The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 20, 2022 11:30:13 GMT
I guess this is all going to be academic yet again But maybe if the English and Scottish proposals are of a similar "quality" to these, that is for the best? After a GE the incoming Labour (led) government can bring in some sensible rules for seats, and the BC will have even less excuse for messing things up. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 20, 2022 11:44:56 GMT
I guess this is all going to be academic yet again But maybe if the English and Scottish proposals are of a similar "quality" to these, that is for the best? After a GE the incoming Labour (led) government can bring in some sensible rules for seats, and the BC will have even less excuse for messing things up. The rules aren't exactly the ones I'd choose, but IMO the English Commission did a much better job with their initial proposals this time than they did in either zombie review. (There are of course biases to do with which areas we're most familiar with, and I realise that living in "Copeland and the Western Lakes" you may have a different view.) I was rather hoping that there would also be a noticeable improvement as a result of the consultation process, as I think there was in the zombie reviews, and so I was expecting a perfectly serviceable map which I think it would make sense to allow through, even if there might be some revision of the rules for the next review. Scotland I also think was OK, though I didn't like some of the names; Northern Ireland I thought was poor, but fixable. One thing which is a little alarming about what's happened in Wales is that these revised proposals don't show that improvement as a result of the consultation. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 20, 2022 11:49:21 GMT
However, for what it is worth, the BCW's decision to extend Brecon & Radnorshire into the Neath Valley is understandable-they want to avoid creating a Montgomery & Meirionydd seat as it will constitute anti-Plaid gerrymandering, despite there being better transport links between the two parts than Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire/Wrexham, and they want to avoid breaking Montgomeryshire in half. This is copper-bottomed nonsense. The partisan implications of a change should have no bearing on the commission's decisions; the Welsh language may be a minor factor but it's not like nobody speaks that in northern Montgomershyre; Montgomeryshire has no protection in law and doesn't deserve to be kept whole more than any other county; and it's not even necessary to split it in half - as the ACs showed, you can just carve off Newtown. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Oct 20, 2022 11:49:50 GMT
But it's too late now for this kind of large-scale surgery; all we can hope for is sticking-plaster solutions. Normally I'd agree with this, but I do think that in this situation there is some value in simply telling the BCW that they should have listened more to their ACs. (Even if we don't think the ACs' map is perfect.) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 20, 2022 11:51:10 GMT
But maybe if the English and Scottish proposals are of a similar "quality" to these, that is for the best? After a GE the incoming Labour (led) government can bring in some sensible rules for seats, and the BC will have even less excuse for messing things up. The rules aren't exactly the ones I'd choose, but IMO the English Commission did a much better job with their initial proposals this time than they did in either zombie review. (There are of course biases to do with which areas we're most familiar with, and I realise that living in "Copeland and the Western Lakes" you may have a different view.) I was rather hoping that there would also be a noticeable improvement as a result of the consultation process, as I think there was in the zombie reviews, and so I was expecting a perfectly serviceable map which I think it would make sense to allow through, even if there might be some revision of the rules for the next review. Scotland I also think was OK, though I didn't like some of the names; Northern Ireland I thought was poor, but fixable. One thing which is a little alarming about what's happened in Wales is that these revised proposals don't show that improvement as a result of the consultation. It's worth noting that the Welsh Commission did a dreadful job in the fifth review. Not so much in terms of boundaries, but definitely in terms of flagrantly ignoring any idea that seats should have an approximately equivalent amount of electors, even when it would have been relatively easy to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2022 11:53:34 GMT
Right, I'm shifting 7 wards in N Wales. This is not my preferred scheme for N Wales but it ensures that no seat extends into three LAs whilst also preserving the essentials of the BCW pian. Four constituencies are affected.
Bangor & Aberconwy: Compared with the BCW version, it loses its two Denbighshire wards and gains Llandrillo yn Rhos - 73761.
N Clwyd: The BCW version loses Llasndrillo yn Rhos and gains Dyserth and Llanrhaeadr-yng-Somethingverywelsh (and in this configuration 'Denbigh' might be a better name) - 73418.
