|
|
Post by islington on Jul 26, 2021 15:03:40 GMT
Here's a question:
Are the BCE more likely to take counter-proposals seriously if they are presented rather impressively like this as fully-fledged formal proposal document?
Or
If proposals are kept to minimal verbosity - e.g. a single field of text, outlining only what one would do differently to the original proposal, with just the basic detail?
I ask because my counter-proposal for Ipswich/Suffolk was accepted for the last review, but I went down the latter route, mainly due to laziness and waiting until submission day.
But if one way is inherently more 'persuasive' than the other I'd definitely put the extra work in.
I can see it from both points of view - a 'bigger' formalised counter-proposal will have a gravitas about it, but would instinctively feel like a greater deviation from the original proposals than a few sentences, even if it's not actually true.
I think it depends what you have in mind.
If, say, it's a simple ward swap between two proposed seats, for reasons that can be succinctly expressed, and with no consequential effects elsewhere, then a very basic submission would probably be fine.
If you want to propose a wide-ranging set of changes involving dozens of seats, then I'd suggest a much fuller explanatory document of reasonably professional appearance, preferably with maps.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 26, 2021 15:37:19 GMT
I've always had a suspicion that the BCE are generally averse to accepting entirely new plans for vast swathes of a region. It's not based on any sort of analysis or experience, but it would seem odd for them to come up with a plan themselves, and then turn around a few months later and propose something significantly different.
I've always felt it best to keep my proposals as targeted and manageable as possible. The BCE don't want us to do their entire job for them, they just want to gauge a feeling for the different possibilities for an area.
If they've come up with some sub-regions and a pattern that works pretty well in most places, I can't imagine they'd be too keen to rip all that up and implant an entirely new pattern instead. We all have in our minds an idea of a few ideal constituencies, and trying to manipulate an entire region to accommodate those seems a rather quixotic mission to me.
Having said that, I also belief they put a few stinkers in the initial proposals deliberately so that they can change them for something much better after the consultation and then claim that they've listened to the public and adapted their proposals accordingly. This gets them off the hook for rejecting the more wide-ranging counter-proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 26, 2021 22:40:05 GMT
Here's a question: Are the BCE more likely to take counter-proposals seriously if they are presented rather impressively like this as fully-fledged formal proposal document? Or If proposals are kept to minimal verbosity - e.g. a single field of text, outlining only what one would do differently to the original proposal, with just the basic detail? I ask because my counter-proposal for Ipswich/Suffolk was accepted for the last review, but I went down the latter route, mainly due to laziness and waiting until submission day.
But if one way is inherently more 'persuasive' than the other I'd definitely put the extra work in.
I can see it from both points of view - a 'bigger' formalised counter-proposal will have a gravitas about it, but would instinctively feel like a greater deviation from the original proposals than a few sentences, even if it's not actually true.
I think it depends what you have in mind. If, say, it's a simple ward swap between two proposed seats, for reasons that can be succinctly expressed, and with no consequential effects elsewhere, then a very basic submission would probably be fine. If you want to propose a wide-ranging set of changes involving dozens of seats, then I'd suggest a much fuller explanatory document of reasonably professional appearance, preferably with maps.
In the end, all we can say is "this is what we did last time and it worked for us then". I've got a nice professional-looking document on the boil, but if your idea's good enough any way of presenting it should be good. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 26, 2021 23:35:14 GMT
I think it’s much easier psychologically for them to ignore a text only system submission. A lengthy well-written, and well-sourced PDF grabs attentions and forces them to think again whether they are correct and if so, explain why.
|
|
