|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 8, 2016 2:34:39 GMT
Post 700 and I'm now on page 2 of the list of members ordered by number of posts!anyway to answer your question, Malton & Filey were historically part of the East Riding (the boundary was the Rivers Derwent & Hertford) so there are no plans resecting the historical North-East Ridings boundary The northeastern corner of Selby (Barlby area) was also historically in East Riding (the boundary was the River Ouse) so No Plans respect the East-West Ridings boundary Goole was in West Riding (the boundary was the River Ouse) and only my plans put it there, therefore also respecting the East-West Ridings Boundary And lastly, the North-West Ridings boundary followed the Rivers Ouse & Ure then west on the top of the Dales, putting Craven, Harrogate, Ripon & Selby in South Riding Nice Map  |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 8, 2016 11:10:40 GMT
Humberside No Cross Yorks-Lincs ( islington will love it) Bridlington & Holderness 71117 Beverley 71338 Hull East 72673 Hull North 71111 Hull West & Hessle 72023 Cottingham & Goole 71276 Scunthorpe 77883 Barton 77797 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76777  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 8, 2016 11:24:59 GMT
Lower Skyrack would be a better name for Elmet & Rothwell. It would be nice to bring the name Osgoldcross back into use too
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 8, 2016 22:45:03 GMT
Skyrack is a cool name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 8, 2016 23:39:58 GMT
As one who was born there I've always thought of taking it as a peerage name if I ever wound up in the House of Lords. (Negligible chance of that, of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 9, 2016 11:02:56 GMT
The more I look at it, the more I like my No-cross Humberside plan
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Oct 9, 2016 17:08:23 GMT
One of my former colleagues let slip that he had one worked for the Boundary Commission. He said that it was the most boring job that he'd ever done and that most of his then colleagues thought the same. (This view was confirmed, some years later, by another ex-employee of the BCE). My heart sank. I suppose boundaries are not for everyone. I presume this was years ago, under the old rules, setting up public hearings inquiries and listening to endless drivel. Nowadays, there are perhaps 100 people max in the UK who could do the job. At least 90 of them post on here. Recruit from here and get geeks who can formulate initial proposals in 3 weeks, rather than non-geeks who take 6 months and even then balls it up (because, being boring people, they're easily bored as Hullenedge testifies). The one firm criticism I'd make of the English Commission is the failure to split wards. No doubt they are petrified of judicial review if they proposed to split Ward A in Region B, lest they were judicially reviewed as to why they did not split Ward C in Region B, or Ward D in Region E. Typical civil service crap, screwing up important stuff to save their own hides. I feel anyone recruited from here would do what was sensible, not do what was not sensible, and brazen it out for the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 11, 2016 11:24:33 GMT
Humberside No Cross Yorks-Lincs (islington will love it) Bridlington & Holderness 71117 Beverley 71338 Hull East 72673 Hull North 71111 Hull West & Hessle 72023 Cottingham & Goole 71276 Scunthorpe 77883 Barton 77797 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76777 I don't dislike it, and it's obviously good to respect the boundary between the wards of Snaith and Axholme N (but this is because it's a current boundary between two UAs, not because it's a historic boundary between two pre-1974 counties - the latter fact ceased to be relevant in, er, 1974).
And it can be improved, in line with what Erimus (I think it was) suggested upthread, by swapping Crosby ward into the Scunthorpe seat (thus keeping Scunthorpe together) in exchange for Burrington and Broughton wards.
But I have my reservations about it as an overall plan: I don't like the imbalance of three very large seats in the south as against very small seats in the north; and the need for so many seats north of the Humber that are only barely over the minimum has forced some very awkward boundaries in Hull. So I agree that it's an interesting scheme but, on the whole, I prefer a plan that balances out the numbers rather better north and south of the Humber.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 15:45:24 GMT
Humberside No Cross Yorks-Lincs (islington will love it) Bridlington & Holderness 71117 Beverley 71338 Hull East 72673 Hull North 71111 Hull West & Hessle 72023 Cottingham & Goole 71276 Scunthorpe 77883 Barton 77797 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76777 I don't dislike it, and it's obviously good to respect the boundary between the wards of Snaith and Axholme N (but this is because it's a current boundary between two UAs, not because it's a historic boundary between two pre-1974 counties - the latter fact ceased to be relevant in, er, 1974).
And it can be improved, in line with what Erimus (I think it was) suggested upthread, by swapping Crosby ward into the Scunthorpe seat (thus keeping Scunthorpe together) in exchange for Burrington and Broughton wards.
But I have my reservations about it as an overall plan: I don't like the imbalance of three very large seats in the south as against very small seats in the north; and the need for so many seats north of the Humber that are only barely over the minimum has forced some very awkward boundaries in Hull. So I agree that it's an interesting scheme but, on the whole, I prefer a plan that balances out the numbers rather better north and south of the Humber.
No you are wrong. It is the boundary between two ceremonial counties en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_counties_of_England |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Oct 11, 2016 17:13:27 GMT
It's a county boundary whether you are talking administrative, ceremonial or historic. The only way it isn't one is if you're stuck in a 1974-1996 timewarp. Furthermore, crossing it leaves the Isle of Axholme rather out on a limb in its constituency (or split). So I think there's a decent case for proposing a map which doesn't cross it to the Commission, preferably the version which doesn't split Scunthorpe, though I take islington's point that the boundaries in Hull itself are a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 11, 2016 17:56:53 GMT
Are the ceremonial counties regarded as units of local government?
This is a genuine question, because until this moment, it hadn't occurred to me to think of them in that way. I've therefore not paid them any attention in the boundary-drawing exercise, but I'm open to being told I am in error.
