|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 23, 2022 5:18:04 GMT
Wasn't there a directive from the Electoral Commission after 2010 to get polling districts under 2000-2500? Per polling station, not per polling district. So maybe it has two polling stations within the same polling place for the polling district. That’s quite common in London for example. |
|
|
|
Post by jacoblamsden on Mar 29, 2022 11:52:01 GMT
Good to see Howard Simmons' flat cap making an appearance at the public hearings, the only Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate wearing headgear.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 3, 2022 20:53:12 GMT
South East now submitted: BCE-94668.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 4, 2022 7:07:20 GMT
South East now submitted: BCE-94668. What did you suggest here? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 4, 2022 8:40:34 GMT
South East now submitted: BCE-94668. What did you suggest here? I reaffirmed my advocacy of a Maidenhead and Marlow seat and the many benefits deriving therefrom. I had the brainwave a few weeks ago of typing 'Maidenhead and Marlow' into google and bing and I got a huge number of hits of voluntary and commercial bodies that specifically present themselves as serving the two towns - everything from a Saturday walkers' club to a teacher of 'baby signing' (whatever that is). So I feel I've demonstrated that there is a natural affinity here and while I probably shan't succeed, I want to give it my best shot because of the improvements it allows in both Bucks and Berks. (Your Flackwell Heath idea, for instance, sorts Bucks out nicely but does nothing for Berks.)
I also supported the LibDem scheme in Hants (but also suggested a small tweak); suggested some changes in Surrey that become much easier as a result of the LibDems' Hants plan; pointed out, pace the Labour submission, that it is perfectly possible to keep an east-west split of Reading without the Silchester monstrosity that they proposed (although they didn't call it that); and proposed some changes in Kent in response to complaints received at the first stage.
Quite a wide-ranging submission, in fact. In most other regions I was more focused, although I also had a lot to say in the North West (much of it in support of your ideas).
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 26, 2022 20:06:04 GMT
It's too late of course, and I don't think this would have been my preferred plan even if I'd thought of it in time (which I didn't). But here's a Hants/Surrey scheme that keeps Aldershot and Farnborough together, keeps the Yateleys together, and throws in a nice Basingstoke doughnut. Farnham & Fleet, anyone?
Edited to add: Also, it maintains three further seats unchanged - Aldershot, E Hants and (subject to ward realignment) Meon Valley. So it's rather growing on me, but it's all too late of course. |
|
|
|
Post by redvers on Nov 7, 2022 22:03:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by redvers on Nov 7, 2022 22:57:32 GMT
Tip of my hat to Pete Whitehead - if the Windsor constituency has to cross counties, his proposal of Englefield Green and Virginia Water rather than Egham is certainly much more acceptable!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 7, 2022 23:03:38 GMT
Tip of my hat to Pete Whitehead - if the Windsor constituency has to cross counties, his proposal of Englefield Green and Virginia Water rather than Egham is certainly much more acceptable! Jonathan Stansby too - that name crops up a lot along with Oliver Raven and John Bryant. I know who those last two are. Is Jonathan Stansby one of ours too? |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 7, 2022 23:28:23 GMT
Had a good look through. They've pretty much stuck to their guns everywhere with the exception of bigger changes in West Sussex.
