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 Jun 13, 2021 19:55:34 GMT
Warwickshire illustrates perfectly how the criteria of 'minimal change to existing seats' is so spectacularly wrong-headed because where current arrangements are unsatisfactory, they keep persisting in their unsatisfactoriness.
Lots of unnecessary orphaned wards and LA crossings that can easily be done better.
I shall definitely be making a representation to the BCE on this one.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 13, 2021 20:02:52 GMT
Warwickshire illustrates perfectly how the criteria of 'minimal change to existing seats' is so spectacularly wrong-headed because where current arrangements are unsatisfactory, they keep persisting in their unsatisfactoriness. Lots of unnecessary orphaned wards and LA crossings that can easily be done better. I shall definitely be making a representation to the BCE on this one. To be fair in their commentary they point out that there are changes that better reflect district boundaries and invite comments.
|
|
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 Jun 13, 2021 20:15:05 GMT
Something like this? Preferably I would include Yardley West, South Yardley and either Tyseley or Heartlands keeping the WCML as the northern border but obviously every option has compromises and sub optimal bits somewhere.
Obviously *this* is the optimal Birmingham. All within quota. No ward splits. Nothing for anybody to get upset about:
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 13, 2021 20:24:33 GMT
Warwickshire illustrates perfectly how the criteria of 'minimal change to existing seats' is so spectacularly wrong-headed because where current arrangements are unsatisfactory, they keep persisting in their unsatisfactoriness. Lots of unnecessary orphaned wards and LA crossings that can easily be done better. I shall definitely be making a representation to the BCE on this one. To be fair in their commentary they point out that there are changes that better reflect district boundaries and invite comments. those lines are also a useful angle if you want to argue a Solihull-Warwickshire pairing and a standalone Brum!
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jun 13, 2021 20:37:31 GMT
To be fair in their commentary they point out that there are changes that better reflect district boundaries and invite comments. those lines are also a useful angle if you want to argue a Solihull-Warwickshire pairing and a standalone Brum! It's what I intend to use.
|
|
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 Jun 13, 2021 20:47:55 GMT
To be fair in their commentary they point out that there are changes that better reflect district boundaries and invite comments. those lines are also a useful angle if you want to argue a Solihull-Warwickshire pairing and a standalone Brum! Not sure they'd buy the unnecessary crossing of not just a district but of a county boundary. And I shall make sure my representation makes a feature of avoiding this horrendousness.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 15, 2021 21:08:17 GMT
those lines are also a useful angle if you want to argue a Solihull-Warwickshire pairing and a standalone Brum! Not sure they'd buy the unnecessary crossing of not just a district but of a county boundary. And I shall make sure my representation makes a feature of avoiding this horrendousness. The likelihood that any of the affected areas feel more loyalty towards the (thirty-five years gone) West Midlands County than towards Warwickshire is considerably less than zero.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 17, 2021 17:27:36 GMT
I have no objection in principle to a cross county Solihull - Warwickshire seat and I can see the pragmatic benefits of allowing easy fixes to a couple of annoying imperfections in the Warwickshire seats. However it seems pretty clear to me that the Commission do not want a needless cross of county boundaries and convincing them to do this is probably going to require a plan that has very few downsides.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 19, 2021 17:39:23 GMT
Due to the fact Birmingham is heavily segregated I split it into a couple of groups based of cultural + Demograpic & Geographical data. 1.Sutton Coalfields-74584 (Yellow) a pretty obvious constituency 2.Barr & Erdington-150904 (Dirty Purple) Group in NW birmingham from which one can create a WWC seat & a BAME constituency A.Birmingham Erdington-75,897-Castle Vale,Erdington,Gravelly Hill,Kingstanding,Perry Common,Pype Hayes,Stockland Green & Half of Oscott B.Birmingham Handsworth-75,007-Birchfield,Handsworth,Handsworth Wood,Holyhead,Perry Barr & Half of Oscott 3.Birmingham Yardley-In range-Castle Bromwich,Smith's Wood,Garretts Green,Most of Glebe Farm & Tile Cross,Shared End,Sheldon,Yardley West,South Yardley 4.Selly Oak,Edgebaston & Northfield-229166 (Blue) Suburban South Birmingham 5.Birmingham Hodge Hill-71477 (Orange) Impovrished and Muslim Majority constituency 6.Birmingham Ladywood-69748 (Green) Highly diverse Inner City constituency 7.Birmingham Hall Green-74826 (Pink) Diverse SE Birmingham seat
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2021 14:24:09 GMT
On my counter proposal for Warwickshire to sort out the nonsense in the North of the county, I'm torn between two options for the Stratford and Warwick cross-borough seat.
