J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 24, 2021 13:39:35 GMT
Yes you do. Individual houses. Makes it even easier than higher-up boundary reviews. Though that can make things fiddly when an "individual house" is a hall of residence with 1500 electors in it right on the border between two wards. For experts, maybe. For members of the public who are new to the whole thing, it becomes somewhat daunting. With Westminster reviews, all someone needs to do to create a counter-proposal is find out that boundary assistant exists and play around with it. With local authority reviews, it's a much more daunting thing to get into, there aren't any easy tools, and the base data you need is not so easily accessible. Go to the library, go to the shelves with the electoral registers on them.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 24, 2021 14:06:06 GMT
For experts, maybe. For members of the public who are new to the whole thing, it becomes somewhat daunting. With Westminster reviews, all someone needs to do to create a counter-proposal is find out that boundary assistant exists and play around with it. With local authority reviews, it's a much more daunting thing to get into, there aren't any easy tools, and the base data you need is not so easily accessible. Go to the library, go to the shelves with the electoral registers on them. You've got to do a lot of work to add up elector numbers to get handy figures for street blocks, and if you don't know off-hand which street number of long roads is on the corner of which road, you're stuck. And even if you did work that out, the review is done on the basis not of the electorate now, but the forecast electorate in five years' time. Plus you're not allowed to just leaf through the electoral register due to GDPR.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 24, 2021 14:58:07 GMT
Go to the library, go to the shelves with the electoral registers on them. You've got to do a lot of work to add up elector numbers to get handy figures for street blocks, and if you don't know off-hand which street number of long roads is on the corner of which road, you're stuck. And even if you did work that out, the review is done on the basis not of the electorate now, but the forecast electorate in five years' time. Plus you're not allowed to just leaf through the electoral register due to GDPR. Are you sure, I was doing just that last summer.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 24, 2021 14:58:30 GMT
Go to the library, go to the shelves with the electoral registers on them. You've got to do a lot of work to add up elector numbers to get handy figures for street blocks, and if you don't know off-hand which street number of long roads is on the corner of which road, you're stuck. And even if you did work that out, the review is done on the basis not of the electorate now, but the forecast electorate in five years' time. Plus you're not allowed to just leaf through the electoral register due to GDPR.I understand this is the point. When I prepared a submission (for the Labour Party) many moons ago I not only had the full register, but canvass data, and this will still be true for the political parties. But yes it’s a lot of work. And I had detailed maps prepared for canvassing so street numbers weren’t a problem. And no the forecast aspect doesn’t generally create a problem. But as an individual I’ve never even tried to do a detailed submission, and it would really be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 24, 2021 15:32:02 GMT
I put together a submission for Cambridgeshire, except for Cambridge where somebody else did the legwork. Parts of it were easy, where you could farm wards out of whole parishes. Parts were more difficult, where you could use whole polling districts, but it wasn't always easy to find out precisely what areas these polling districts covered. Where this wasn't the case, I had to rely on contacting Electoral Services for the constituent districts. Some of them were extremely helpful and provided me with up to date electoral registers and pointed me in the direction of working out where electorate growth were likely to occur. Some of them were just downright obstructive.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
|
Post by piperdave on Dec 25, 2021 15:38:56 GMT
Go to the library, go to the shelves with the electoral registers on them. You've got to do a lot of work to add up elector numbers to get handy figures for street blocks, and if you don't know off-hand which street number of long roads is on the corner of which road, you're stuck. And even if you did work that out, the review is done on the basis not of the electorate now, but the forecast electorate in five years' time. Plus you're not allowed to just leaf through the electoral register due to GDPR. GDPR does not prevent people examining a public register.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 26, 2021 16:11:38 GMT
You've got to do a lot of work to add up elector numbers to get handy figures for street blocks, and if you don't know off-hand which street number of long roads is on the corner of which road, you're stuck. And even if you did work that out, the review is done on the basis not of the electorate now, but the forecast electorate in five years' time. Plus you're not allowed to just leaf through the electoral register due to GDPR. GDPR does not prevent people examining a public register. I think practice may vary from one authority to the next.