E Clwyd: The BCW version loses Dyserth and Llangollen Rural and gains Efenechtyd, Corwen and Llandrillo - 76933.
Montgomeryshire & Glyndwr: Compared with BCW, loses the two Denbighshire wards and gains Llangollen Rural - 75854.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2022 12:17:45 GMT
But it's too late now for this kind of large-scale surgery; all we can hope for is sticking-plaster solutions. Normally I'd agree with this, but I do think that in this situation there is some value in simply telling the BCW that they should have listened more to their ACs. (Even if we don't think the ACs' map is perfect.) I agree the ACs' map is better overall but if you're going to join most of Monts with Merioneth Meirionnydd then its a great shame to have to throw in bits of Wrexham as well - better in my view to throw in the whole of Monts so that you can then give three whole seats to Wrexham / Flints and make Denbighs a seat. In short, although there are a lot of things BCW has got wrong, I think it got right the decision to expand Breck & Rads south into the Swansea Valley rather than north into Monts, so personally I wouldn't go overboard for the ACs' map. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2022 12:25:52 GMT
I guess this is all going to be academic yet again But maybe if the English and Scottish proposals are of a similar "quality" to these, that is for the best? After a GE the incoming Labour (led) government can bring in some sensible rules for seats, and the BC will have even less excuse for messing things up. Why would this be academic? Even if the Gov't implodes to the extent that we have an early GE on the existing boundaries, that doesn't stop the review process. It simply means that the new boundaries wouldn't be used until the following GE in 2027 or 2028 or whenever. The only thing that can stop that is if an incoming Labour Gov't legislates to stop the process and start it again under (one assumes) new rules. But has Labour indicated any intention of doing this? Also, I don't think it's the rules that cause BCs to mess it up. The history of past reviews shows that they are perfectly capable of messing it up even with rules that are much more flexible; indeed, the very flexibility allows then to find inventive ways of messing it up that are not available to them under the present more restrictive rules. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2022 12:31:46 GMT
But maybe if the English and Scottish proposals are of a similar "quality" to these, that is for the best? After a GE the incoming Labour (led) government can bring in some sensible rules for seats, and the BC will have even less excuse for messing things up. The rules aren't exactly the ones I'd choose, but IMO the English Commission did a much better job with their initial proposals this time than they did in either zombie review. (There are of course biases to do with which areas we're most familiar with, and I realise that living in "Copeland and the Western Lakes" you may have a different view.) I was rather hoping that there would also be a noticeable improvement as a result of the consultation process, as I think there was in the zombie reviews, and so I was expecting a perfectly serviceable map which I think it would make sense to allow through, even if there might be some revision of the rules for the next review. Scotland I also think was OK, though I didn't like some of the names; Northern Ireland I thought was poor, but fixable. One thing which is a little alarming about what's happened in Wales is that these revised proposals don't show that improvement as a result of the consultation. I agree, especially with the bit in bold. In fact I'd say that the BCE, at least, has got steadily better at operating under these tighter rules. In the first zombie, the initial proposals were appalling and the final proposals, although an improvement, were still deeply flawed. At the second zombie the BCE's performance was still not ideal, but it showed a marked improvement at both stages. And I agree with YL that the BCE's initial's proposals in the present review show further improvement. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,939 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 20, 2022 12:52:57 GMT
That is just craven utter copper bottomed bollocks. It does not make one whit of difference to any voter at all. It is of importance to a small proportion of 1% of the electorate who have these sort of daft thoughts. It doesn't matter whether the average voters cares. An MP represents a geographical area, it's much harder to do this if you've got multiple different distinct communities. It's very obvious that if you can't even travel between 2 areas of a constituency without going into another that either a community has been split or a community has been added which has no connection to the other. Pray, why is it more difficult in any manner whatsoever? Explain those actual difficulties to me. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 20, 2022 13:35:06 GMT