I will probably submit this, because it's closer to the current situation and keeps Kenilworth and Southam as a seat.
However, I really don't like the shape of Kenilworth and Southam, even if it does sort of replicate the overall shape of Warks. My preference is for a Kenilworth and Arden seat, like this:
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 29, 2021 15:47:10 GMT
I don’t wish to appear rude, so please accept this as constructive criticism, but both of these plans contain some really very odd and frankly bad choices.
Splitting the town of Bedworth, taking Whitnash out of Warwick and Leamington, adding Shipston to Kenilworth & Southam but taking Kineton and Wellesbourne out. If feels like in trying to solve problems you end up with worse solutions.
Personally I don’t like including North Warwickshire wards in the Nuneaton constituency, but the two that are in it have close links to Nuneaton and that’s better than chopping the town of Bedworth in half.
Kenilworth and Southam is not a sensible seat, and everyone locally knows it, so there’s no real reason for maintaining it if there is a better alternative like Kenilworth & Arden. The BCE have said so themselves.
Trying to fit two constituencies into the two southern districts is very tight, so splitting a ward is far better than grasping at any random combination that happens to just fit the quota. The BCE is considering splitting Bishop’s Tachbrook, which is far more sensible than taking Whitnash out of the Leamington constituency and putting it in with Kenilworth. Whitnash is entirely a suburb of Leamington and pretty much indistinguishable on the ground. Just because it has a parish council that doesn’t mean it’s a good fit to take it out of Warwick & Leamington.
I don’t know if you’ve spent much/any time in Warwickshire, and if you have then I apologise for my mistake, but this would appear to be a good example of why people should stick to submitting plans only for places they have a genuinely good local knowledge of.
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2021 16:53:51 GMT
I don’t wish to appear rude, so please accept this as constructive criticism, but both of these plans contain some really very odd and frankly bad choices. Splitting the town of Bedworth, taking Whitnash out of Warwick and Leamington, adding Shipston to Kenilworth & Southam but taking Kineton and Wellesbourne out. If feels like in trying to solve problems you end up with worse solutions. Personally I don’t like including North Warwickshire wards in the Nuneaton constituency, but the two that are in it have close links to Nuneaton and that’s better than chopping the town of Bedworth in half. Kenilworth and Southam is not a sensible seat, and everyone locally knows it, so there’s no real reason for maintaining it if there is a better alternative like Kenilworth & Arden. The BCE have said so themselves. Trying to fit two constituencies into the two southern districts is very tight, so splitting a ward is far better than grasping at any random combination that happens to just fit the quota. The BCE is considering splitting Bishop’s Tachbrook, which is far more sensible than taking Whitnash out of the Leamington constituency and putting it in with Kenilworth. Whitnash is entirely a suburb of Leamington and pretty much indistinguishable on the ground. Just because it has a parish council that doesn’t mean it’s a good fit to take it out of Warwick & Leamington. I don’t know if you’ve spent much/any time in Warwickshire, and if you have then I apologise for my mistake, but this would appear to be a good example of why people should stick to submitting plans only for places they have a genuinely good local knowledge of.
Yes, I have had a pretty strong knowledge of the local area since early childhood. Do you think I support CCFC just for the glory?!? I'm pretty sure that at one point I had relatives living in all six of these seats.
