|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 2, 2020 17:37:49 GMT
That news came from nowhere. The ward of Erewhon is ever with us. At least we are not going backwards.
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Dec 3, 2020 1:07:12 GMT
A new electoral changes order has been published: Put through on the last possible day for the new parliamentary boundaries and the electorates will have to be recalculated to March 2020 on the new wards. Although orders passed after this date can take into account new boundaries. If I’m correct it means Wandsworth, Lambeth, Bromley, Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Waltham Forest and Havering will be the only boroughs based on their old ward boundaries. The London Borough of Merton (Electoral Changes) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/1382). Introduces new ward boundaries for Sutton council to come into effect at the 2022 election. There are twenty new wards, of which three (Hillside, Merton Park and Wandle) elect two councillors and seventeen elect three councillors.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Dec 3, 2020 9:35:03 GMT
Put through on the last possible day for the new parliamentary boundaries and the electorates will have to be recalculated to March 2020 on the new wards. Although orders passed after this date can take into account new boundaries. If I’m correct it means Wandsworth, Lambeth, Bromley, Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Waltham Forest and Havering will be the only boroughs based on their old ward boundaries. Also Greenwich and Kingston-upon-Thames have not yet had their reviews completed. In addition to the sixteen London boroughs that have new ward boundaries in time for the parliamentary review, there are also completed reviews in Cornwall, the Isle of Wight and Wiltshire.
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Dec 3, 2020 19:41:31 GMT
Is anyone able to give a sense of which London borough reviews have helped specific parties?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 3, 2020 19:51:54 GMT
A new electoral changes order has been published: The Local Government (Coronavirus) (Postponement of Elections) (Wales) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1399). Makes further provision in respect of the elections in Wales which were abandoned earlier this year due to obvious reasons, similar to provision which has already been made for England by SI 2020/926. The general thrust is that most things which were done in relation to those by-elections are now void and the postponed poll (once it eventually happens) will start the process again from scratch. Regulation 4 provides that postal votes cast in by-elections in Wales which were abandoned in March and April this year will not count towards the poll once it eventually takes place, and that people who had already voted by post will be able to cast fresh postal votes in the poll once it eventually takes place. Regulations 5 and 6 make detailed provision as to how the returning officer is to dispose of the postal votes and related documents already returned. Regulation 7 provides that candidates for the local by-elections in Wales which were abandoned earlier this year are no longer candidates and will no longer be treated as having been candidates (so they will not have to fill out expense returns, etc). Regulation 8 applies to the Welsh by-elections which have been postponed to February-April 2021, and allows electors in those by-elections who are isolating as a result of COVID-related regulations or advice to apply for emergency proxy votes up to 5pm on polling day. Regulation 9 relates to public notices where co-options have been made to a community council in Wales; where the vacancy occurred between 16 March 2020 and 31 January 2021, these notices are only required to be published electronically.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Dec 8, 2020 11:31:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Dec 12, 2020 22:47:50 GMT
They've done well with the Central Bracknell wards - Central and Parks is a coherent ward, Easthampstead and Wildridings estates merge into each other and Hanworth ward mostly covers Hanworth. The Sandhurst and Crowthorne areas look decently drawn as well. But that Jennett's Park and South Binfield ward is an absolute abomination - between the 2 residential halves, there's a grade separated dual carriageway with no road or footbridges,a big business park and an ice rink. Yes, Great Hollands in one ward is OK, but not at the expense of half of poor Binfield. A merger with the eastern half of Wokingham would solve the issues here. The Binfield North and Warfield West ward is the best that could exist given the aforementioned abomination and at least it has coherent road links. Whitegrove and P & G wards make sense. Winkfield and Warfield East is a product of the stupid boundary with Windsor and Maidenhead, but it makes an OK ward demographically and transport wise. Swinley Forest is basically the Martin's Heron estate and works very well as a ward, but for the sily name.
|
|
|
Post by Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells on Dec 12, 2020 22:54:21 GMT
Also, the Bullbrook ward is decent, that Harmans Water and Crown Wood ward is awful, but it's better than Central Bracknell ending up as a one member ward. Central Bracknell might end up doing a Reading and massively densifying housing-wise in the town centre, meaning that it could stand alone as a 2 councillor ward at the next review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2020 15:07:24 GMT
Forgive me if this is a repeat of information posted elsewhere, though I don’t think it’s been mentioned in this thread which seems currently to be the best fit for it:
According to the Whitby Gazette, North Yorkshire’s councils (incl. York) have submitted two competing proposals to the government for the local government changes which will follow the abolition of the current structure in a couple of years’ time.
