Local Council By-elections 7th December 2023

[samdwebber]

Dec 3, 2023 8:24:07 GMT ColinJ said:

Dec 3, 2023 0:40:13 GMT samdwebber said:

It was the local *dentist* in fact: Brian Taylor, who was elected here under old boundaries in 1968.
Also elected in 1957 and 1962 before the LB of Bromley was formed.

I knew him well through the local party when I first joined. He died in 2013.
His daughter Wendy Taylor is along-serving LD Cllr in Newcastle and grand-daughter Rebecca was a LibDem MEP: www.libdemvoice.org/obituary-brian-taylor-35733.html

This is a summary of his local government career:
"Brian first stood for election to Bromley Council in 1956, was first elected in 1957 (allegedly the first Liberal Councillor in Kent), lost his seat in 1960, then regained it in 1962. During this period he was Health Committee Chair, elected by fellow councillors who thought a dentist well qualified for the role. He failed to get elected to the new London borough of Bromley Council in 1964, but was returned via a by-election in 1968."

I haven't been able to track down the 1968 Keston and Hayes by-election result online but this article by Brian Taylor indicates he beat his Tory opponent by around 200 votes.

www.libdemvoice.org/pick-a-ward-and-win-it-in-the-1950s-67177.html

The by-election you are after was held on 30 June 1966 following the resignation of Cllr. F.G. Austin (Con). 

B.H. Taylor    (L)   2,168 
M.G. Law   (C)   1,764
Mrs. D.M. Wright    (Lab)   214

Majority 404. Electors 9,642, turnout 43.0%.

Four weeks later a by-election was held in Chelsfield ward and resulted in a Conservative gain from Liberals, thus restoring the state of the parties on the Council prior to the Keston and Hayes by-election.

[Credit for this information to Davıd Boothroyd who shared his London by-election data with me in 2016.]

Thanks so much for sharing this @colinj

[manchesterman]

I note that, excluding the Rhyl contest, in the other 4 by-elections on Thursday, the contests are all the same match-ups. Con v Lab v LD v Green

[yellowperil]

Dec 5, 2023 21:09:17 GMT manchesterman said:

I note that, excluding the Rhyl contest, in the other 4 by-elections on Thursday, the contests are all the same match-ups. Con v Lab v LD v Green

They may not all produce the same result, however .

[phil156]

They all count straight after the poll Thursday evening

[Chris from Brum]

Andrew's Previews have been for their morning run.

medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-five-council-by-elections-of-7th-december-2023-29b531881a34

[johnloony]

Briston in North Norfolk has an almost-exclave in the south-west corner, for which there is presumably a weird historical reason but not an obvious geophysical reason:

[carolus]

Dec 7, 2023 10:12:00 GMT johnloony said:

Briston in North Norfolk has an almost-exclave in the south-west corner, for which there is presumably a weird historical reason but not an obvious geophysical reason:

Whilst I can't explain the actual reason, the ward follows the parish boundary which seems to have existed as such at least as far back as the ~1900 OS map, and so presumably much further. This isn't the only ward in North Norfolk with similar parts: Stalham seems to have two, one of which appears to be a piece of marshland cut off from the rest of the ward by a river, whilst Cromer has a seemingly meaningfully populated part that is attached only at a crossroads.

These seem like the sort of things one would expect to have been tidied up over time by CGRs, especially the Cromer one which seems to cut through a settlement leaving three disconnected parts outside the parish (and ward).

[johnloony]

Dec 7, 2023 10:52:18 GMT carolus said:

Dec 7, 2023 10:12:00 GMT johnloony said:

Briston in North Norfolk has an almost-exclave in the south-west corner, for which there is presumably a weird historical reason but not an obvious geophysical reason:

Whilst I can't explain the actual reason, the ward follows the parish boundary which seems to have existed as such at least as far back as the ~1900 OS map, and so presumably much further. This isn't the only ward in North Norfolk with similar parts: Stalham seems to have two, one of which appears to be a piece of marshland cut off from the rest of the ward by a river, whilst Cromer has a seemingly meaningfully populated part that is attached only at a crossroads.

These seem like the sort of things one would expect to have been tidied up over time by CGRs, especially the Cromer one which seems to cut through a settlement leaving three disconnected parts outside the parish (and ward).

There may be a risk that this thread is drifting into a thread about weird ward boundaries, but anyway here they are:

North Norfolk, Stalham ward:





North Norfolk, Cromer Town ward:

[johnloony]

Dec 7, 2023 10:52:18 GMT carolus said:

Dec 7, 2023 10:12:00 GMT johnloony said:

Briston in North Norfolk has an almost-exclave in the south-west corner, for which there is presumably a weird historical reason but not an obvious geophysical reason:

Whilst I can't explain the actual reason, the ward follows the parish boundary which seems to have existed as such at least as far back as the ~1900 OS map, and so presumably much further. This isn't the only ward in North Norfolk with similar parts: Stalham seems to have two, one of which appears to be a piece of marshland cut off from the rest of the ward by a river, whilst Cromer has a seemingly meaningfully populated part that is attached only at a crossroads.