This is likely to be the *only* recommendation I submit entirely *because* I know the area and feel comfortable making recommendations.
So... addressing the constructive criticisms...
Not having the Slough ward in the Bedworth and North Warwickshire constituency isn't perfect (and ideally Bulkington would be in that seat as well), but it's worth it to have a single, self-contained Rugby seat with no orphaned wards and only one LA-crossing in that half of the county rather than three, which is the current situation, and that which is proposed to continue unaltered.
Whitnash just fucks up the numbers horribly in Warwick and Leamington. It's not possible to include it without excluding another ward that really should be part of that seat and which would be equally bad in my view.
Kenilworth and Southam - Of course it's bad, and as I said, the Kenilworth and Arden version in the south of the county is my strong preference. My rationale was that the BCE might prefer the Kenilworth and Southam version because it's a nod to the 'minimal change' criteria.
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission.
(You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!)
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jul 29, 2021 17:15:20 GMT
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission. (You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!) I would regard having Hartshill ward in the Nuneaton constituency as vastly preferable to splitting Bedworth. Obviously this means a second LA crossing but I consider that to be quite easily the lesser of two evils. Quite clearly you place a premium on minimising LA crossings so disagree. Likewise I see no problem with having Leam Valley as an orphan ward, it arguably fits better with a southern Warwickshire seat than with Rugby and certainly makes the numbers for Southern Warwickshire much easier to manage.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 29, 2021 17:43:01 GMT
I don’t wish to appear rude, so please accept this as constructive criticism, but both of these plans contain some really very odd and frankly bad choices. Splitting the town of Bedworth, taking Whitnash out of Warwick and Leamington, adding Shipston to Kenilworth & Southam but taking Kineton and Wellesbourne out. If feels like in trying to solve problems you end up with worse solutions. Personally I don’t like including North Warwickshire wards in the Nuneaton constituency, but the two that are in it have close links to Nuneaton and that’s better than chopping the town of Bedworth in half. Kenilworth and Southam is not a sensible seat, and everyone locally knows it, so there’s no real reason for maintaining it if there is a better alternative like Kenilworth & Arden. The BCE have said so themselves. Trying to fit two constituencies into the two southern districts is very tight, so splitting a ward is far better than grasping at any random combination that happens to just fit the quota. The BCE is considering splitting Bishop’s Tachbrook, which is far more sensible than taking Whitnash out of the Leamington constituency and putting it in with Kenilworth. Whitnash is entirely a suburb of Leamington and pretty much indistinguishable on the ground. Just because it has a parish council that doesn’t mean it’s a good fit to take it out of Warwick & Leamington. I don’t know if you’ve spent much/any time in Warwickshire, and if you have then I apologise for my mistake, but this would appear to be a good example of why people should stick to submitting plans only for places they have a genuinely good local knowledge of.
Yes, I have had a pretty strong knowledge of the local area since early childhood. Do you think I support CCFC just for the glory?!? I'm pretty sure that at one point I had relatives living in all six of these seats.
This is likely to be the *only* recommendation I submit entirely *because* I know the area and feel comfortable making recommendations.
So... addressing the constructive criticisms...
Not having the Slough ward in the Bedworth and North Warwickshire constituency isn't perfect (and ideally Bulkington would be in that seat as well), but it's worth it to have a single, self-contained Rugby seat with no orphaned wards and only one LA-crossing in that half of the county rather than three, which is the current situation, and that which is proposed to continue unaltered.
Whitnash just fucks up the numbers horribly in Warwick and Leamington. It's not possible to include it without excluding another ward that really should be part of that seat and which would be equally bad in my view.
Kenilworth and Southam - Of course it's bad, and as I said, the Kenilworth and Arden version in the south of the county is my strong preference. My rationale was that the BCE might prefer the Kenilworth and Southam version because it's a nod to the 'minimal change' criteria.
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission.
(You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!)
Sorry to disappoint but frankly, I think you've set yourself an impossible task because the BCE likes minimum change (not unreasonably, given the statutory rules) and this can be achieved in Warwks with the shifting of a grand total of one ward - which is exactly what the BCE has done.
