Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 23:06:14 GMT
Bring back robo, his reaction to this would be amazing.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 15, 2015 23:34:01 GMT
The law requires the use of the electorate figures as published a couple of weeks ago, on 1st December 2015. Where exactly were those electorate figures published on that date? Are they listed by local authority area? I have been busy these past two weeks so a link to those figures would be helpful.
The local authorities publish them. When a review starts the BC requests/demands the figures from the authorities covered by the review and a projection of the figures to a specified date. The BC will sometimes hassle the council over the accuracy/methodology of the forecast figures. Don't expect the BC to go out of their way to make individual council electorate figures available from themselves until some time after a review actually starts.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 16, 2015 0:40:41 GMT
Sparkbrook is hilarious, Tyseley has very little of Tyseley proper in it, Yardley West's strange lurch to the city boundary is epic and the yoghurt knitters of Moseley will be preparing their wicker man. Twitter has indeed been alive with indignant of Moseley. Similarly it has not gone unnoticed by those in B27 living north of the railway line that most of the "Acocks" of Acocks Green on the official map is now in Yardley West... Good grief, I hadn't got round to looking at Moseley, that is truly astonishing. I am still in disbelief over Glebe Farm and Tile Cross. How can you have a process that results in smaller wards yet provides for one that runs from The Pelham to The Bell, that is approximately 4 miles through a pretty densely populated urban area. I do appreciate that there are some mitigating factors as the Railway line is an obvious southern border for the Tile Cross / Kitts Green / Glebe area and the River Cole is an obvious northern border (the new Shard End ward looks pretty sensible) and obviously the city boundary is to the East. However there seems no reason why Kitts Green and Tile Cross couldn't form a single members ward (named as such) with the Western boundary somewhere around Crossfield Rd / Cole Hall Lane. The remainder would still provide an odd mix (The Glebe + the eastern part of Alum Rock) but it would be much better than this monstrosity.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 17, 2015 12:35:28 GMT
Twitter has indeed been alive with indignant of Moseley. Similarly it has not gone unnoticed by those in B27 living north of the railway line that most of the "Acocks" of Acocks Green on the official map is now in Yardley West... Good grief, I hadn't got round to looking at Moseley, that is truly astonishing. I am still in disbelief over Glebe Farm and Tile Cross. How can you have a process that results in smaller wards yet provides for one that runs from The Pelham to The Bell, that is approximately 4 miles through a pretty densely populated urban area. I do appreciate that there are some mitigating factors as the Railway line is an obvious southern border for the Tile Cross / Kitts Green / Glebe area and the River Cole is an obvious northern border (the new Shard End ward looks pretty sensible) and obviously the city boundary is to the East. However there seems no reason why Kitts Green and Tile Cross couldn't form a single members ward (named as such) with the Western boundary somewhere around Crossfield Rd / Cole Hall Lane. The remainder would still provide an odd mix (The Glebe + the eastern part of Alum Rock) but it would be much better than this monstrosity.
The proposals are no worse than they usually are. It isn't easy producing ward boundaries. My main beef remains the large number of unnecessary 2 member wards, as it is nearly always possible to simply split them in half. A lot of objections (as last time in Birmingham) really relate to the ward names rather than to the actual boundaries. Sometimes in my more cynical moods I think that the LGBCE does this on purpose to divert attention from the actual proposals. (The majority of comments last time were about calling Sparkbrook "Small Heath").
I sit (just) in the proposed Moseley East seat. I will have a look at whether I can submit any changes that are actual improvements, and have a chance of being adopted. A Moseley West single member seat can easily be created by simply splitting the "Cannon Hill" 2 member ward. Similarly as Richard says you can simply split the Tile Cross/Glebe ward.
The Kings Heath ward is pretty good.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 20, 2015 20:08:58 GMT
I certainly agree that the two member wards seem needless, although I don't actually have a problem with that. The proposed Sheldon ward could easily be split on an East/West basis with the boundary somewhere around Church Rd / Sheaf Lane.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 20, 2015 20:57:34 GMT
I am preparing a series of small tweaks in SE Birmingham which I hope to submit to the Commission after running them by a few people. They mainly centre around the removal of the Yardley West horror.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Dec 20, 2015 20:59:42 GMT
I certainly agree that the two member wards seem needless, although I don't actually have a problem with that. The proposed Sheldon ward could easily be split on an East/West basis with the boundary somewhere around Church Rd / Sheaf Lane. I think the problem is that some of the two member wards, if split, would result in some very weak wards in terms of support structures. I know that the vast majority of organisations in Acocks Green are in favour of the two member ward. Assuming the obvious, Acocks Green/Fox Hollies split, it would potentially leave Fox Hollies somewhat in the lurch over time.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 29, 2016 21:59:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jan 31, 2016 10:47:01 GMT
Has anyone with local knowledge attempted to work out notional winners for the proposed new wards?
