|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 31, 2021 19:58:00 GMT
I've been working on the assumption that the deadline is Midnight tomorrow but is this actually the case or will it be midnight on Monday? (or some other random time on that day). I cannot find this information on their site.
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,626
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 31, 2021 20:59:48 GMT
I've been working on the assumption that the deadline is Midnight tomorrow but is this actually the case or will it be midnight on Monday? (or some other random time on that day). I cannot find this information on their site. Midnight on Monday. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 31, 2021 21:19:50 GMT
I've been working on the assumption that the deadline is Midnight tomorrow but is this actually the case or will it be midnight on Monday? (or some other random time on that day). I cannot find this information on their site. Midnight on Monday. Not that I don't trust you, but do you have a link or citation ? |
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,626
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 31, 2021 22:03:04 GMT
Not that I don't trust you, but do you have a link or citation ? The presumption is 23:59 on that day. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 31, 2021 22:13:08 GMT
The proposals were published at 00:00 on Tuesday 8th June. If the consultation shut at 23:59 on Sunday, it would be one day short of the statutory eight week requirement. So I think it is safe to assume it will close at 23:59 on Monday, otherwise they would leave themselves open to potential legal action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 31, 2021 22:19:38 GMT
That's good to know I can devote myself to watching Death Wish with a clear conscience
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 1, 2021 1:13:46 GMT
That's it, submitted BCE-78583. Dammit, it's getting harder to get my brain in gear and actually drag the proverbial pencil across the proverbial paper. I must be getting old. Why can't I just send a map that clearly and obviously shows what should be done without having to sweat out supporting words.  |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 1, 2021 1:25:58 GMT
I deliberately avoided mentioning this because it would be a distraction, and there's nothing the BCE can do about it, but, oh god, why wasn't this spotted at the ward review just five years ago?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2021 13:07:01 GMT
I deliberately avoided mentioning this because it would be a distraction, and there's nothing the BCE can do about it, but, oh god, why wasn't this spotted at the ward review just five years ago? The image doesn't show up on my browser. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 1, 2021 15:04:30 GMT
I deliberately avoided mentioning this because it would be a distraction, and there's nothing the BCE can do about it, but, oh god, why wasn't this spotted at the ward review just five years ago? The image doesn't show up on my browser. Odd, it also doesn't show up on mine, yet it was there when I created the post - and when I create this reply it appears! This is the map, it shows the brand new ward boundary - which will become a constituency boundary - slicing through houses and a school, a school that has been there decades and houses that were being laid out during the ward review. It's a line fossilised from a property boundary that hasn't been there since about the 1970s. Particularly ridiculous when there's a nice clear footpath straight through the open ground behind that could have been used. This leads to another gumble. The online local councils' Planning Portal maps used to show ward boundaries. Now they don't, so this sort of stuff is so much harder to spot. What's really annoying is the boundary text is still there, but the line itself has been removed, so you occassionally spot "FW", "CCS" or "Def." but with no actual line along that Foot of Wall, Centre of Course of Stream or Defaced. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 1, 2021 15:37:54 GMT
The image doesn't show up on my browser. Odd, it also doesn't show up on mine, yet it was there when I created the post - and when I create this reply it appears! This is the map, it shows the brand new ward boundary - which will become a constituency boundary - slicing through houses and a school, a school that has been there decades and houses that were being laid out during the ward review. It's a line fossilised from a property boundary that hasn't been there since about the 1970s. Particularly ridiculous when there's a nice clear footpath straight through the open ground behind that could have been used. This leads to another gumble. The online local councils' Planning Portal maps used to show ward boundaries. Now they don't, so this sort of stuff is so much harder to spot. What's really annoying is the boundary text is still there, but the line itself has been removed, so you occassionally spot "FW", "CCS" or "Def." but with no actual line along that Foot of Wall, Centre of Course of Stream or Defaced. It's a mess but can be fixed.
Given that Richmond ward is split anyway, just add the UH polling district (Parly electorate 1425) to Heeley. Heeley then has 76039, SE goes down to 74798, so everything's comfortably in range.
