|
|
Post by jm on Apr 4, 2024 17:30:58 GMT
Wakefield polling districts have been uploaded to Ward Tool. It is currently the subject of an electoral review.
Kirklees is also under review, but the LGBCE haven't made polling district boundaries available so it can't be added at this time.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Apr 4, 2024 18:22:05 GMT
Wakefield polling districts have been uploaded to Ward Tool. It is currently the subject of an electoral review. Kirklees is also under review, but the LGBCE haven't made polling district boundaries available so it can't be added at this time. There is a set of polling district boundaries available as part of the OS's Boundary Line. I don't know how up to date and accurate they are generally but a quick check in a couple of Kirklees wards (including the complicated Kirkburton) suggests that they match the ones used for the spreadsheet. In Darfield ward in Barnsley, the Boundary Line polling districts are the same as the ones in the mapping on the LGBCE site; the problem is that they don't align with the numbers in the electorate spreadsheet (having different numbers of PDs, for a start). |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Apr 4, 2024 20:08:45 GMT
Wakefield polling districts have been uploaded to Ward Tool. It is currently the subject of an electoral review. Kirklees is also under review, but the LGBCE haven't made polling district boundaries available so it can't be added at this time. There is a set of polling district boundaries available as part of the OS's Boundary Line. I don't know how up to date and accurate they are generally but a quick check in a couple of Kirklees wards (including the complicated Kirkburton) suggests that they match the ones used for the spreadsheet. In Darfield ward in Barnsley, the Boundary Line polling districts are the same as the ones in the mapping on the LGBCE site; the problem is that they don't align with the numbers in the electorate spreadsheet (having different numbers of PDs, for a start). The polling district boundaries bundled with OS Boundary Line tend to be quite out of date, but I will cross-reference with the LGBCE electorate spreadsheet to see if the PD references are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by jm on Apr 5, 2024 18:40:22 GMT
Kirklees has been added following the suggestion fron YL. The polling district references in the Boundary Line product appear to conform with the electorate data supplied on the LGBCE website, so unless there have been some minor boundary changes, they should accurately reflect the current polling districts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jm on Apr 7, 2024 20:30:10 GMT
Some new features:
Remove polling districts from a ward by selecting the 'unallocated' button
Select 'show labels' to show the ward number on the map
Select multiple polling districts at once by selecting the rectangle icon and drawing a rectangle - this will select all polling districts within the drawn area
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 8, 2024 10:02:18 GMT
It's worth mentioning that when I helped out with the Labour submission to the West Northamptonshire ward boundary review, I was made aware of an in-house LGBCE tool which they let a few council staff use for testing proposals that does a similar thing to this. It might be worth finding out who at the LGBCE runs that and if they've got any tips they can recommend or any suggestions for functionality?
|
|
|
|
Post by jm on Apr 9, 2024 17:26:20 GMT
There would be no need for this tool if the LGBCE were to release their own mapping tool to the public. Currently it is very difficult for those who are not party political operatives or council officers to draw up their own scheme of wards for submission during the consultation period. I strongly object to this as it leads to a process led by those with vested interests and it is why I wanted to create a tool that would make this much easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Apr 10, 2024 2:57:53 GMT
jm, and I fully support you. Reading the consultation documents is often an exercise in counting how many times they can't accept submissions for not being specific or detailed enough. They're responsible for obscuring the information needed to be specific or detailed enough!