So if you want change in Warwks you have to stir things up somehow and the easiest way to do that is to become a Birmingham boundary purist and insist that the city must be treated by itself for 10 whole seats.
This will mean that two Solihull wards will have to be accommodated somehow, meaning in turn that at least one Solihull ward (or two if you prefer) will be squeezed out into Warwks. This may give you an opportunity to argue for more significant change.
But if Warwks is to be treated alone for 6 seats, I'd be very doubtful whether the BCE could be persuaded to change a scheme that has four of the current seats unchanged and the other two just swapping one ward.
Actually I thought the BCE's plans across the whole W Mids region were not bad, and I haven't made any representations there.
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2021 18:17:27 GMT
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission. (You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!) I would regard having Hartshill ward in the Nuneaton constituency as vastly preferable to splitting Bedworth. Obviously this means a second LA crossing but I consider that to be quite easily the lesser of two evils. Quite clearly you place a premium on minimising LA crossings so disagree. Likewise I see no problem with having Leam Valley as an orphan ward, it arguably fits better with a southern Warwickshire seat than with Rugby and certainly makes the numbers for Southern Warwickshire much easier to manage.
Indeed - much of the boundaries debate comes down to individual preferences, priorities and premiums. For me, minimising LA crossings is probably the single most important thing, in that I like to avoid ward splits, but I'd take a ward split every single time if it's the only way to avoid crossing LA boundaries.
If seats have better community ties or shapes which don't meet this criteria then I strongly believe that the solution should be to change the LA boundaries THEN redraw the seats, rather than create seats with myriad LA crossings. The process for getting badly-drawn LA boundaries changed should be easier - at least while some of the dogs breakfasts that exist now continue to be so.
I accept that this isn't everyones point of view, obviously, though apparently it leaves me open to the implication that I know cunt-all about the area just because I happen to favour minimal LA crossings...
What particularly irks me is when seats like Rugby that are exactly the right size to be conterminous with the LA, have wards both added *and* taken away - that for me is doubly unforgivable.
And consequently, the starting point for any six-seat Warwickshire plan for me will always be the 'perfect Rugby'.
I also strongly favour any LA that is too small to be a seat on its own - like North Warwickshire - being contained within a single seat. Though ideally I'd like LAs to be bigger anyway, because I think there is far, far too much local government in far too many layers and would like to simplify the lot of it into a bunch of biggish unitary authorities and nothing else.
I get the issue with the surplus Solihull wards, which are a pain because Warwickshire, Coventry and Birmingham can all have an exact number of seats, while Bromsgrove is perfect on its own and shouldn't be messed with.
Thinking about it, I'd prefer non-contiguous/enclave seats if it meant fewer knock-on effects and boundary crossings overall. Pairing the entirety of Redditch with two Solihull wards, that sort of thing. But I dread to think how unpopular that would be.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,023
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 30, 2021 8:38:43 GMT
Yes, I have had a pretty strong knowledge of the local area since early childhood. Do you think I support CCFC just for the glory?!? I'm pretty sure that at one point I had relatives living in all six of these seats.
This is likely to be the *only* recommendation I submit entirely *because* I know the area and feel comfortable making recommendations.
So... addressing the constructive criticisms...
Not having the Slough ward in the Bedworth and North Warwickshire constituency isn't perfect (and ideally Bulkington would be in that seat as well), but it's worth it to have a single, self-contained Rugby seat with no orphaned wards and only one LA-crossing in that half of the county rather than three, which is the current situation, and that which is proposed to continue unaltered.
Whitnash just fucks up the numbers horribly in Warwick and Leamington. It's not possible to include it without excluding another ward that really should be part of that seat and which would be equally bad in my view.
Kenilworth and Southam - Of course it's bad, and as I said, the Kenilworth and Arden version in the south of the county is my strong preference. My rationale was that the BCE might prefer the Kenilworth and Southam version because it's a nod to the 'minimal change' criteria.