North Yorkshire County Council (not surprisingly) want one large authority to cover the area, excluding York as now, with more powers given to town and parish councils. I have to say I quite like this idea. Although what those ‘more powers’ are I don’t know.
However six of the seven district councils have proposed a curious split structure, no separate authority for York, but instead an East/West split, one authority encompassing the ‘big city’, Scarborough, Ryedale and Selby, and a second covering Craven, Hambleton, Richmondshire and Harrogate. Now obviously it’s significant that this second proposal has received cross-party support from so many of the districts, but then it’s not surprising the they would prefer what might be described as two ‘super district councils’ rather than one county council. I’m not immediately attracted by this second option. I imagine it would be difficult for one party to get an overall majority on a West authority, though Labour would have good potential to be a player with their bases in York and Scarborough. I guess if anyone was to get a majority in East it would be a contest between the Conservatives and Independents. The county council isn’t exactly popular, certainly for railway fans (hello) as they have alienated people over their handling of the potential expansion of services on the Esk Valley line. So the idea of getting rid of that larger authority may draw more support from at least some quarters.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,445
Member is Online
|
Post by European Lefty on Dec 18, 2020 21:08:06 GMT
Forgive me if this is a repeat of information posted elsewhere, though I don’t think it’s been mentioned in this thread which seems currently to be the best fit for it: According to the Whitby Gazette, North Yorkshire’s councils (incl. York) have submitted two competing proposals to the government for the local government changes which will follow the abolition of the current structure in a couple of years’ time. North Yorkshire County Council (not surprisingly) want one large authority to cover the area, excluding York as now, with more powers given to town and parish councils. I have to say I quite like this idea. Although what those ‘more powers’ are I don’t know. However six of the seven district councils have proposed a curious split structure, no separate authority for York, but instead an East/West split, one authority encompassing the ‘big city’, Scarborough, Ryedale and Selby, and a second covering Craven, Hambleton, Richmondshire and Harrogate. Now obviously it’s significant that this second proposal has received cross-party support from so many of the districts, but then it’s not surprising the they would prefer what might be described as two ‘super district councils’ rather than one county council. I’m not immediately attracted by this second option. I imagine it would be difficult for one party to get an overall majority on a West authority, though Labour would have good potential to be a player with their bases in York and Scarborough. I guess if anyone was to get a majority in East it would be a contest between the Conservatives and Independents. The county council isn’t exactly popular, certainly for railway fans (hello) as they have alienated people over their handling of the potential expansion of services on the Esk Valley line. So the idea of getting rid of that larger authority may draw more support from at least some quarters. Neither of those are good ideas. The first is marginally less horrible, although I would be tempted to do something else with Selby. But a largely rural area with a lot of very sparsely populated districts ad less than brilliant transport networks between them is exactly the sort of place that shouldn't be subjected to this ridiculous "unitary for unitaries' sake" nonsense
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 18, 2020 22:31:11 GMT
North Yorkshire County Council (not surprisingly) want one large authority to cover the area, excluding York as now, with more powers given to town and parish councils. I have to say I quite like this idea. Although what those ‘more powers’ are I don’t know. However six of the seven district councils have proposed a curious split structure, no separate authority for York, but instead an East/West split, one authority encompassing the ‘big city’, Scarborough, Ryedale and Selby, and a second covering Craven, Hambleton, Richmondshire and Harrogate. Neither of those are good ideas. The first is marginally less horrible, although I would be tempted to do something else with Selby. But a largely rural area with a lot of very sparsely populated districts ad less than brilliant transport networks between them is exactly the sort of place that shouldn't be subjected to this ridiculous "unitary for unitaries' sake" nonsense The best solution - for either option - would be to hive Selby off and join it to East Yorkshire where is belongs. I posted maps in a thread somewhere.