The Cardiff and Swansea seats are a right mess-there are much better alternatives available. The Cardiff East seat is just awful. However, for what it is worth, the BCW's decision to extend Brecon & Radnorshire into the Neath Valley is understandable-they want to avoid creating a Montgomery & Meirionydd seat as it will constitute anti-Plaid gerrymandering, despite there being better transport links between the two parts than Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire/Wrexham, and they want to avoid breaking Montgomeryshire in half. How would a Montgomery & Meirionnydd seat by anti-Plaid gerrymandering when you yourself admit there are better links between those areas than there are in the Montgomeryshire & South Denbighshire match? And that it’s reasonable to choose to not split Montgomeryshire unnecessarily. I can say with strong levels of confidence that partisan considerations will have had no bearing on the Commission’s decision here. Just because a particular decision they made happens to be more or less favourable to a particular party that absolutely does not make it gerrymandering. It's the traditional hypocritical shout of gerrymandering, when the issue is clearly that the Commission is trying to push a nasty pro-Plaid-Cymru and anti-Conservative gerrymander that ignores the statutory criterion regarding local authority boundaries (what they've done to Denbighshire differs from their treatment of all other local authorities that are within the electoral range, despite Flintshire and Wrexham being within range for three constituencies). I wonder if Huw Vaughan Thomas is a Plaid Cymru supporter. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 20, 2022 13:52:20 GMT
However, for what it is worth, the BCW's decision to extend Brecon & Radnorshire into the Neath Valley is understandable-they want to avoid creating a Montgomery & Meirionydd seat as it will constitute anti-Plaid gerrymandering, despite there being better transport links between the two parts than Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire/Wrexham, and they want to avoid breaking Montgomeryshire in half. This is copper-bottomed nonsense. The partisan implications of a change should have no bearing on the commission's decisions; the Welsh language may be a minor factor but it's not like nobody speaks that in northern Montgomershyre; Montgomeryshire has no protection in law and doesn't deserve to be kept whole more than any other county; and it's not even necessary to split it in half - as the ACs showed, you can just carve off Newtown. Montgomeryshire does have a small amount of protection in law, in that it's of course coterminous with an existing constituency and the whole local ties blah blah blah. And I don't see carving a county's largest town out as that small a deal – it's about as pitchforky as putting most of Rutland in one constituency and Oakham in another. The knock-on consequence of bisecting Neath is also really bad (although that could theoretically be avoided). Suprised you didn't also point out the copper-bottomed nonsense of the person Richard Allen was so, so cruelly wrong about not being able to tell the difference between the Swansea Valley and the Vale of Neath; the former was at one time almost literally copper-bottomed... |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 20, 2022 13:58:10 GMT
The Cardiff and Swansea seats are a right mess-there are much better alternatives available. The Cardiff East seat is just awful. However, for what it is worth, the BCW's decision to extend Brecon & Radnorshire into the Neath Valley is understandable-they want to avoid creating a Montgomery & Meirionydd seat as it will constitute anti-Plaid gerrymandering, despite there being better transport links between the two parts than Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire/Wrexham, and they want to avoid breaking Montgomeryshire in half. I'm no particular fan of the BCW's Cardiff (although it's better than in the initial proposals); but I don't see what's so terrible about Cardiff E, surely we've all seen a lot worse.
What puzzles me, though, is why they haven't gone for something more closely based on the existing arrangement, which you can do by shifting only three Cardiff wards, and importing only one extra ward from outside the city (rather than three as in the BCW scheme).
Cardiff S & Penarth: Current seat minus Llanrumney = 70394. Cardiff C: Current seat plus Riverside = 69813. Cardiff N: Current seat minus Llandaff N and plus Llanrumney = 70054. Cardiff W: Current seat minus Riverside and plus Llandaff N and (from VoG) Dinas Powys = 70645.
Why complicate life?