These seem like the sort of things one would expect to have been tidied up over time by CGRs, especially the Cromer one which seems to cut through a settlement leaving three disconnected parts outside the parish (and ward).

The counter-argument is: why change? If the people who live in location X are used to living in a place which they call Y ward, and are happy to be represented by Councillor Z, why does it even matter if Y has awkward squiggly shapes and exclaves? Why does it even matter if you have to cross a main road, or a bridge, or a river, or go along a narrow path, or travel through a different ward, in order to travel from X to another part of Y? As long as Z is reasonable, and as long as your rubbish is collected and your old folk are cared for and your children get the school bus on time, what does it matter what the ward map looks like?

Perhaps even most ordinary voters (not we anoraks) don't even know what the ward looks like, and haven't ever seen a ward map? Do the X people even know that they live in an exclave or a pene-exclave at all?

[yellowperil]

Dec 7, 2023 12:29:09 GMT johnloony said:

Dec 7, 2023 10:52:18 GMT carolus said:

Whilst I can't explain the actual reason, the ward follows the parish boundary which seems to have existed as such at least as far back as the ~1900 OS map, and so presumably much further. This isn't the only ward in North Norfolk with similar parts: Stalham seems to have two, one of which appears to be a piece of marshland cut off from the rest of the ward by a river, whilst Cromer has a seemingly meaningfully populated part that is attached only at a crossroads.

These seem like the sort of things one would expect to have been tidied up over time by CGRs, especially the Cromer one which seems to cut through a settlement leaving three disconnected parts outside the parish (and ward).

The counter-argument is: why change? If the people who live in location X are used to living in a place which they call Y ward, and are happy to be represented by Councillor Z, why does it even matter if Y has awkward squiggly shapes and exclaves? Why does it even matter if you have to cross a main road, or a bridge, or a river, or go along a narrow path, or travel through a different ward, in order to travel from X to another part of Y? As long as Z is reasonable, and as long as your rubbish is collected and your old folk are cared for and your children get the school bus on time, what does it matter what the ward map looks like?

Perhaps even most ordinary voters (not we anoraks) don't even know what the ward looks like, and haven't ever seen a ward map? Do the X people even know that they live in an exclave or a pene-exclave at all?

I am inclined to support that counter-argument. I would only consider changes of that sort if it was asked for by the electors themselves because it was causing them some inconvenience. Otherwise leave well alone. There may also be some interesting historical reason for such odd shapes and it's a pity for that to be lost. Often somewhat detatched bits of marshland  , or bits of woodland or whatever, were part of the old parishes for good economic reasons - the local community benefitted  from the extra bit of diversity- good for the local self-sufficient economy. Shame for that to be lost even if the economic arguments no longer apply in quite the same way.

[carolus]

Dec 7, 2023 12:29:09 GMT johnloony said:

Dec 7, 2023 10:52:18 GMT carolus said:

Whilst I can't explain the actual reason, the ward follows the parish boundary which seems to have existed as such at least as far back as the ~1900 OS map, and so presumably much further. This isn't the only ward in North Norfolk with similar parts: Stalham seems to have two, one of which appears to be a piece of marshland cut off from the rest of the ward by a river, whilst Cromer has a seemingly meaningfully populated part that is attached only at a crossroads.

These seem like the sort of things one would expect to have been tidied up over time by CGRs, especially the Cromer one which seems to cut through a settlement leaving three disconnected parts outside the parish (and ward).

The counter-argument is: why change? If the people who live in location X are used to living in a place which they call Y ward, and are happy to be represented by Councillor Z, why does it even matter if Y has awkward squiggly shapes and exclaves? Why does it even matter if you have to cross a main road, or a bridge, or a river, or go along a narrow path, or travel through a different ward, in order to travel from X to another part of Y? As long as Z is reasonable, and as long as your rubbish is collected and your old folk are cared for and your children get the school bus on time, what does it matter what the ward map looks like?

Perhaps even most ordinary voters (not we anoraks) don't even know what the ward looks like, and haven't ever seen a ward map? Do the X people even know that they live in an exclave or a pene-exclave at all?

I would expect it to have happened, because that is typically what has and continues to happen in other places. Parish boundaries, which have (some) real administrative purpose, tend to be revised in CGRs to remove these sorts of hanging properties and odd boundaries, very frequently to ensure that all of a settlement is in the same parish, or that half of a street hasn't been built outside of one.

Of course if all parties involved are happy with the status quo then there is no need to change, and presumably the fact that these haven't been changed, despite a CGR in 2020-21 means that they are. But I am surprised that they are, particularly in the Cromer case.

(I think there's a slight difference here as you are talking about the district wards, which serve little direct administrative purpose, whereas I'm thinking of the underlying parishes, whose boundaries are reflected in the ward bounaries mentioned)

[East Anglian Lefty]

The Stalham one looks like it used to follow a watercourse, but drainage alterations have changed that. The Cromer one contains an allotment and a cemetery, leading me to suspect that it's about making sure the parish council's assets are located within the parish. No idea about the Briston one - probably just somebody who owned the house in the near-exclave wanting to keep all his possessions within a single parish.