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission.
(You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!)
In that case I can only apologise for misjudging you, and for the pain you have suffered as a CCFC fan! Personally I place no priority on any of the 'rules' over any others. I don't fetishise not splitting wards or not crossing districts or not having orphan wards. For me the priority it getting constituencies that best reflect community ties within the quota. That's what matters more to constituents, and I don't care if it makes the job a little bit harder for the electoral services officers. That's what they're paid to do after all. I would disagree profoundly on the Whitnash question. I think it has far greater claim to be in the Warwick and Leamington seat than Budbrooke or even Bishop's Tachbrook. The BCE's alternative option of splitting Bishop's Tachbrook ward so the village itself leaves Warwick and Leamington but the suburban bits around Heathcote stay in seems very sensible to me. In terms of the north of the county, I agree entirely on matching Rugby to the district and ending the orphan Bulkington situation. And that can be done without splitting Bedworth in two. But your choice to cut it down to just one cross-district seat I think leads to unduly negative effects for community representation for Bedworth. At the moment having cross-border Nuneaton and North Warwickshire seats isn't causing problems, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to continue given that the alternative is significantly worse. You also say you went for minimal change in the south of the county even though you prefer the alternative, but in the north you've gone against minimal change because you prefer the alternative. In terms of my own alternative: Nuneaton: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* North Warwickshire: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* Rugby: coterminous with Rugby district Warwick and Leamington: Leamington wards x5, Warwick wards x3, Whitnash, Polling District WAB from Bishop's Tachbrook ward (part of the new Heathcote development) Stratford upon Avon: as your second plan Kenilworth and Arden: remaining wards from Stratford and Warwick districts *I have no strong view on whether Bulkington would be better in Nuneaton or North Warwickshire. The numbers work for both, and pre-1974 it was part of the Bedworth Urban District, whereas now it shares its county councillor with part of Nuneaton proper. I'd leave it up to locals to choose.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 30, 2021 9:06:18 GMT
Trying to fit two constituencies into the two southern districts is very tight, so splitting a ward is far better than grasping at any random combination that happens to just fit the quota. The BCE is considering splitting Bishop’s Tachbrook, which is far more sensible than taking Whitnash out of the Leamington constituency and putting it in with Kenilworth. Whitnash is entirely a suburb of Leamington and pretty much indistinguishable on the ground. Just because it has a parish council that doesn’t mean it’s a good fit to take it out of Warwick & Leamington. In point of fact Whitnash has a Town Council - this is because in the early 1970s it was clear to the locals that it was functionally part of Leamington and would get folded into the town by the boundary changes, but they knew that towns had better protection against absorption than parishes. I got this from my late grandparents who lived in Whitnash and had half the parish council at the time living just down the street. So yes, it really shouldn't be separated from Warwick & Leamington.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 30, 2021 11:45:21 GMT
Trying to fit two constituencies into the two southern districts is very tight, so splitting a ward is far better than grasping at any random combination that happens to just fit the quota. The BCE is considering splitting Bishop’s Tachbrook, which is far more sensible than taking Whitnash out of the Leamington constituency and putting it in with Kenilworth. Whitnash is entirely a suburb of Leamington and pretty much indistinguishable on the ground. Just because it has a parish council that doesn’t mean it’s a good fit to take it out of Warwick & Leamington. In point of fact Whitnash has a Town Council - this is because in the early 1970s it was clear to the locals that it was functionally part of Leamington and would get folded into the town by the boundary changes, but they knew that towns had better protection against absorption than parishes. I got this from my late grandparents who lived in Whitnash and had half the parish council at the time living just down the street. So yes, it really shouldn't be separated from Warwick & Leamington. This fact did not save other small towns from being absorbed into cities and losing their town councils e.g. Gosforth when it was absorbed by Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
|
|
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 Jul 31, 2021 14:44:54 GMT
Yes, I have had a pretty strong knowledge of the local area since early childhood. Do you think I support CCFC just for the glory?!? I'm pretty sure that at one point I had relatives living in all six of these seats.
