|
Post by minionofmidas on May 5, 2021 14:39:28 GMT
Also that isn't strictly accurate. Locally the area known as Crosby is split between Church, Victoria ,Manor and Blundellsands. Molyneux covers Aintree, a bit of Maghull and a couple of villages Yes but you could get away with calling the seat Crosby by just adding Victoria (Church was in Bootle rather than Crosby between 1983 and 1997) but it's really difficult to justify the name without Victoria. I actually think having a sensible name should trump minimum change considerations in a case like this. or you could just find a prettier name for the existing seat if you can't bear the soulcrushingly sensible Council's Random Current Name Central. What's wrong with Formby & Maghull?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on May 5, 2021 14:55:28 GMT
Also that isn't strictly accurate. Locally the area known as Crosby is split between Church, Victoria ,Manor and Blundellsands. Molyneux covers Aintree, a bit of Maghull and a couple of villages Yes but you could get away with calling the seat Crosby by just adding Victoria (Church was in Bootle rather than Crosby between 1983 and 1997) but it's really difficult to justify the name without Victoria. I actually think having a sensible name should trump minimum change considerations in a case like this. Can we fix the ward names too?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 5, 2021 15:07:25 GMT
Yes but you could get away with calling the seat Crosby by just adding Victoria (Church was in Bootle rather than Crosby between 1983 and 1997) but it's really difficult to justify the name without Victoria. I actually think having a sensible name should trump minimum change considerations in a case like this. or you could just find a prettier name for the existing seat if you can't bear the soulcrushingly sensible Council's Random Current Name Central. What's wrong with Formby & Maghull? Yes that would be an improvement
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 5, 2021 15:23:05 GMT
or you could just find a prettier name for the existing seat if you can't bear the soulcrushingly sensible Council's Random Current Name Central. What's wrong with Formby & Maghull? Yes that would be an improvement Yes it would.
Or even just 'Sefton', which although it's a complete twopenny-halfpenny place is at least in the said seat. There are precedents for using the name of a very small settlement within the seat (Broxbourne, Gedling, Knowsley) and while I don't much like these names they are not so bad as completely invented ones like Hertsmere, Castle Point, Gravesham &c.
But 'Sefton Central' gives the impression that there's a vast heaving metropolis called Sefton and that this constituency is merely the middle part of it.
If the seat continues as currently drawn, 'Formby & Maghull' gets my vote.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 5, 2021 16:17:29 GMT
Yes that would be an improvement Yes it would.
Or even just 'Sefton', which although it's a complete twopenny-halfpenny place is at least in the said seat. There are precedents for using the name of a very small settlement within the seat (Broxbourne, Gedling, Knowsley) (ignoring that all 4 are named for councils, begging the question of why the councils were named like that) if you're going with a tiny settlement with a pretty name not too far off the center of the seat this one should totes be called Lady Green. Gravesham isn't invented, they just corrected centuries of atrocious spelling. Much like when the Taunus village of Hundstall changed its name to Hunoldstal. (Hundstall means Dog Sty. Hunold is an extinct-but-still-recognizable first name and Tal is Dale, of course.) No idea about Hertsmere and Castle Point is some kind of portmanteau iirc. They could have at least been consistent, but I guess they were too afraid of the angry letters from Sefton N and the molotov cocktails from Sefton SW.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 5, 2021 16:33:26 GMT
I suppose they could have called Castle Point “East Haven” on the same principle as Swale, although the muddy channel that separates Benfleet from Canvey is considerably narrower. Perhaps since Thundersley is in the middle of it, they could have called it Valhalla......
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 7, 2021 13:19:12 GMT
Not sure how technical it will be, but the BCE’s ‘Guide to the 2023 Review of Parliamentary constituencies’ will be published next week:
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,565
|
Post by Khunanup on May 9, 2021 10:32:45 GMT
Yes that would be an improvement Yes it would. Or even just 'Sefton', which although it's a complete twopenny-halfpenny place is at least in the said seat. There are precedents for using the name of a very small settlement within the seat (Broxbourne, Gedling, Knowsley) and while I don't much like these names they are not so bad as completely invented ones like Hertsmere, Castle Point, Gravesham &c. But 'Sefton Central' gives the impression that there's a vast heaving metropolis called Sefton and that this constituency is merely the middle part of it. If the seat continues as currently drawn, 'Formby & Maghull' gets my vote.
Greater Bootle. I'm sure that would go down well... 😁
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on May 10, 2021 9:36:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2021 9:51:12 GMT
Para 61 - the BCE plans to publish its initial proposals in June 2021.
Paras 30-32 contain some ruminations on the subject of ward splits.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on May 10, 2021 10:14:32 GMT
Paras 30-32 contain some ruminations on the subject of ward splits. That seems reasonably sensible to me.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on May 10, 2021 12:42:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 10, 2021 16:03:41 GMT
I agree with the political parties’ point made in the political meeting - the only reasonable basis that needs to be considered for ward splitting should be ‘are the statutory factors would be better met?’
The guidance is a little too dogmatic on ward splitting IMO.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2021 17:15:59 GMT
I agree with the political parties’ point made in the political meeting - the only reasonable basis that needs to be considered for ward splitting should be ‘are the statutory factors would be better met?’ The guidance is a little too dogmatic on ward splitting IMO. Yes, but it's a circular argument because taking account of local government boundaries, specifically including those of wards, is one of the statutory factors.
So my interpretation would be that to justify a ward split you need to show a significant improvement - not a slight improvement - in the overall scheme for an area having regard to the statutory factors taken together. It's the same as the justification for crossing a local authority boundary, or changing an existing constituency, when not compelled to do so by numbers.
Why would you do that? Surely, only in a case where it results in a markedly better scheme overall.
