|
Post by greenhert on Feb 2, 2021 22:42:55 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2021 8:29:09 GMT
Interesting quote: The parishes referred to are separated by two small parishes, Offerton and Highlow, which were included in a Calver & Eyam ward. There were clearly other issues with the Conservative submission, so I suspect incompetence rather than a deliberate exclave. Interestingly the LGBCE proposals maintain the two member Hathersage & Eyam ward rather than trying to separate them, though they just call the ward "Hathersage". I don't like "White Peak" as a ward name. There's nothing wrong with it as a description of a large area of this council area, just that that area is much bigger than the proposed ward.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 3, 2021 8:37:21 GMT
I'm not sure why the Local Government Commission think "Uniting Carsington Water reservoir into one ward" is so important in their Derbyshire Dales review. Last time I checked, reservoirs did not tend to be full of voters, and indeed tend to form obstacles that delineate communities.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 3, 2021 9:28:07 GMT
Justification after the fact one would imagine. Or maybe that's just one of the most exciting things to have changed in an otherwise fairly unremarkable review?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2021 9:54:54 GMT
Justification after the fact one would imagine. No, they made a point of doing it. The Tory, Labour and "multi-party" submissions all split the area around Carsington Water, and they modified the last of those (which is what the LGBCE proposals are mostly based on) to unite it. I think that sometimes someone with a pet idea sends it to the LGBCE and makes their case well enough that the LGBCE are convinced, and that that's what happened here. I don't think it's a completely daft idea -- the reservoir is indeed a focus for tourism in that area -- but I'm not sure I'd have done it myself.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 3, 2021 10:22:04 GMT
Justification after the fact one would imagine. Or maybe that's just one of the most exciting things to have changed in an otherwise fairly unremarkable review? The review seems to go far beyond minimum change – if they binned the faintly ludicrous population predictions and the arbitrary cut in councillor numbers, then all they needed to do was to increase Ashbourne South ward's representation from 2 to 3 members and it would all be fine.
|
|
|
Post by rogerg on Feb 3, 2021 11:14:50 GMT
Though of course, unlike the parliamentary review, minimum change is not a criteria for LGBCE ward reviews (as Labour in Lambeth have just discovered).
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 3, 2021 13:29:33 GMT
Interesting quote: The parishes referred to are separated by two small parishes, Offerton and Highlow, which were included in a Calver & Eyam ward. There were clearly other issues with the Conservative submission, so I suspect incompetence rather than a deliberate exclave. Interestingly the LGBCE proposals maintain the two member Hathersage & Eyam ward rather than trying to separate them, though they just call the ward "Hathersage". I don't like "White Peak" as a ward name. There's nothing wrong with it as a description of a large area of this council area, just that that area is much bigger than the proposed ward. For "community identity and effective and convenient local government" either Hathersage shouldn't be in Derbyshire Dales in the first place, or Castleton & Hope shouldn't be in High Peak.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 3, 2021 13:45:53 GMT
Though of course, unlike the parliamentary review, minimum change is not a criteria for LGBCE ward reviews (as Labour in Lambeth have just discovered). Indeed, that allowed us in Sheffield to get rid of the mess that had accumulated over various boundary extensions up to 1983 and start from scratch.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 3, 2021 13:55:52 GMT
I hadn't seen those Lambeth proposals - what a shambles
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 3, 2021 13:58:24 GMT
If you allow for the fact that Lambeth is so urbanised that the boundaries are bound to go down arbitrary small roads, it's not a bad stab at giving each ward a reasonable focus. But some of them end up looking a bit odd as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Feb 3, 2021 13:59:53 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2021 14:34:33 GMT
Interesting quote: The parishes referred to are separated by two small parishes, Offerton and Highlow, which were included in a Calver & Eyam ward. There were clearly other issues with the Conservative submission, so I suspect incompetence rather than a deliberate exclave. Interestingly the LGBCE proposals maintain the two member Hathersage & Eyam ward rather than trying to separate them, though they just call the ward "Hathersage". I don't like "White Peak" as a ward name. There's nothing wrong with it as a description of a large area of this council area, just that that area is much bigger than the proposed ward. For "community identity and effective and convenient local government" either Hathersage shouldn't be in Derbyshire Dales in the first place, or Castleton & Hope shouldn't be in High Peak. Well, I agree, but I guess the LGBCE would reply that that isn't in the remit of the review. I fear both may be swallowed up in some giant unitary before very long, which would at least solve that problem. My point was more about the LGBCE's comment on exclaves, as I thought there were a few fairly recent examples where their proposals did include an exclave. The proposal they're talking about is ridiculous, and they were right to dismiss it, but e.g. for Milton in Cambridgeshire there isn't really a better solution without changing the district boundary.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 3, 2021 15:43:52 GMT
Though they weren't keen on the exclave and only agreed to it because a) it does at least unite the parish and b) people pointed out the areas they thought it bordered on is separated from it by a river.
