|
Post by afleitch on Jan 14, 2021 15:34:01 GMT
Public consultation for Highland, Argyll and Bute and North Ayrshire closing soon. I decided to respond in support of some but against a few wards that had stupid reasoning 'Isle of Bute only gets 2 councillors and no special geographic consideration as it's well connected by ferry.' Yes. To a different fucking council to the one it's in. Isn't there a regular ferry from the northern end of Bute to Colintraive? Granted it's a long way from any of the main towns in the council area, but would still be within Argyll and Bute. Yes. But it's like sailing a tin can. Mull at least is connected to Oban. Bute connected to Cowal has even less connectivity. In fact depending on sailings it can be quicker to sail to Wemyss Bay, drive to Gourock then sail back to Dunoon rather than try and reach Dunoon via Colintraive and about the same amount of time to sail from Oban to Craignure and drive to Tobermory.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 19, 2021 19:57:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 19, 2021 20:22:04 GMT
So there's still 19 days for a council to pre-empt a petition and put a different model on the ballot paper?
This is what's happened in Newham.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 19, 2021 20:23:25 GMT
This is a deliberate attempt to force the Croydon referendum into being held in May.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 19, 2021 20:35:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jan 20, 2021 0:22:51 GMT
So there's still 19 days for a council to pre-empt a petition and put a different model on the ballot paper? This is what's happened in Newham. Hopefully it kills off the judicial review. I don’t know how that is being funded.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 20, 2021 17:22:21 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (asc 1), an Act of Senedd Cymru to make provision about local government; local government finance; local government elections; electoral registration and electoral administration; and for connected purposes. The provisions relating to elections form Part I of the Act. An overview of these changes is helpfully set out in section 1: Part I comes into force on a number of dates, some to be appointed, as set out in section 175.
I will also highlight Part VII, which provides a procedure for merger and restructuring of local councils should any such applications be made by the councils involved.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 22, 2021 22:22:26 GMT
Whether you prefer FPTP or STV, having some sort of halfway house with different systems in different councils is surely the worst of both worlds?
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,025
|
Post by ilerda on Jan 22, 2021 22:45:39 GMT
And will there be limits on how often councils can change between systems?
What if each new administration after every election decides it wants to swap? It would be rolling boundary reviews every 4 years for one thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 23:11:24 GMT
And will there be limits on how often councils can change between systems? What if each new administration after every election decides it wants to swap? It would be rolling boundary reviews every 4 years for one thing.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jan 23, 2021 7:59:36 GMT
And will there be limits on how often councils can change between systems? What if each new administration after every election decides it wants to swap? It would be rolling boundary reviews every 4 years for one thing. Section 9 - It looks like you need to have at least two elections under a new voting system before it can change again. It also looks like the election cycle is extended from four to five years.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 16:32:43 GMT
Davıd Boothroyd (or anybody), do you know what the rationale was for the LGBCE extending the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards to include large tracts of Hyde Park itself when no voters (or perhaps a handful at best) are involved?
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 25, 2021 19:45:38 GMT
Davıd Boothroyd (or anybody), do you know what the rationale was for the LGBCE extending the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards to include large tracts of Hyde Park itself when no voters (or perhaps a handful at best) are involved? Their attitude to open spaces is not very consistent, some are are included entirely within one ward, others like Richmond Park split up between different wards.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 20:04:12 GMT
Davıd Boothroyd (or anybody), do you know what the rationale was for the LGBCE extending the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards to include large tracts of Hyde Park itself when no voters (or perhaps a handful at best) are involved? Their attitude to open spaces is not very consistent, some are are included entirely within one ward, others like Richmond Park split up between different wards. Yes - the division of Richmond partly reflects that between the old Richmond and Barnes boroughs and there hasn't been any need to change that. In this case this was the old boundary between Paddington and Westminster. I'm obviously not suggesting that the boundaries of boroughs that disappeared before I was born should be sacrosanct but in this case it is a logical enough boundary with the Bayswater Road/Hyde Park Place and the Edgware Road boxing the area off neatly. I just can't see any reason to have changed that when it can't be justified by equalising electorates (which is surely the whole point of the exercise)
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jan 25, 2021 20:26:37 GMT
Davıd Boothroyd (or anybody), do you know what the rationale was for the LGBCE extending the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards to include large tracts of Hyde Park itself when no voters (or perhaps a handful at best) are involved? The carve up of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens was included in the gerrymander proposed by the Tory majority group on Westminster council and largely adopted by the LGBCE. The intention was probably to try and divert attention from the absurd change to Knightsbridge & Belgravia, which as we all know are riverside communities inhabited by humble watermen and mudlarks.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2021 20:55:25 GMT
Davıd Boothroyd (or anybody), do you know what the rationale was for the LGBCE extending the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards to include large tracts of Hyde Park itself when no voters (or perhaps a handful at best) are involved? The carve up of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens was included in the gerrymander proposed by the Tory majority group on Westminster council and largely adopted by the LGBCE. The intention was probably to try and divert attention from the absurd change to Knightsbridge & Belgravia, which as we all know are riverside communities inhabited by humble watermen and mudlarks. Oh I see - I did notice the nice little carve up of Churchill. Still K&B had to be expanded and I spose that boundary is logical enough - there aren't a lot of other options (other than making it a two-member). My main concern is how the new Parliamentary boundaries are going to work out in the area. The Hyde Park business shouldn't affect what I had planned (but the changes around Marylebone might). I'm sure you can still win Pimlico South..
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 28, 2021 22:08:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 28, 2021 23:10:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 23:30:13 GMT
"The Local Government Boundary Commission has decided that the number of councillors in Fylde should be 37. This is a change from the current council which has 51. "
That is some reduction!
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 29, 2021 9:40:12 GMT
"The Local Government Boundary Commission has decided that the number of councillors in Fylde should be 37. This is a change from the current council which has 51. " That is some reduction! The review of the number of councillors by the LGBCE seems to be entirely arbitrary. There don’t seem to be any criteria, nor can any logic be discerned in the decisions. The request of the council seems to weigh heavily, and this is unpredictable too - some Conservative councils want to cut the number of councillors (presumably to try and squeeze out those pesky independents), but others don’t. And then having gone through a time-consuming and tedious process of more often than not confirming the existing size, they then produce proposals with a different number of councillors, thus throwing off everyone who submitted proposals based on the number announced by the LGBCE. Can anyone discern any logic in these decisions as to the number of councillors?
|
|