I presume this is more or less what you've put in your submission.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 1, 2021 18:53:53 GMT
The image doesn't show up on my browser. Odd, it also doesn't show up on mine, yet it was there when I created the post - and when I create this reply it appears! I had this problem before and it turned out to be because the image was hosted on a site that doesn't have https enabled. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Aug 2, 2021 19:02:15 GMT
Just submitted. Two submissions: Supportive comments for Newham/Tower Hamlets, and comments arguing for Queen Edith’s ward to be included in Cambridge instead of Trumpington.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 2, 2021 20:29:44 GMT
Just submitted my counter-proposal for Northamptonshire. Four wards split (Moulton; Earls Barton; Irthlingborough; Thrapston - though I did note in a footnote that you can eliminate two of those with touch-point contiguity if you're a fan of really bad ideas.) I suspect it's too ambitious to get the BCE to adopt it, but I think I did make a persuasive case for why it accords better with Rule 5 than their initial proposals.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,141
|
Post by Foggy on Aug 2, 2021 23:04:14 GMT
Ugh. I didn't leave myself enough time for this.
Almost reasonable-looking submissions made for London, the Eastern region, the South West and West Midlands within the past couple of hours.
Totally unprofessional last-minute sending in of Excel files, on the other hand, for the North West and South East regions. Didn't have time to make my Word documents look glossy and convert them to PDFs, so I just didn't bother including them in the end. My SE spreadsheet somehow ended up proposing 92 constituencies, which is of course one too many. Perhaps I should've taken a minute to delete the tab containing the county with the offending extra seat, but oh well, it's done now.
Had a brief go at the North East a few months ago but soon gave up. Not looked at the East Midlands but probably should at some point. Not touching Yorkshire with a bargepole this time!
Will also be making a submission to the Welsh Commission once their consultation portal is open.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Aug 3, 2021 7:56:41 GMT
EM 56943
SE 56945
E 58939
YH 60759
SW 63725
NW 75915
(varying quite a bit in terms of how much I agreed with the BCE and how much of the region I actually commented on)
In the second round I'll probably concentrate on commenting on the parties' submissions in Yorkshire.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 3, 2021 8:07:11 GMT
In the end I kept it simple and to the areas I know well.
A comment on Coventry arguing to keep Cov NE as present and instead swap Woodlands and St Michael's between Cov NW and Cov S.
A comment on Warwickshire advocating for the BCE's alternative plan 1, which would see a substantial realignment within the county but no seats crossing the county border. This is what I have been arguing for on the West Mids thread.
A comment on Sheffield endorsing the BCE's initial proposals for Sheffield and Barnsley, especially the split of Richmond ward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 3, 2021 9:22:16 GMT
Ugh. I didn't leave myself enough time for this.Almost reasonable-looking submissions made for London, the Eastern region, the South West and West Midlands within the past couple of hours. Totally unprofessional last-minute sending in of Excel files, on the other hand, for the North West and South East regions. Didn't have time to make my Word documents look glossy and convert them to PDFs, so I just didn't bother including them in the end. My SE spreadsheet somehow ended up proposing 92 constituencies, which is of course one too many. Perhaps I should've taken a minute to delete the tab containing the county with the offending extra seat, but oh well, it's done now. Had a brief go at the North East a few months ago but soon gave up. Not looked at the East Midlands but probably should at some point. Not touching Yorkshire with a bargepole this time! Will also be making a submission to the Welsh Commission once their consultation portal is open. Likewise. Annoyed I left it all so close to the deadline but I always work this way. I sent a submission for the South West almost literally at the last minute. I'm happy with what i've proposed there but not with the way its presented as I just didn't leave enough time to write it up properly. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 3, 2021 11:37:43 GMT
I'm always in two minds about the extent to which I comment on the initial proposals.
There are lots of parts of the country I don't really know where I can see there are some awful things put forward by the BCE, and I'm normally fairly confident I can come up with something better myself.
The problem is when I come round to writing it up, I find it really hard to be convincing about why my alternative is better when I lack basic knowledge of the area and am basically going off what looks good on a map. And if I can't convince myself, I don't reckon much for my chances of persuading the BCE to adopt a radically different plan. So I end up just sitting back and hoping the locals have it in hand instead.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 3, 2021 13:04:13 GMT
I'm always in two minds about the extent to which I comment on the initial proposals. There are lots of parts of the country I don't really know where I can see there are some awful things put forward by the BCE, and I'm normally fairly confident I can come up with something better myself. The problem is when I come round to writing it up, I find it really hard to be convincing about why my alternative is better when I lack basic knowledge of the area and am basically going off what looks good on a map. And if I can't convince myself, I don't reckon much for my chances of persuading the BCE to adopt a radically different plan. So I end up just sitting back and hoping the locals have it in hand instead. That's been my problem with the last two three reviews in that they do (eg) all of Yorkshire and my main knowledge is Sheffield, I have to build up a large enough subarea to work on and demonstrate it doesn't knock on to the areas I don't have enough knowledge about. The 2005/2010 review covered "South Yorkshire" so it was easier to manage and avoid knock-ons. |
|