Because putting Llanrumney into North is terrible. I know it was in the Conservative counterproposal, but that doesn't make it a good idea. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 20, 2022 14:17:15 GMT
Am only an ignorant foreigner, but i must be shocked by extending a const. from MontgomeryS. to the Wrexham-subUrbs!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 20, 2022 22:05:58 GMT
However, for what it is worth, the BCW's decision to extend Brecon & Radnorshire into the Neath Valley is understandable-they want to avoid creating a Montgomery & Meirionydd seat as it will constitute anti-Plaid gerrymandering, despite there being better transport links between the two parts than Montgomeryshire and Denbighshire/Wrexham, and they want to avoid breaking Montgomeryshire in half. This is copper-bottomed nonsense. The partisan implications of a change should have no bearing on the commission's decisions; the Welsh language may be a minor factor but it's not like nobody speaks that in northern Montgomershyre; Montgomeryshire has no protection in law and doesn't deserve to be kept whole more than any other county; and it's not even necessary to split it in half - as the ACs showed, you can just carve off Newtown. There are significantly more Welsh speakers in Montgomeryshire than in Brecon & Radnorshire, yes, but Merionethshire/Meirionydd has the largest Welsh-speaking population in Wales and therefore even though a Montgomery & Merioneth/Drefaldwyn a Meirionydd seat would be more sensible in terms of transport links, Plaid Cymru would instantly make claims of gerrymandering. After all, their proposals for Brecon & Radnorshire involved pushing it into Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, which is the least Welsh-speaking county of Wales. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Oct 20, 2022 22:42:44 GMT
This is copper-bottomed nonsense. The partisan implications of a change should have no bearing on the commission's decisions; the Welsh language may be a minor factor but it's not like nobody speaks that in northern Montgomershyre; Montgomeryshire has no protection in law and doesn't deserve to be kept whole more than any other county; and it's not even necessary to split it in half - as the ACs showed, you can just carve off Newtown. There are significantly more Welsh speakers in Montgomeryshire than in Brecon & Radnorshire, yes, but Merionethshire/Meirionydd has the largest Welsh-speaking population in Wales and therefore even though a Montgomery & Merioneth/Drefaldwyn a Meirionydd seat would be more sensible in terms of transport links, Plaid Cymru would instantly make claims of gerrymandering. After all, their proposals for Brecon & Radnorshire involved pushing it into Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, which is the least Welsh-speaking county of Wales. So what? |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 21, 2022 0:04:31 GMT
There are significantly more Welsh speakers in Montgomeryshire than in Brecon & Radnorshire, yes, but Merionethshire/Meirionydd has the largest Welsh-speaking population in Wales and therefore even though a Montgomery & Merioneth/Drefaldwyn a Meirionydd seat would be more sensible in terms of transport links, Plaid Cymru would instantly make claims of gerrymandering. After all, their proposals for Brecon & Radnorshire involved pushing it into Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, which is the least Welsh-speaking county of Wales. Firstly, Meirionnydd is a tiny county in terms of population and certainly does not have the largest number of Welsh-speakers of any Welsh county. It is also already split for Parliamentary purposes as Corwen was given to Clwyd South West when the old Merioneth constituency was abolished in 1983. Secondly, the interests of Plaid Cymru and Welsh-speakers collectively are not the same thing! Though there is a correlation between Plaid support and the use of the Welsh language, it is more complex than often realized and Plaid have almost certainly never won the support of an absolute majority of Welsh-speakers in a General Election. Some of the most prominent and influential political advocates for the Welsh language at Westminster have been MPs from other parties, including, yes, even some Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 21, 2022 1:46:11 GMT
This whole debacle could have been avoided by amending the legislation to give it some wiggle room. Keeping the initial +/-5% rules but allowing a maximum of 10% of seats to be varied by +/-7% to account for awkward geography.
And of course abandoning the nonsense that Ynys Môn needs protection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Oct 21, 2022 5:40:09 GMT
I think that they have presented a reasonable alternative solution for southern Wales (everything from Newtown south). But that is a terrible solution for northern Wales. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Oct 21, 2022 9:41:37 GMT
Firstly, Meirionnydd is a tiny county in terms of population I don't think this point can be reiterated enough. It's slightly smaller than Rutland in population terms. |
|