For my money (but I'm not the BCE) I can why you might want a small number of ward splits in Y&H, especially in W Yorks. Even there, I'm not entirely sold on the idea because workable non-split solutions are definitely available; but I can see the argument. I'd want to see a proposed ward-split plan so I can judge whether it is a significant improvement on the best possible non-split plan - for instance if it reduces the number of LA boundary-crossings or involves a lot less disruption to the existing seat pattern.
I'm struggling to see the case elsewhere in England, but I'm keeping an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 14, 2021 8:09:58 GMT
Come to think of it, Wandsworth is another case where a single ward split would allow much more respect for LA boundaries and the existing seat pattern.
I suppose I'm gradually coming round to the argument for the odd split here and there.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 16, 2021 15:28:57 GMT
Come to think of it, Wandsworth is another case where a single ward split would allow much more respect for LA boundaries and the existing seat pattern. I suppose I'm gradually coming round to the argument for the odd split here and there. The more I seek, the more I find. Apart from the W Yorks area, which always looked like the strongest candidate for ward splits, I'd now definitely add Wirral, Solihull and Wandsworth and I'm about to look at Dudley.
It follows from all this that I no longer stand by the overall scheme I outlined a few days ago. I'm now actively seeking places where ward splits allow more adherence to LA boundaries and, especially, less disruption to the current map.
Speaking frankly, I don't think I've been giving enough weight to minimum change. After all, if you look at the bulleted factors in Rule 5, three of the five are about respecting existing boundaries in some way or other, and that has to constitute a very strong legislative hint that maintaining existing seats, or at least not disrupting them too badly, is what should be uppermost in our minds.
So I'm making more strenuous efforts to maintain continuity with the present map, where it's reasonably practical to do so, and I will split wards when they stand in the way (although obviously I'll still realign seats to new ward boundaries). I don't want to go overboard on the splits, but it's definitely going to be more than 'the odd one here and there'. It wouldn't surprise me if I ended up with 15 or even 20 (in England).
Striving for closer adherence to the current map also means that I'm switching my allegiance to a 4-seat Belfast solution in NI.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 16, 2021 18:57:01 GMT
I'd tend to suggest that ward splits outside mets aren't necessary, because the building blocks aren't large enough to prevent whole-ward feasible solutions. I might also extend that to some of the new unitaries which just use county division boundaries, but only in cases where it's obvious that the county division boundaries are not particularly good reflections of local identities anyway (Northamptonshire is probably the only example in the current round, and that's marginal at best.)
I think if you get too ambitious about proposing ward splits then you raise the bar for making a meaningful response to consultations a bit too far - sure, most respondents aren't going to produce a fully-worked out plan (and those who are either affiliated with a political party, an incorrigible nerd or both) but in theory all you need is a couple of hours on Boundary Assistant to do it. Requiring somebody to also take into account the possibility of ward splits just makes it too complicated, because whilst in practice most people won't engage with the consultation in that detail, the option ought at least to be open to them.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 16, 2021 20:05:46 GMT
I'd tend to suggest that ward splits outside mets aren't necessary, because the building blocks aren't large enough to prevent whole-ward feasible solutions. I might also extend that to some of the new unitaries which just use county division boundaries, but only in cases where it's obvious that the county division boundaries are not particularly good reflections of local identities anyway (Northamptonshire is probably the only example in the current round, and that's marginal at best.) I think if you get too ambitious about proposing ward splits then you raise the bar for making a meaningful response to consultations a bit too far - sure, most respondents aren't going to produce a fully-worked out plan (and those who are either affiliated with a political party, an incorrigible nerd or both) but in theory all you need is a couple of hours on Boundary Assistant to do it. Requiring somebody to also take into account the possibility of ward splits just makes it too complicated, because whilst in practice most people won't engage with the consultation in that detail, the option ought at least to be open to them. It's interesting you should say that because it's one of the reasons I disliked ward-splitting in the first place. While it creates more flexibility, which may sound like a good thing on the face of it, it also introduces much more potential for complexity. Thus it becomes for difficult for members of the public to engage with the process.
But there it is, I'm afraid. In too many areas, the wards are too big for a balanced approach. You can produce a workable non-split plan just about everywhere, but in too many areas the size and configuration of wards leaves you with so few options that there's little or no scope to take account of other legitimate considerations, like LA boundaries and minimum change.
I agree that it's likely that ward splits will be confined to areas where wards are large.
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 17, 2021 9:14:30 GMT
Update: I've been working my way around the country, concentrating on areas with large wards, looking for cases where, compared with the best non-split version, there is an obviously superior alternative that can be achieved by a ward split (or, at least, by a manageably small number of splits).
I'm splitting only where there's a very definite improvement. If in doubt, or if the improvement in only marginal, I'll stick to the non-split plan.
Based on this approach, I'm splitting less than I expected and my estimate of 15-20, which was influenced by seven splits in Y&H alone, is looking too high. I thought Hounslow, Dudley and Leicester were all likely candidates but although ward-slit solutions are possible, they don't seem to offer sufficient improvement over the non-split alternative. Plymouth was another plausible candidate but I can't find a solution there without multiple splits so I'm sticking to the non-split version, which is not bad in itself although a long way from minimum change.
So at the moment I have eleven: the seven in Y&H plus one each in Wirral, Solihull, Coventry and Wandsworth.
This is based on England only. I can't see much case for a split in Wales (except possibly in Cardiff?) or in NI. Scotland is a whole separate world of pain, of course.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 17, 2021 9:30:58 GMT
I can't see much case for a split in Wales (except possibly in Cardiff?) Swansea Neath Whatever sounds equally plausible. Of course we'd first need any kind of consensus what we want to accomplish there and in Mid and North Wales (since these questions are so interconnected, whatever is in the bc's first outline will probably see only marginal emendation. )
|
|