This is likely to be the *only* recommendation I submit entirely *because* I know the area and feel comfortable making recommendations.
So... addressing the constructive criticisms...
Not having the Slough ward in the Bedworth and North Warwickshire constituency isn't perfect (and ideally Bulkington would be in that seat as well), but it's worth it to have a single, self-contained Rugby seat with no orphaned wards and only one LA-crossing in that half of the county rather than three, which is the current situation, and that which is proposed to continue unaltered.
Whitnash just fucks up the numbers horribly in Warwick and Leamington. It's not possible to include it without excluding another ward that really should be part of that seat and which would be equally bad in my view.
Kenilworth and Southam - Of course it's bad, and as I said, the Kenilworth and Arden version in the south of the county is my strong preference. My rationale was that the BCE might prefer the Kenilworth and Southam version because it's a nod to the 'minimal change' criteria.
But if you can do better, let's see it, and I'll change my submission.
(You can probably tell that anything with split wards, orphans or additional LA crossings isn't likely to be 'better' in my view, mind!)
In that case I can only apologise for misjudging you, and for the pain you have suffered as a CCFC fan! Personally I place no priority on any of the 'rules' over any others. I don't fetishise not splitting wards or not crossing districts or not having orphan wards. For me the priority it getting constituencies that best reflect community ties within the quota. That's what matters more to constituents, and I don't care if it makes the job a little bit harder for the electoral services officers. That's what they're paid to do after all. I would disagree profoundly on the Whitnash question. I think it has far greater claim to be in the Warwick and Leamington seat than Budbrooke or even Bishop's Tachbrook. The BCE's alternative option of splitting Bishop's Tachbrook ward so the village itself leaves Warwick and Leamington but the suburban bits around Heathcote stay in seems very sensible to me. In terms of the north of the county, I agree entirely on matching Rugby to the district and ending the orphan Bulkington situation. And that can be done without splitting Bedworth in two. But your choice to cut it down to just one cross-district seat I think leads to unduly negative effects for community representation for Bedworth. At the moment having cross-border Nuneaton and North Warwickshire seats isn't causing problems, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to continue given that the alternative is significantly worse. You also say you went for minimal change in the south of the county even though you prefer the alternative, but in the north you've gone against minimal change because you prefer the alternative. In terms of my own alternative: Nuneaton: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* North Warwickshire: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* Rugby: coterminous with Rugby district Warwick and Leamington: Leamington wards x5, Warwick wards x3, Whitnash, Polling District WAB from Bishop's Tachbrook ward (part of the new Heathcote development) Stratford upon Avon: as your second plan Kenilworth and Arden: remaining wards from Stratford and Warwick districts *I have no strong view on whether Bulkington would be better in Nuneaton or North Warwickshire. The numbers work for both, and pre-1974 it was part of the Bedworth Urban District, whereas now it shares its county councillor with part of Nuneaton proper. I'd leave it up to locals to choose.
This isn't all that different from my plan really - and if I allowed myself split wards it would be even more similar. I don't have a problem with that configuration of W&L - it's the including bits of Rugby and the knock-on Bulkington Effect that I wanted to resolve.
I'd prefer a split ward over an additional LA crossing - so how about we split off the southern bit of Poplar ward into Nuneaton (it only needs to be about 1500 electors) along with Bulkington? The only issue I'd have here is that the canal feels like a 'natural' boundary. Collycroft would be another option, but I'm guessing you feel strongly this should be in the same seat as Bedworth.
It comes down to BCE reluctance to split wards - which isn't as strict as it once was, but is probably still an issue.
I refer to my earlier point about community ties - if a configuration with *more* LA crossings creates better community ties than one with fewer LA crossings then this is a strong indicator that the LA boundaries are sub-optimal, and therefore the joined up solution is to change these first, then come up with new seats.