So that means some pretty radical changes in the south and east of Hampshire remain, which will cause some selection fun between Tory MPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 8, 2022 8:47:34 GMT
Had a good look through. They've pretty much stuck to their guns everywhere with the exception of bigger changes in West Sussex. So that means some pretty radical changes in the south and east of Hampshire remain, which will cause some selection fun between Tory MPs. The changes in West Sussex are substantial. There's a much less rural Chichester. I'm not sure that Labour will like the way Worthing has been carved... Labour seems to have been rather silent in the exercise in this area, with a lot of Tory voices. |
|
|
|
Post by samtheodoridi on Nov 8, 2022 10:00:03 GMT
Had a good look through. They've pretty much stuck to their guns everywhere with the exception of bigger changes in West Sussex. So that means some pretty radical changes in the south and east of Hampshire remain, which will cause some selection fun between Tory MPs. The changes in West Sussex are substantial. There's a much less rural Chichester. I'm not sure that Labour will like the way Worthing has been carved... Labour seems to have been rather silent in the exercise in this area, with a lot of Tory voices. If you look at the submissions by both Labour and the Conservatives, they both supported a Worthing Constituency, with slightly different configurations. The latest proposals therefore come as a bit of a shock. The commission seems to have valued protecting the rural nature of Arundel and South Downs at the expense of one of the county's large towns. That Worthing was ever split up was a historic wrong, and the commission really should have stuck to their guns and re-formed a Worthing Constituency. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,630 
Member is Online
|
Post by ricmk on Nov 8, 2022 10:57:03 GMT
The changes in West Sussex are substantial. There's a much less rural Chichester. I'm not sure that Labour will like the way Worthing has been carved... Labour seems to have been rather silent in the exercise in this area, with a lot of Tory voices. If you look at the submissions by both Labour and the Conservatives, they both supported a Worthing Constituency, with slightly different configurations. The latest proposals therefore come as a bit of a shock. The commission seems to have valued protecting the rural nature of Arundel and South Downs at the expense of one of the county's large towns. That Worthing was ever split up was a historic wrong, and the commission really should have stuck to their guns and re-formed a Worthing Constituency. It might be worth putting that in at this stage as consultation feedback. If there is a bigger reaction against these plans than the previous ones, they can always revert back. The LGBCE has sometimes done that when they've done a secondary consultation phase and found their Plan B is even worse received. The proposals in the SE, and in England more generally that I've seen, are small-c Conservative. Deal with the most unpopular elements, minimum change where they can get away with it. In MK the predicted constituency name changes have been made but no one was really arguing the boundaries here. The Bucks/Beds and Beds/Hants crossings always likely to be a hard sell despite their merits, but the ward split in Beaconsfield seems helpful. Not much else to say as I don't know West Sussex well, you'd guess this is where the focus will be at the final stage, apart from the name of Henley. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 8, 2022 11:30:29 GMT
Why "Bicester & Woodstock" when Kidlington seems a more significant place?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 8, 2022 11:33:49 GMT
Because Woodstock is in a different local authority from Bicester, whereas Kidlington isn't, and they like to have something to flag that up even if it isn't a good reason.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 8, 2022 11:38:06 GMT
Why "Bicester & Woodstock" when Kidlington seems a more significant place? I suggested that name, and my motivation was to describe the extent of the constituency better. |
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Nov 8, 2022 11:38:42 GMT
Because Woodstock is in a different local authority from Bicester, whereas Kidlington isn't, and they like to have something to flag that up even if it isn't a good reason. Probably to also appease the Tory-inclined voters who didn’t want to be associated with Bicester in the first place, giving them the far more upmarket Woodstock. That being (cynically) said, I think it's a better name. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 8, 2022 11:48:04 GMT
Why "Bicester & Woodstock" when Kidlington seems a more significant place? I'm not sure Kidlington is more significant. It's clearly more populous, but is an overgrown village which lacks much of a clear identity. Woodstock, by contrast, is far more historically important and has also lent its name to a constituency in the past (which was similar to the proposed seat but additionally included areas like Witney). |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 8, 2022 11:54:46 GMT
Why "Bicester & Woodstock" when Kidlington seems a more significant place? I'm not sure Kidlington is more significant. It's clearly more populous, but is an overgrown village which lacks much of a clear identity. Woodstock, by contrast, is far more historically important and has also lent its name to a constituency in the past (which was similar to the proposed seat but additionally included areas like Witney). And Woodstock has three days of peace and music.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 8, 2022 12:29:48 GMT
Why "Bicester & Woodstock" when Kidlington seems a more significant place? I'm not sure Kidlington is more significant. It's clearly more populous, but is an overgrown village which lacks much of a clear identity. Woodstock, by contrast, is far more historically important and has also lent its name to a constituency in the past (which was similar to the proposed seat but additionally included areas like Witney). Woodstock was a full municipal borough while Bicester was just an urban district and Kidlington was just part of a rural district |
|