In Islington it is not possible for the general public to gain access to the electoral register. If you go to the Town Hall they will allow you to see your own entry (with everything else covered up) but you cannot see the register as a whole.
Representatives of political parties are allowed to see it. So I could go to the Town Hall and claim that I am contemplating running as an independent in the May elections and want access to the register to carry out a preliminary canvass. I don't think they could then deny me access, but I'm not willing to lie about my intentions just to see a copy of the electoral roll.
It's all a far cry from the days when a copy was routinely placed on open shelves in the reading room of the public library, and each year around this time the draft register was pinned up in post offices for anyone that wanted to take a look.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Dec 26, 2021 16:31:19 GMT
GDPR does not prevent people examining a public register. I think practice may vary from one authority to the next. In Islington it is not possible for the general public to gain access to the electoral register. If you go to the Town Hall they will allow you to see your own entry (with everything else covered up) but you cannot see the register as a whole. Representatives of political parties are allowed to see it. So I could go to the Town Hall and claim that I am contemplating running as an independent in the May elections and want access to the register to carry out a preliminary canvass. I don't think they could then deny me access, but I'm not willing to lie about my intentions just to see a copy of the electoral roll.
It's all a far cry from the days when a copy was routinely placed on open shelves in the reading room of the public library, and each year around this time the draft register was pinned up in post offices for anyone that wanted to take a look. At the 1983 general election, I read through the electoral register for the village my father's family come from. I counted 50 voters (out of about 700 in all) with my surname. Cue banjo music ..
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Jan 5, 2022 11:17:03 GMT
The Welsh Commission has taken the decision 'because of the public health challenges' to 'delay the start of the 2nd consultation' and will advise on new dates in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 5, 2022 17:29:50 GMT
The Welsh Commission has taken the decision 'because of the public health challenges' to 'delay the start of the 2nd consultation' and will advise on new dates in the near future. I suppose that gives us more time to trawl the initial representations for gems. Has anyone spotted anything good in there?
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,758
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jan 6, 2022 14:18:35 GMT
The new schedule is: Cardiff (Feb 17), Wrexham (Feb 23), Swansea (Mar 1), Bangor (Mar 9) and Aberystwyth (Mar 30). I have a speaking slot booked for Cardiff, Swansea and Aberystwyth and will contact the Comission a week before each date to let them know how I will be making my contribution. bcomm-wales.gov.uk/reviews/11-21/guide-public-hearings
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Jan 10, 2022 14:46:44 GMT
The new schedule is: Cardiff (Feb 17), Wrexham (Feb 23), Swansea (Mar 1), Bangor (Mar 9) and Aberystwyth (Mar 30). I have a speaking slot booked for Cardiff, Swansea and Aberystwyth and will contact the Comission a week before each date to let them know how I will be making my contribution. bcomm-wales.gov.uk/reviews/11-21/guide-public-hearingsExcitement is mounting....
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2022 10:42:59 GMT
The official party responses are surprisingly lousy. The Lib Dems (9992) propose a constituency called "Aberavon with Maesteg and South East Swansea". It's not wholly stupid on the ground, but that name really fails to sell it. But for something truly hysterical see Plaid Cymru's submission (10021) – they're not happy with the Commission's Plaidimander to save Saville-Roberts' seat and have come up with a bizarre constituency that extends from Llanbrynmair to Llansanffraid Glan Conwy to try and get two constituencies with their largest part in Gwynedd. Further South, the Plaidis extend the Llanelli constituency across Carmarthen Bay (I don't think any of us had thought of that one!) and then go for random carnage, splitting all four of Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, and Merthyr Tydfil completely needlessly (it's a version of let's fit four whole constituencies in West Glamorgan, but drawing four incredibly ugly ones there, with a key that doesn't even match the colours of the constituencies on their map, yr Iesu a wylodd).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 11, 2022 10:53:27 GMT
The official party responses are surprisingly lousy. The Lib Dems (9992) propose a constituency called "Aberavon with Maesteg and South East Swansea". It's not wholly stupid on the ground, but that name really fails to sell it. But for something truly hysterical see Plaid Cymru's submission (10021) – they're not happy with the Commission's Plaidimander to save Saville-Roberts' seat and have come up with a bizarre constituency that extends from Llanbrynmair to Llansanffraid Glan Conwy to try and get two constituencies with their largest part in Gwynedd. Further South, the Plaidis extend the Llanelli constituency across Carmarthen Bay (I don't think any of us had thought of that one!) and then go for random carnage, splitting all four of Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent, and Merthyr Tydfil completely needlessly (it's a version of let's fit four whole constituencies in West Glamorgan, but drawing four incredibly ugly ones there, with a key that doesn't even match the colours of the constituencies on their map, yr Iesu a wylodd). I can guess who they used to come up with their names.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2022 15:23:05 GMT
I'm not sure about the quality of the data in the index spreadsheet either. I thought I'd look at the representations from MPs next. The very first one (9055) raises some doubts as to the attribution: Must come as a surprise to all those people from Llanelli who work at Prince Philip Hospital... And then the next representation from an MP (9137), who apparently lives in Briton Ferry and is clearly unaware of the constituency they currently live in, also looks suspect: At 9392, we encounter our first correctly attributed MP. David Top Cat Davies welcomes the Commission's proposals for Monmouthshire. No surprises there then.