As a district, North Warwickshire was never a brilliant idea in the first place and like Solihill it feels like 'leftovers' of Brum and Cov. It probably should've been one bigger LA to begin with, with Nuneaton as the administrative centre. Then again, I'd have made Cov a bit bigger, certainly to the East and West. Ryton, Brandon, Balsall common etc. really ought to have been included.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 31, 2021 14:56:59 GMT
In that case I can only apologise for misjudging you, and for the pain you have suffered as a CCFC fan! Personally I place no priority on any of the 'rules' over any others. I don't fetishise not splitting wards or not crossing districts or not having orphan wards. For me the priority it getting constituencies that best reflect community ties within the quota. That's what matters more to constituents, and I don't care if it makes the job a little bit harder for the electoral services officers. That's what they're paid to do after all. I would disagree profoundly on the Whitnash question. I think it has far greater claim to be in the Warwick and Leamington seat than Budbrooke or even Bishop's Tachbrook. The BCE's alternative option of splitting Bishop's Tachbrook ward so the village itself leaves Warwick and Leamington but the suburban bits around Heathcote stay in seems very sensible to me. In terms of the north of the county, I agree entirely on matching Rugby to the district and ending the orphan Bulkington situation. And that can be done without splitting Bedworth in two. But your choice to cut it down to just one cross-district seat I think leads to unduly negative effects for community representation for Bedworth. At the moment having cross-border Nuneaton and North Warwickshire seats isn't causing problems, so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to continue given that the alternative is significantly worse. You also say you went for minimal change in the south of the county even though you prefer the alternative, but in the north you've gone against minimal change because you prefer the alternative. In terms of my own alternative: Nuneaton: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* North Warwickshire: as present (possibly plus Bulkington)* Rugby: coterminous with Rugby district Warwick and Leamington: Leamington wards x5, Warwick wards x3, Whitnash, Polling District WAB from Bishop's Tachbrook ward (part of the new Heathcote development) Stratford upon Avon: as your second plan Kenilworth and Arden: remaining wards from Stratford and Warwick districts *I have no strong view on whether Bulkington would be better in Nuneaton or North Warwickshire. The numbers work for both, and pre-1974 it was part of the Bedworth Urban District, whereas now it shares its county councillor with part of Nuneaton proper. I'd leave it up to locals to choose.
This isn't all that different from my plan really - and if I allowed myself split wards it would be even more similar. I don't have a problem with that configuration of W&L - it's the including bits of Rugby and the knock-on Bulkington Effect that I wanted to resolve.
I'd prefer a split ward over an additional LA crossing - so how about we split off the southern bit of Poplar ward into Nuneaton (it only needs to be about 1500 electors) along with Bulkington? The only issue I'd have here is that the canal feels like a 'natural' boundary. Collycroft would be another option, but I'm guessing you feel strongly this should be in the same seat as Bedworth.
It comes down to BCE reluctance to split wards - which isn't as strict as it once was, but is probably still an issue.
I refer to my earlier point about community ties - if a configuration with *more* LA crossings creates better community ties than one with fewer LA crossings then this is a strong indicator that the LA boundaries are sub-optimal, and therefore the joined up solution is to change these first, then come up with new seats.
As a district, North Warwickshire was never a brilliant idea in the first place and like Solihill it feels like 'leftovers' of Brum and Cov. It probably should've been one bigger LA to begin with, with Nuneaton as the administrative centre. Then again, I'd have made Cov a bit bigger, certainly to the East and West. Ryton, Brandon, Balsall common etc. really ought to have been included.
Aren't you worrying about the wrong end of Warwks?
If you want Rugby district to have a seat to itself, then in the north of the county your only concern is what to do with Bulkington, which slots neatly into either Nuneaton or N Warwks (whichever you prefer), leaving the other one unchanged. It's in the south that your real difficulty lies, because Warwick and Stratford districts, together, are only just big enough for three seats. It can be done, even without ward splits, but it's messy. You really need to find some more voters from somewhere, which the BCE has done by including two wards from Rugby. If you don't like that approach, my suggestion is to find them from Solihull.
|
|