York has been independent for centuries.It lost that independence in 1974 and spent 20 years fight to get it back, which it did in 1996. It's a nonsense to wrench it away again, and into a "Scarborough/York/Selby" I don't want a unitary North Yorkshire (you may think it's a long way to the council office in Scarborough, but that's nothing to Northallerton!) but the districts' proposals are worse than a dogs' dinner. They look as though they've been purposely designed to fail. The "Yorkshire Dales" bit is ok, the the eastern bit is a nonsense. If the current system does get abolished I'd want the county council option, not because I want it but because the two-district option is a mess.
And we still don't know if there are going to be elections in 2021. The initial proposal last summer was that proposals would be submitted in September, be consulted on in October, decided on in November and legislated on in December, with the 2021 NYCC elections abolished and the new structures being elected in 2023 on the District cycle.
Then sometime in September somebody in government said that the 2021 election probably would go ahead as the plans were too rushed, and Covid was delaying everything.
But at our briefings with county and district officers nothing has been communicated to them.
So nobody will know anything until something happens. So we have to continue assuming nomination papers will go in in March, but also assume that everything might be cancelled, but nothing concrete enough to not do any leafleting, but also nothing concrete enough to put in a leaflet that won't be useless before it gets back from the printers.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 19, 2020 8:22:47 GMT
I recall many years ago seeing a proposal for Unitaries in North Yorkshire which I thought quite sensible. York (enlarged version) was as is. Richmondshire, Hambleton, Ryedale and Scarborough formed a North Riding UA and Craven, Harrogate and Selby formed a West Riding ("Vale & Dales") UA. I can't remember if the appropriate parts of Selby district were transferred to the East Riding and I can't find any maps of the proposals but I was quite keen on the idea (admittedly as someone with no stake and relatively little interest in or knowledge of Yorkshire)
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 26, 2020 16:48:31 GMT
Draft recommendations came out at the start of December for Rochdale: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater-manchester/rochdaleThe main changes are in Middleton where the four wards keep their compass point names but rotate 90 degrees anti-clockwise. The proposed North Middleton ward (successor to West Middleton) has been drawn small to cater for future development. Alkrington is united in the proposed South Middleton ward (it's presently divided between South Middleton and East Middleton). The current basic ward pattern is retained in the rest of the borough with modifications. Consultations are due to start in January for Bolton, Bury and Oldham. In Bolton the LGBCE is minded to retain 60 councillors.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 29, 2020 14:00:06 GMT
Neither of those are good ideas. The first is marginally less horrible, although I would be tempted to do something else with Selby. But a largely rural area with a lot of very sparsely populated districts ad less than brilliant transport networks between them is exactly the sort of place that shouldn't be subjected to this ridiculous "unitary for unitaries' sake" nonsense The best solution - for either option - would be to hive Selby off and join it to East Yorkshire where is belongs. I posted maps in a thread somewhere. Found it. If you were going for unitary districts, I'd start from something like this:
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,488
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Dec 30, 2020 3:36:51 GMT
The best solution - for either option - would be to hive Selby off and join it to East Yorkshire where is belongs. I posted maps in a thread somewhere. Found it. If you were going for unitary districts, I'd start from something like this: Where would you put your remainder East Riding and Selby wards?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 30, 2020 12:12:31 GMT
Found it. If you were going for unitary districts, I'd start from something like this: Where would you put your remainder East Riding and Selby wards? Ask the people living there.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Dec 30, 2020 12:20:41 GMT
The best solution - for either option - would be to hive Selby off and join it to East Yorkshire where is belongs. I posted maps in a thread somewhere. Found it. If you were going for unitary districts, I'd start from something like this: Should take that Yorkshire Dales one a bit further south to take in the not-Bradford bits of Bradford and the not-Leeds parts of Leeds.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 30, 2020 15:36:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Dec 31, 2020 9:22:53 GMT
This came into force today. A consequential amendment is that the definition of the English regions has been pasted into the Parliamentary Elections Act 1986 for the Boundary Commission's use.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 31, 2020 9:29:22 GMT
This came into force today. A consequential amendment is that the definition of the English regions has been pasted into the Parliamentary Elections Act 1986 for the Boundary Commission's use. I know that greenhert keeps banging this drum (and he is right to) but it's a real shame that the opportunity hasn't been taken to put Northern Lincolnshire back in the correct region for these purposes
|
|