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Jan 31, 2016 11:56:14 GMT
The underlying problem is that the solution of fewer councillors and fewer elections is intended to resolve an identified problem of a too distant council.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 1, 2016 10:09:16 GMT
The underlying problem is that the solution of fewer councillors and fewer elections is intended to resolve an identified problem of a too distant council. This is not the entire truth. The "too distant council" is not only contested, but is insofar it is true an inevitable correlate of the size of Birmingham. If therefore "distance" is seen as the primary problem, the correct solution would have been to break Birmingham into 3 or 4 separate councils. This I suspect would meet with disapproval from Mr Hemming as well as those who have liked this post.
The issue of whether annual elections or all-out elections every 4 years is the better or more democratic solution has been the subject of argument ever since I got interested in politics 50 years ago, and no doubt long before. Clearly with such a long running debate there are good arguments on both sides. As someone who spent most of his working career in local government I favour all-out elections. It provides stability and time in which councillors can seek to achieve their aims. Birmingham is a highly political council, which changes hands, and the element of continual campaigning plus politicisation of senior officials is part of the culture which has led to poor performance, and is behind this Kerslake recommendation. All out elections are currently it seems more fashionable, with more councils moving this way than the other way (Castle Point moved from all-out to annual not long ago, so this trend is not universal).
Reducing the number of councillors is also fashionable. Although justified as "saving money" I see the main cause of this to be the diminution of powers of local councils, coupled with the enforced cabinet system (a centralising parliament imposing its own procedures on local government when they are often inappropriate in the name of "efficiency"), which has left back bench councillors with little more to do than moan, like town/parish councillors. If you consider the representative function to have any meaning, as we surely do, over and above efficient administration, then there is no justification for reducing the number of councillors. Single member wards on the other hand was a recommendation directly intended to make the council less "distant" and is one I support, and it is greatly to be regretted that the LGBCE has caved in to the political parties and generated so many 2 member wards, and I don't doubt there will be submissions for more during consultation. Single member wards will have an electorate of c8000 which is comparable with those in other urban areas. The idea that there is no "support structure" as suggested upstream is one of the daftest things I have read in a long time. There are 8000 voters to represent. Councillors do talk to each other when there are issues covering a wider area of the city than a single ward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 10:30:18 GMT
There are good arguments for and against different cycles, but the Kerslake report was simply following fashion and selecting facts to justify it.
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Feb 1, 2016 10:58:22 GMT
Has anyone with local knowledge attempted to work out notional winners for the proposed new wards? Yes, thanks at least for three constituency areas and no I'm not going to make them public at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 7, 2016 9:03:19 GMT
Apart from Hodge Hill and Quinron, is anyone aware of any other sitting councillors standing down in May?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 8, 2016 18:39:51 GMT
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 8, 2016 18:52:26 GMT
What are your thoughts on the 'other' option of splitting Brum into multiple local authorites (presumably 3 would be roughly correct size-wise?)? Yes I wondered afterwards if I should mention this. No-one in Birmingham wants it (other than a faction in Sutton Coldfield). Most people feel that the city is a unity, and if anything excludes areas that should be included (Great Barr, Pheasey, Castle Bromwich, Rubery). It's fairly obvious that co-ordination of services would be more difficult, and boundaries would be controversial. Obviously we already have one separate council (Solihull), which rather proves the point. Well, there are a few of us who are interested in the idea. North, East and South West boroughs might be workable. And could then potentially fit into a 7-borough Greater Birmingham council.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Apr 10, 2016 21:45:12 GMT
|
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122
|
Post by rocky on Apr 12, 2016 22:33:28 GMT
There seem to be just over 2000 replies from residents to the recommendations. An indication of how poorly they have been received by people. Does anyone have any experience of how high this level of response is compared to other reviews? Does this mean changes are likely to be made?
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Apr 21, 2016 5:05:51 GMT
I understand from a good source that there is to be a statement by the Boundary Commission about Birmingham today.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,918
|
Post by maxque on Apr 21, 2016 6:04:48 GMT
I understand from a good source that there is to be a statement by the Boundary Commission about Birmingham today. Wierd, final recommendations are not expected before May. A round of further consultations about a few select areas, like they love to do these days? They have time, next election is in 2018.
|
|