AIUI, various informal agreements between Cambridge and South Cambs to restore some sanity to the city boundaries foundered because South Cambs got worried they might lose the Science Park and its business rates into the bargain. And now the two authorities deliver so many of their functions jointly that there isn't much urgency for it.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 3, 2021 15:51:55 GMT
I hadn't seen those Lambeth proposals - what a shambles Any particular highlights?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 3, 2021 16:25:30 GMT
I hadn't seen those Lambeth proposals - what a shambles Any particular highlights? I don't know where to start really. I haven't taken it all in yet. Can't see the need for a single member Streatham Common when there's a two-member Streatham South West (sic) next to it. Some crap names like Rush Common and Rosendale, the proliferation of Claphams. Maybe as David suggests it makes more sense on the ground than appears on first sight but it looks a mess to me
|
|
|
Post by rogerg on Feb 3, 2021 18:21:11 GMT
The Lambeth review was against the background of a local consensus to do away with ward names with ultimate origins in slave owners/traders. So Tulse Hill, Vassall and Thurlow Park had to go. Thornton was an abolitionist so that can stay. St Leonard (vegan friend of prisoners) and St Martin (pacifist Euro-saint) are sufficiently woke even for Lambeth!
I suspect the draft single member Streatham Common will get swallowed up by one of the neighbouring 2 member wards once the consultation is done. Should be no surprise Larkhall looks to be going - it was always one of those bits-left-over wards and it makes sense to divide it between redrawn Clapham and Stockwell focused wards.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 4, 2021 20:18:19 GMT
Four new electoral orders have been published: The Cornwall (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/106). Realigns a large number of the incoming division boundaries in Cornwall, with effect from the May 2021 election, to take account of recent parish boundary changes. The West Suffolk (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/107). Realigns the boundary between the Clare and Haverhill Cangle divisions of Suffolk county council, with effect from the May 2021 election, to take account of a recent parish boundary change. The Reading (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/108). Introduces new ward boundaries for Reading council, with effect from the May 2021 2022 election, and restores the system of election by thirds in following years. There are sixteen new wards, all of which elect three councillors. The Wiltshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/113). Realigns the incoming division boundaries in Wiltshire, with effect from the May 2021 election, to take account of recent parish boundary changes. The divisions affected are Bowerhill, Melksham East, Pewsey and Pewsey Vale West.
|
|
|
Post by listener on Feb 6, 2021 13:18:45 GMT
The Cornwall (Electoral Changes) Order reflects changes to the new electoral divisions, required to realign the electoral division boundaries with the new parish boundaries. Considerable changes to parish boundaries have been implemented after the first comprehensive review of parishes across the whole of Cornwall since the 1970s, which resulted in the creation of a new parish of Delabole, 2 sets of parish mergers, 5 changes of parish names and 54 alterations of parish areas and changes to parish electoral arrangements.
The review has had its acrimonious moments, particularly over whether a new housing estate, Gwallon Keas, in the parish of Carlyon, but on the edge of St. Austell, should be transferred into the parish of St. Austell. Ironically, this area was unparished until 2009, when the parishing of Cornwall was completed in advance of the new unitary county and the abolition of Restormel. There were suggestions that the procedures followed at a consultation meeting had been suspect (shades of Jackie Weaver), culminating in a question at full council. The Electoral Review Panel proposed a transfer to St. Austell, but this was overturned by a successful amendment at full Council to leave it where it was.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 8, 2021 22:01:45 GMT
The Lambeth review was against the background of a local consensus to do away with ward names with ultimate origins in slave owners/traders. So Tulse Hill, Vassall and Thurlow Park had to go. Thornton was an abolitionist so that can stay. St Leonard (vegan friend of prisoners) and St Martin (pacifist Euro-saint) are sufficiently woke even for Lambeth! I suspect the draft single member Streatham Common will get swallowed up by one of the neighbouring 2 member wards once the consultation is done. Should be no surprise Larkhall looks to be going - it was always one of those bits-left-over wards and it makes sense to divide it between redrawn Clapham and Stockwell focused wards. More on Lambeth's woke ward names here www.standard.co.uk/news/london/brixton-windrush-lambeth-slave-trade-links-b918989.htmlThank God we don't have the Australian system for naming constituencies. One can only imagine the kind of names that the 'consensus' would come up with..
|
|