But that momentary lapse into accuracy is short-lived. Normal service is resumed with some observations from the banks of the mighty River Usk (9424): Volume 2 disappointingly opens with a second outbreak of accuracy. Chris Evans (not the one you've heard of) and Rhianon [sic] Passmore (the MS for the corresponding constituency), with the unanimous support of the Islwyn CLP (despite being written on House of Commons stationery), support the Commission's proposals for Islwyn. Again, not exactly surprising.
Normal service is resumed at 9517, with our next supposed MP bemoaning the end of his gravy train: The quality improves with a relatively sensible representation from e e cummings mp (9524) about the downside to a heads of the valleys constituency: Volume two's alleged contibutions from MPs are rounded off in characteristic style at 9619, as another honourable member seeks to defend Port Talbot's educational standards from the risk of being improved by Porthcawl: Two volumes with MPs' contributions down, two more to go...
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2022 16:17:04 GMT
Skipping over the beautifully hand-written (with hand-drawn illustrations) volumes 3-5 for now (does anyone want to own up to these?), and volume 6, which includes a submission from the Green Party that deserves, errrr, comment later, I'll continue my survey of purported MPs in volume 7. This gets off to a good start: - 9708: David Jones MP objects to Rhos-on-Sea being included in Aberconwy, rather than Clwyd
- 9731: Sarah Atherton MP wants Brymbo and Minera, but doesn't want Pant, Johnstone, and Ponciau South
And then immediately the wheels fall off (9732): And another one (9735): And perhaps this MP (9769) voted in the wrong lobby? But this one (9785) clearly voted in the right one: Then we get one of those interludes of accuracy. - 9788: Robin Millar MP supports the Commission's proposals for Aberconwy
- 9795: Nick Thomas-Symonds MP supports the Commission's proposals for Torfaen
- 9814: Craig Williams MP supports the Commission's proposals for Montgomeryshire
But not for too long. Our next supposedly honourable member is no good at filibustering (9832): Volume 7 has been less bad than previous volumes at getting the attributions right. It is perhaps fitting that it ends with two more correct ones: - 9877: Nick Smith MP supports the Commission's proposals for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney
- 9878: Jamie Wallis MP does not support the Commission's proposals for Bridgend – rather predictably, he wants to keep Porthcawl and bring the numbers up with Pencoed and a couple of other wards (the interesting bit here is that the way he's done this unites Newcastle Higher community in a single constituency, although that is probably one of the sillier community boundaries in Wales)
One volume more to go. Let's hope there are more actual MPs in there. Joking aside, this lack of checking who's an MP and who's just an idiot who's ticked the wrong box is quite worrying: what's to stop someone claiming to be an MP submitting a malicious proposal to abolish their constituency?
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2022 16:59:51 GMT
Volume 8 miraculously only has real MPs in it – the genuine ones clearly believe in just-in-time management: - 9907: Simon Baynes MP agrees with Sarah Atherton about Brymbo and Minera and about Pant, Johnstown, and Ponciau South. As part of the series of dominoes that sets off, he sends Corwen and Llandrillo on their merry way back into Denbighshire. He also objects to the "Glyndwr" bit of "Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr", preferring "Montgomeryshire and Clwyd South".