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 10, 2024 9:04:10 GMT
There would be no need for this tool if the LGBCE were to release their own mapping tool to the public. Currently it is very difficult for those who are not party political operatives or council officers to draw up their own scheme of wards for submission during the consultation period. I strongly object to this as it leads to a process led by those with vested interests and it is why I wanted to create a tool that would make this much easier. I agree with this, but I suspect the people who created their tool are not the people who made the policy decision not to release it to the public, and may not necessarily have the same set of attitudes. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 10, 2024 15:58:23 GMT
There would be no need for this tool if the LGBCE were to release their own mapping tool to the public. Currently it is very difficult for those who are not party political operatives or council officers to draw up their own scheme of wards for submission during the consultation period. I strongly object to this as it leads to a process led by those with vested interests and it is why I wanted to create a tool that would make this much easier. I agree with this, but I suspect the people who created their tool are not the people who made the policy decision not to release it to the public, and may not necessarily have the same set of attitudes. The tool I had access to for the Coventry review came with a per user license fee paid by the council. I don't know if it's the exact software that the LGBCE use, but it seems likely that it is. I suspect it would be possible for the LGBCE to make it available to the public, but that it probably requires a bit more public money being spent on licensing than is the case at present. |
|
|
|
Ward Tool
Apr 10, 2024 20:37:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 10, 2024 20:37:46 GMT
I agree with this, but I suspect the people who created their tool are not the people who made the policy decision not to release it to the public, and may not necessarily have the same set of attitudes. The tool I had access to for the Coventry review came with a per user license fee paid by the council. I don't know if it's the exact software that the LGBCE use, but it seems likely that it is. I suspect it would be possible for the LGBCE to make it available to the public, but that it probably requires a bit more public money being spent on licensing than is the case at present. On the other hand it could reduce the amount of time the LGBCE spends dealing with inaccurate or misconceived warding proposals, due to respondents using the wrong existing/forecast electoral data or misunderstanding the rules on electoral equality. The quality of the responses on the London Borough reviews and the quality of the final recommendations would have been so much better as a result. And why should political parties be given an unfair advantage by having access to a software licence when drawing up proposals compared to the ordinary citizen? I think more of us should ask for access to illustrate the level of latent demand. |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Apr 11, 2024 12:35:52 GMT
Could I make a plea for County Durham? I believe the LGBCE have published the figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 11, 2024 16:30:36 GMT
The tool I had access to for the Coventry review came with a per user license fee paid by the council. I don't know if it's the exact software that the LGBCE use, but it seems likely that it is. I suspect it would be possible for the LGBCE to make it available to the public, but that it probably requires a bit more public money being spent on licensing than is the case at present. On the other hand it could reduce the amount of time the LGBCE spends dealing with inaccurate or misconceived warding proposals, due to respondents using the wrong existing/forecast electoral data or misunderstanding the rules on electoral equality. The quality of the responses on the London Borough reviews and the quality of the final recommendations would have been so much better as a result. And why should political parties be given an unfair advantage by having access to a software licence when drawing up proposals compared to the ordinary citizen? I think more of us should ask for access to illustrate the level of latent demand. My understanding is that the licence wasn't for political parties per se but for councils, and that they divided access up amongst their various council groups. So political parties without representation on a given council would also be shut out from access to that tool. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 11, 2024 17:10:41 GMT
On the other hand it could reduce the amount of time the LGBCE spends dealing with inaccurate or misconceived warding proposals, due to respondents using the wrong existing/forecast electoral data or misunderstanding the rules on electoral equality. The quality of the responses on the London Borough reviews and the quality of the final recommendations would have been so much better as a result. And why should political parties be given an unfair advantage by having access to a software licence when drawing up proposals compared to the ordinary citizen? I think more of us should ask for access to illustrate the level of latent demand. My understanding is that the licence wasn't for political parties per se but for councils, and that they divided access up amongst their various council groups. So political parties without representation on a given council would also be shut out from access to that tool. That's exactly how it was in our case. As the Green Group councillor with access I made a point of consulting with parties that weren't on the council, even going so far as to draw up a proposal for the Lib Dems that was a variation of the one we were submitting ourselves, though in the end it didn't get submitted. But I doubt something like that happens very often. |
|
|
|
Post by jm on May 11, 2024 9:18:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 13, 2024 9:23:53 GMT
Looks like it should be pretty simple - Driffield itself is the right size for three councillors and Pocklington for two, so then you just need to draw rural single- or two-member wards around them. |
|
|
|
Post by jm on May 16, 2024 12:54:05 GMT
WARD TOOL UPDATES
Barnsley (corrected electoral forecast) YLMilton Keynes ricmkBreckland
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,630 
|
Post by ricmk on May 21, 2024 12:29:29 GMT
Hello jm2 quick questions: 1- I've been asked by someone else in MK if I know any good online tools for ward boundaries. Funnily enough, I do....ok to share the link? 2 - if your maps are used in a formal submission, how should you be credited? (Maps taken from www.wardtool.co.uk or more detailed/personal?) |
|
|
|
Post by jm on May 22, 2024 11:52:54 GMT
Hello jm 2 quick questions: 1- I've been asked by someone else in MK if I know any good online tools for ward boundaries. Funnily enough, I do....ok to share the link? 2 - if your maps are used in a formal submission, how should you be credited? (Maps taken from www.wardtool.co.uk or more detailed/personal?) Yes, please do share the link! Credit to www.wardtool.co.uk is fine, I would also ensure that the attribution on the map is retained in any formal submission (© OpenStreetMap contributors, Boundary data © Ordnance Survey Copyright and database right 2024, Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0) |
|
