YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 7, 2022 22:19:15 GMT
... and if you go to the region pages there are links to the counterproposals they received (and not just the party ones). Excellent development. Though they don't seem to be comprehensive - my counterproposal for Northamptonshire isn't listed, for example, even though it's in the system as including a counter-proposal. Yes, I think they must have made some judgement about how wide-ranging a counterproposal had to be to be included. Mine are all there except for my Eastern submission, which only involved a handful of suggestions around Cambridge. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Feb 7, 2022 22:28:14 GMT
Is it permissible to submit counterproposals during the secondary consultation stage? I think so, but if I were doing that I'd write them up in a way which explicitly responded to some of the concerns raised in initial responses. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 8, 2022 2:17:53 GMT
Comments on the map appear to be grouped by ward. One interesting consequence of this is that it's possible to see which changes are most controversial, because the wards concerned have high levels of associated correspondence.
So far, I've found three wards about which more than 100 comments were made, just from manually clicking around the map. South West Holderness (around Hedon) has 108, mostly objecting to being added to Hull, while Priory (south eastern Exeter) has 206, mostly objecting to being added to Exmouth. Both would be expected to generate controversy - they are wards where most residents support their MP's party but these proposals would see them in a constituency which would be expected to vote for a different party.
What's less clear is why there were 579 comments about Emerson Park switching from Hornchurch and Upminster to Romford - getting on for 2% of the national total! And these aren't people angrily writing in - almost all of these comments are in support of the move, and generally passionately so. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they all felt the need to comment; maybe they just love Andrew Rosindell.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 8, 2022 10:31:44 GMT
Though they don't seem to be comprehensive - my counterproposal for Northamptonshire isn't listed, for example, even though it's in the system as including a counter-proposal. Yes, I think they must have made some judgement about how wide-ranging a counterproposal had to be to be included. Mine are all there except for my Eastern submission, which only involved a handful of suggestions around Cambridge. must be right about this. In the South West, the 'Useful links' included my proposal affecting Devon / Somerset / Glos / Wilts, but not my supplementary submission, setting out an alternative for Wilts alone. This is fair enough, I think: the value of the 'Useful links' is that it separates out major counter-proposals from more limited submissions that address only a small part of the region. The 'Useful links' is a really helpful innovation so kudos to the BCE. But it would be even better if the list of links included the BCE reference numbers, to make it easier to find a specific scheme. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 8, 2022 11:04:27 GMT
"I don’t want mine to change councils. I am very happy with the one I have!"
...
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Feb 8, 2022 11:21:52 GMT
Going by the map, Clacton appears to have had zero comments allocated to it - is this the only one in the country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 9, 2022 20:53:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 9, 2022 21:05:03 GMT
I read this and it was weird. It looks like university geography students doing a course segment, and in my view adds zero to what us clued in commentators know about the process. |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Feb 9, 2022 21:53:25 GMT
Not worth it. As John says, very odd. I suspect written by an American attempting to apply their understanding of the US process - frequently refers to "districts" instead of constituencies, as well as "packing" and only just restrains itself from "cracking". Concerned with gerrymandering etc, but in a way that doesn't really make sense - doesn't confront the fact that the BCE has drawn the initial proposals independently (might make more sense if this were a report on parties proposals, of course), doesn't seem to be aware that wards largely form the building blocks. Doesn't explain how the statutory considerations could influence some of the demographic trends they claim to be investigating. All very "We drew a map and coloured it in to illustrate the distribution" rather than attempts to explain. Below are some rough thoughts as I read it.
Raises a vaguely reasonable (I think) point that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere - designation of various constituencies as county/borough. I think on page 6 it reveals a misunderstanding when it says
Which I assume, if a genuine quote from the BCE is referring to councils, not constituencies. Spends a lot of time on discussion of the shapes of new constituencies - is rather keen on the idea that a smooth boundary is good, and refers to how this is regarded as desireable in "many representative democracies" - but whilst I think we'd generally regard compactness of shape as being good, I don't think the smoothness of boundaries is itself very important in the UK context (again, I suspect thinking of a US context), although the paper worries that it might indicate boundary manipulation. Talks about accessibility of constituencies in terms of journey times within them - but not clear how they're assessing this (I suspect it is just on compactness of constituency). Keeps looking out for all these indicators changing indicating deprived areas being shuffled into and out of constituencies, and then seems vaguely disappointed not to find it. Reference to how it was challenging to do something given the shortness of the consultation period - clearly a copout since they've had, what, eight months? This was unfair - of course the submission window for responses was only a few weeks.
Discovered the truly astounding fact that urban constituencies tend to have younger populations than rural ones.
Will edit in more if i can be bothered, but it's really not very good.
EDIT:
Has now used "cracking".
Have now deployed a "community detection algorithm".
Seems to have read a book (or more likely a blog post) on rotten boroughs. Has now identified the A5 as havingexisted in 1911 as well as today. Not exactly surprising, since it's about 2000 years old.
Not very well proofread, to be honest.