- 9908: Geraint Davies MP opposes the Commission's proposals in Swansea. He'd like a Central constituency instead of a Central and North one, although his version of "Central" extends all the way out to the Mayals ward of Mumbles community (which he wishes to retain the split of).
- 9922: Jessica Morden MP supports the Commission's proposals for Newport East
- 9929: Wayne David MP opposes at considerable length the Commission's proposals for Islwyn and for Newport West and Caerphilly. He counter-proposes a Caerphilly constituency (including Blackwood and Pontllanfraith) and a Newport West and Newbridge constituency – a good old Red on Red dust-up between him and Chris Evans' less entertaining namesake back at 9500!
- 9930: Alun Cairns MP opposes (with more words per ward than Mr David) the Commission's proposal to remove the Dinas Powys ward from the Vale of Glamorgan constituency
- 9932: Fay Jones MP supports the Commission's proposals for Brecon and Radnor, both in terms of moving Ystalyfera High School into the constituency, and in terms of dropping the Association of British Counties' superfluous -shire
- 9982: Dr James Davies MP waffles, endorses the Conservative Party's counter-proposals (at least he's not pretending they're his own idea!) and suggests renaming Clwyd to Clwyd West and Delyn to Clwyd East. The good doctor will make a noble lord yet.
- 10023: Jo Stevens MP rejects your reality and substitutes her own, but supports the Commission's proposals for Cardiff Central
- 10032: Kevin Brennan MP supports the Commission's proposals for Cardiff West
- 10043: Ruth Jones MP (again, not to be confused with her more famous namesake) adds to the great Red-on-Red bunfight in Gwent and opposes the Commission's proposals for Newport West and Caerphilly in a completely incompatible way from how Wayne David opposed them back in 9929. Mrs Jones' counterproposal extends only to the Newport West constituency, where she would take the existing constituency (respecting the mighty River Usk – maybe 9424 was an MP after all) and add the Risca East and West wards. It is unclear how she intends neighbouring constituencies to fit within the electoral range.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,491
|
Post by johng on Jan 11, 2022 17:04:36 GMT
Skipping over the beautifully hand-written (with hand-drawn illustrations) volumes 3-5 for now (does anyone want to own up to these?), and volume 6, which includes a submission from the Green Party that deserves, errrr, comment later, I'll continue my survey of purported MPs in volume 7.
I have now flicked through the submissions. Volumes 3-5 are certainly something and must have involved a significant number of hours work.
Did you find the full Green Party submission? I am intrigued by their idea of 'Merthyr Tydfil and the Northern Rhondda' among others.
Volume 8 will not disappoint either as it has plenty of MP and oddball submissions.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jan 11, 2022 17:25:28 GMT
Skipping over the beautifully hand-written (with hand-drawn illustrations) volumes 3-5 for now (does anyone want to own up to these?), and volume 6, which includes a submission from the Green Party that deserves, errrr, comment later, I'll continue my survey of purported MPs in volume 7.
I have now flicked through the submissions. Volumes 3-5 are certainly something and must have involved a significant number of hours work.
Did you find the full Green Party submission? I am intrigued by their idea of 'Merthyr Tydfil and the Northern Rhondda' among others.
Volume 8 will not disappoint either as it has plenty of MP and oddball submissions.
No, I've only found fragments of the Green Party's submission. But it was certainly eyecatching how they proposed a Cardiff Bute constituency (vol. 6 p. 29) that excluded Butetown and an Eifionnydd constituency (vol. 7 p. 352) that seems not to have much of Eifionnydd in it, but that does include all of Arfon. Not found how they've split the Rhondda yet, but I'm curious about that one too!
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 11, 2022 17:37:12 GMT
I imagine the shedloads of dross will be even worse when we get English comments, given how much bigger England is. I don’t envy the Boundary Commissions having to wade through all this crap. It’s a miracle that they manage to extract some needles from the haystack rather than just looking at the submissions from the main political parties (which however tendentious will follow the rules).
|
|