'm still not convinced there would have been a plurality of students voting Green) and the student vote has gone back to Labour again
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,508
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 30, 2020 16:39:40 GMT
Re Reading: I wrote to the LGBCE saying they should move away from a uniform pattern of 3 member wards and do a mix of 2 and 3 member like St Albans and then they could have had 10 councillors north of the Thames as 2 3 member and 2 2 member wards. They could also have produced a better pattern elsewhere e.g. Whitley The problem as I see it is that the political parties all agreed to up the councillors to 48 (from 46) so they could move to a uniform pattern of 3 member wards with election by thirds. Keeping the parties happy seems to be more important to the LGBCE, rather than coming up with a decent ward pattern. It also continues (in my eyes), to show what an unbelievably dumb idea election by thirds is.The only reason any councils keep that system is to allow for dominant parties to maintain power they do not deserve. The by thirds system, and also the by halves system, is not practiced in local government anywhere else in the world and it needs to be scrapped across England. It is worth noting the number of councils who have scrapped by thirds elections over the last 10 years, mainly due to cost.The correct action, but for the wrong reasons. You shouldn't put a price on democracy, but partial renewal of local councils is foolishness in all sorts of other ways. Election by thirds and halves should only be used for the upper houses of bicameral legislatures.
|
|
|
Post by π΄ββ οΈ Neath West π΄ββ οΈ on Sept 30, 2020 16:43:05 GMT
The only reason any councils keep that system is to allow for dominant parties to maintain power they do not deserve. The by thirds system, and also the by halves system, is not practiced in local government anywhere else in the world and it needs to be scrapped across England. It is worth noting the number of councils who have scrapped by thirds elections over the last 10 years, mainly due to cost.The correct action, but for the wrong reasons. You shouldn't put a price on democracy, but partial renewal of local councils is foolishness in all sorts of other ways. Election by thirds and halves should only be used for the upper houses of bicameral legislatures. Or in very small districts. If you've only got 40,000 electors, it may be very challenging to draw 34-ish divisions, and some 2- or 3-member ones might be better.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,508
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 30, 2020 16:52:05 GMT
The correct action, but for the wrong reasons. You shouldn't put a price on democracy, but partial renewal of local councils is foolishness in all sorts of other ways. Election by thirds and halves should only be used for the upper houses of bicameral legislatures. Or in very small districts. If you've only got 40,000 electors, it may be very challenging to draw 34-ish divisions, and some 2- or 3-member ones might be better. Eh? I wasn't making a case against multi-member wards, just against partial renewal. At county level I must admit I prefer uniform single-member divisions though. The theoretical great thing about multi-member wards at district level is that they could potentially lend themselves to lots of different systems: multi-member FPTP, SNTV, STV, list PR, etc. And in any event, it looks like districts with only around 40,000 electors might be a thing of the past soon-ish, again for cost reasons.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 30, 2020 17:03:44 GMT
The correct action, but for the wrong reasons. You shouldn't put a price on democracy, but partial renewal of local councils is foolishness in all sorts of other ways. Election by thirds and halves should only be used for the upper houses of bicameral legislatures. Or in very small districts. If you've only got 40,000 electors, it may be very challenging to draw 34-ish divisions, and some 2- or 3-member ones might be better. Doesn't that confuse two slightly different issues? Multi-member wards do not necessarily mean elections by thirds or halves. At one time I would have thought multi-member wards all being fought in the same year was absolutely the norm. It is also not that unusual for elections by thirds not to apply to every ward, because some single / double member wards miss out in particular years. So the question of the number of places per ward and the question of the frequency of the elections are two quite separate things. Personally, I am used to elections every four years and predominantly single member wards. It makes for a very personal representation and weak party control, and some people will like it for that reason. I personally feel it is a very weak system which leaves an awful lot of electors virtually unrepresented, and it's a setup I have always deplored.
|
|