Have reached the end - a pretty poor report. Doesn't seem to really understand the thing it's writing about, doesn't really explain anything, doesn't even really describe anything particularly informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 9, 2022 22:11:45 GMT
Keeps looking out for all these indicators changing indicating deprived areas being shuffled into and out of constituencies, and then seems vaguely disappointed not to find it. this sounds interesting. Can you expound a little? |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Feb 9, 2022 22:43:16 GMT
Keeps looking out for all these indicators changing indicating deprived areas being shuffled into and out of constituencies, and then seems vaguely disappointed not to find it. this sounds interesting. Can you expound a little? On page 13 they talk about finding a "weak (0.22) but significant" correlation between how straight the boundaries of a constituency are and its inequality, but then conclude that it is probably just because urban constituencies can be more unequal but have straighter boundaries, so it probably isn't the case that a smooth boundary indicates the constituency was deliberately drawn to increase inequality in the seat. Then on 14 they have a measure of "accessibility" of the seats - by which they mean how easily you can get from one part to another. They find that some seats get more accessible and some get less, and that there isn't a pattern linking that change to inequality or deprivation.
I think they've basically found several different ways to say "urban constituencies are geographically smaller".
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,796
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 9, 2022 22:59:39 GMT
I read this and it was weird. It looks like university geography students doing a course segment, and in my view adds zero to what us clued in commentators know about the process. I vaguely reminded me of the 2001-2003 Sheffield ward review for new boundaries in 2004. There was a report from officers saying they'd contacted Sheffield University geography department about them doing a project on it to feed into the council's process. The uni said something like: hmmm, we could consider it for the 2003/4 course. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 10, 2022 5:56:17 GMT
I read this and it was weird. It looks like university geography students doing a course segment, and in my view adds zero to what us clued in commentators know about the process. I skimmed through it and you've confirmed my impression. Credit to those of you who could be bothered to read the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 22, 2022 10:24:25 GMT
Just to note that the BCE second-phase consultation has opened today and runs to 4 Apr.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2022 23:20:51 GMT
I have submitted a few mad ravings on the subject of ward splits: BCE-94755. These are general comments, not specific to any particular area.
That's enough for the one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 7, 2022 9:32:35 GMT
The BCE website says that second stage responses will be published at the same time as the revised proposals.
Do we have any idea when this is likely to happen? I'm thinking Octoberish but it's only a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Apr 9, 2022 7:19:28 GMT
The BCE website says that second stage responses will be published at the same time as the revised proposals. It's really disappointing that they're not publishing the responses ASAP, can't see any reason why not. Would be nice to know which areas aren't likely to be changed, e.g. Dorset, seeing how satisfied the parties are with the boundaries are after the 1st phase. Selections can be ramped up in those areas with a higher level of confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Oct 4, 2022 9:06:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Oct 4, 2022 9:09:10 GMT
boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-04-Press-release-Boundary-Commission-for-England-third-campaign-date-announcement-v2.pdfBoundary Commission for England announces publication date for revised constituency proposals and launch of final public consultationA new map of proposed constituencies in England will be published on 8 November by the Boundary Commission for England (BCE), giving members of the public a final chance to have their say on proposals for new constituencies in their area. From 8 November, members of the public will be able to view and comment on new suggested constituency boundaries. This third and final consultation will last four weeks, ending on 5 December, and will be the last opportunity for the public to have a say on the new map of constituencies in England. The Commission will also publish all comments received during the secondary consultation stage, including transcripts from the public hearings held around the country. Following this upcoming final consultation, the BCE will form its final recommendations which will be submitted to Parliament by July 2023. Notes to editors1. The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial advisory body, constituted under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is responsible for conducting reviews of UK Parliament constituencies in England and making recommendations to Parliament. The reviews for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of separate Commissions in those parts of the United Kingdom. 2. The statutory framework for how a review of constituencies must be conducted was most recently changed by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020. 3. The key changes made by this Act are summarised in our news release, published 16 December 2020. These include retaining a total of 650 constituencies across the UK; an additional ‘protected’ constituency of Ynys Môn (Anglesey); and the removal of Parliamentary debates from the process, meaning that future draft Orders will go directly to the Privy Council. 4. The Act also requires the Commission to base this review on electorate data from 2 March 2020. According to the UK’s electorate figures published on 5 January 2021 by the Office for National Statistics, each constituency that we recommend must contain no less than 69,724 Parliamentary electors, and no more than 77,062 (except in England for two ‘protected’ constituencies for the Isle of Wight). England will be allocated 543 constituencies for the new review, which constitutes an increase of ten constituencies. 5. Our initial proposals for new constituencies were published on 8 June 2021, and an eight-week consultation period was held inviting comments on the proposals from the public. The Commission received 34,000 representations in response to that consultation and subsequently published all responses received during this stage on the consultation website. 6. A six-week secondary consultation was held between 22 February and 4 April 2022, including 32 public hearings across the country. After the conclusion of this stage, the Secretariat and Assistant Commissioners reflected on all written and oral representations received during the initial and secondary consultation periods, and submitted reports to the Commissioners recommending whether changes should be made to the initial proposals based on the feedback received. After these recommendations were considered by the Commissioners, written reports were produced summarising any revisions made to the proposals in each region. 7. On 8 November, the Commission will publish these reports and invite the public to participate in a final written consultation on revised proposals for new constituency boundaries.This consultation will be held over four weeks, concluding on 5 December. Representations received during the secondary consultation, including transcripts from the public hearings, will be published on the consultation website bcereviews.org.uk. 8. The Commission must then submit its final report and recommendations to the Speaker of the House of Commons by 1 July 2023. 9. Our Guide to the Review, which explains the statutory framework and policies followed by the Commission in conducting the Review, is available to read on our website here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2022 9:10:46 GMT
By 15 seconds you beat me to it!
|
|