[The Bishop]

In the case of Cromer, surely the "sensible" thing would be to add the houses on each side of the "bottleneck" to the ward.

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 7, 2023 12:48:18 GMT yellowperil said:

Dec 7, 2023 12:29:09 GMT johnloony said:

The counter-argument is: why change? If the people who live in location X are used to living in a place which they call Y ward, and are happy to be represented by Councillor Z, why does it even matter if Y has awkward squiggly shapes and exclaves? Why does it even matter if you have to cross a main road, or a bridge, or a river, or go along a narrow path, or travel through a different ward, in order to travel from X to another part of Y? As long as Z is reasonable, and as long as your rubbish is collected and your old folk are cared for and your children get the school bus on time, what does it matter what the ward map looks like?

Perhaps even most ordinary voters (not we anoraks) don't even know what the ward looks like, and haven't ever seen a ward map? Do the X people even know that they live in an exclave or a pene-exclave at all?

I am inclined to support that counter-argument. I would only consider changes of that sort if it was asked for by the electors themselves because it was causing them some inconvenience. Otherwise leave well alone. There may also be some interesting historical reason for such odd shapes and it's a pity for that to be lost. Often somewhat detatched bits of marshland  , or bits of woodland or whatever, were part of the old parishes for good economic reasons - the local community benefitted  from the extra bit of diversity- good for the local self-sufficient economy. Shame for that to be lost even if the economic arguments no longer apply in quite the same way.

That Cromer Town one looks suspiciously like it encloses an old hospital - which is something that did cause odd boundaries. When parish authorities built parish facilities they often were required to, or found it convenient, to ensure the facilities were within their boundaries. A local example is the Whitby parish boundaries were redrawn in a really odd way to exactly include the site of the "new" Whitby workhouse. There used to be a 20-metre circle totally surrounded by Dunblane at the junction of High Street and Glen Road that was in some other parish as it contained the other parish's war memorial.

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2023 13:33:27 GMT The Bishop said:

In the case of Cromer, surely the "sensible" thing would be to add the houses on each side of the "bottleneck" to the ward.

Though that then forces the creation of parish wards made up of just those houses

[YL]

Dec 7, 2023 17:46:00 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Dec 7, 2023 13:33:27 GMT The Bishop said:

In the case of Cromer, surely the "sensible" thing would be to add the houses on each side of the "bottleneck" to the ward.

Though that then forces the creation of parish wards made up of just those houses

Surely the sensible thing to do would be to change both the ward and the parish boundaries?

[owainsutton]

Dec 7, 2023 18:26:24 GMT YL said:

Dec 7, 2023 17:46:00 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Though that then forces the creation of parish wards made up of just those houses

Surely the sensible thing to do would be to change both the ward and the parish boundaries?

That means two different processes, under different remits.

How does a parish boundary get altered? Genuine question! Is it a statutory-instrument thing? (Or do the LGBCE have any powers to do this as part of a principal authority review?)

[johnloony]

Dec 7, 2023 18:31:12 GMT owainsutton said:

Dec 7, 2023 18:26:24 GMT YL said:

Surely the sensible thing to do would be to change both the ward and the parish boundaries?

That means two different processes, under different remits.

How does a parish boundary get altered? Genuine question! Is it a statutory-instrument thing? (Or do the LGBCE have any powers to do this as part of a principal authority review?)

I think that what we mean is that the sensible thing to do is to have a Boundary Commission, with beefed-up powers, which can adjust and co-ordinate the changing of the boundaries of these places (constituencies, wards, parishes, boroughs, and districts) whenever and wherever such anomalies and weirdisms are found.

[J.G.Harston]

Dec 7, 2023 18:26:24 GMT YL said:

Dec 7, 2023 17:46:00 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Though that then forces the creation of parish wards made up of just those houses

Surely the sensible thing to do would be to change both the ward and the parish boundaries?

Which is what the normal process is. Do a community governence review, tidy up parish boundaries, and mismatch with district ward boundaries submit a request to SecofState for a modification by statatory instrument to align the district ward boundary with the updated parish ward boundary.

It's annoying that this sort of stuff can't be done as part of the normal local boundary review process. We had minor tidying up turned down in 2019 because it would result in a mismatch with a county division boundary leaving one house between two boundaries and "we don't have powers to adjust the division boundary because this is a ward review". So it's still stuck there. At least now we're a unitary we can tidy it up when we have the unitary review.

[Peter Wilkinson]

Dec 7, 2023 19:27:24 GMT J.G.Harston said:

"It's annoying that this sort of stuff can't be done as part of the normal local boundary review process. We had minor tidying up turned down in 2019 because it would result in a mismatch with a county division boundary leaving one house between two boundaries and "we don't have powers to adjust the division boundary because this is a ward review". So it's still stuck there. At least now we're a unitary we can tidy it up when we have the unitary review.

Couldn't you just have demolished the house? Or would that have created a zero-voter parish ward?