In this case, though, it makes little difference because the line in question also separates two UAs; so it clearly qualifies as a local government boundary on any showing. It would be good if it could be respected, but I'm loth to accept the numerical imbalance and the resulting very clumsy boundaries in Hull. But I'm not seeking to dismiss the plan; I can see why others might prefer it.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 11, 2016 18:18:14 GMT
The numerical imbalance isn't a problem within the rules because all the seats are within tolerance. It's a yes/no thing. The Hull boundaries might be more of an issue.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 12, 2016 0:14:21 GMT
Are the ceremonial counties regarded as units of local government? This is a genuine question, because until this moment, it hadn't occurred to me to think of them in that way. I've therefore not paid them any attention in the boundary-drawing exercise, but I'm open to being told I am in error. It's certainly not an error on your part, although I personally regard it as morally questionable not to take most of them into account at all (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear, being non-historical but still ceremonial, would be honourable exceptions). Now that regions are the base unit for reviews within England, it's more a matter of preference as to whether you use Lieutenancy and High Shrievalty areas, current administrative units, parts thereof or some other combination as sub-areas. Where I live the Commission has decided to consider the BANES UA alongside the present Somerset CC area since both seats in the former are undersized. The zombie review proposal crossed both UA and county lines much more radically with the neat (but fortunately now unnecessary) 'Kingswood and Keynsham' solution. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 12, 2016 2:34:31 GMT
One of my former colleagues let slip that he had one worked for the Boundary Commission. He said that it was the most boring job that he'd ever done and that most of his then colleagues thought the same. (This view was confirmed, some years later, by another ex-employee of the BCE). My heart sank. I suppose boundaries are not for everyone. I presume this was years ago, under the old rules, setting up public hearings inquiries and listening to endless drivel. Nowadays, there are perhaps 100 people max in the UK who could do the job. At least 90 of them post on here. Recruit from here and get geeks who can formulate initial proposals in 3 weeks, rather than non-geeks who take 6 months and even then balls it up (because, being boring people, they're easily bored as Hullenedge testifies). The one firm criticism I'd make of the English Commission is the failure to split wards. No doubt they are petrified of judicial review if they proposed to split Ward A in Region B, lest they were judicially reviewed as to why they did not split Ward C in Region B, or Ward D in Region E. Typical civil service crap, screwing up important stuff to save their own hides. I feel anyone recruited from here would do what was sensible, not do what was not sensible, and brazen it out for the rest. The Commission's approach is too adversarial. They don't accept any evidence before they come up with their first version, and then they're very precious about (and over-protective of) that version. I kind of know why they do the whole thing on their own to begin with (unlike the LGBCE, which is much more collabarative) but they could still, for example, put forward two or even three options in certain areas, that people could discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 12, 2016 7:34:02 GMT
The numerical imbalance isn't a problem within the rules because all the seats are within tolerance. It's a yes/no thing. The Hull boundaries might be more of an issue. I agree it's a yes/no issue and that a seat that is very close to (but just within) the upper or lower margin is every bit as compliant as one right in the middle. My point was a slightly different one, which is that if you group areas in a way that puts you near the limit of what is possible, then you are setting yourself the task of drawing seat after seat that is near the top or bottom of the permitted range; and the danger is that at some point, you will run out of sensible ways of achieving this. This is exactly what has happened here: the electorate of the E Riding and Hull UAs, taken together, is 429538 = 5.74 seats. Cramming six whole seats into such an area is a real challenge; it's unsurprising that it forces some very awkward and unnatural boundaries. The BCE has thrown in the Isle of Axholme, which ups the electorate to 446972 = 5.98. Not surprisingly, this extra elbow room has allowed it to craft more sensible boundaries north of the Humber; but with only 215023 (= 2.88) electors to play with south of the Humber, it has given itself a similar problem, albeit less severe, and has been forced to split Grimsby down the middle. It is for this reason that I reluctantly concluded that the Isle should be divided; but I see why others take a different view, so I'm certainly not rubbishing either the 'Axholme goes south' approach suggested by ASV and Erimus or the 'Axhlome north' approach of the BCE. But I reiterate, my objection is not to seats near (but within) the upper or lower margin; it's more of a practical concern relating to the difficulties that are likely to arise if you have to create a lot of such seats in the same area. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 21:51:28 GMT
I would work for the BCE at a fingerclick even for my current £15k salary. Jf they're too bored, I most certainly wouldn't be.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,846
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 13, 2016 18:23:09 GMT
Was anybody at Leeds today?
(...was it today?)
|
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Oct 14, 2016 6:35:58 GMT
Yes JG I was there and will be today.
Labour submission was, as with NW, very much a holding position with limited changes to s Humberside.
Tories split 1 ward in Leeds and 3 in Sheffield. This removed need to cross into North Yorkshire and substantially reduces cross authority seats. Many more unchanged or 'unchanged +' seats.
Lib Dems also split a ward in Sheffield to reduce disruption in the city. Also redesigned Bradford and Calderdale.
Tories said they would consider alternative submissions which might reduce need to split and LDs indicated willingness to consider alternatives, essentially, I think, including splits.
Many witnesses from Bradford S complaining of redistribution into other authorities.
John Grogan (former MP) produced alternative plans for Keighley and Shipley and 2 options for rest of Bradford.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Oct 14, 2016 6:54:56 GMT
Glad to hear that at least a couple of the parties are proposing splitting wards in Sheffield (though splitting 3 is more than I expect the Commission to accept).
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 15, 2016 21:46:47 GMT
Yes JG I was there and will be today. Labour submission was, as with NW, very much a holding position with limited changes to s Humberside. Tories split 1 ward in Leeds and 3 in Sheffield. This removed need to cross into North Yorkshire and substantially reduces cross authority seats. Many more unchanged or 'unchanged +' seats. Lib Dems also split a ward in Sheffield to reduce disruption in the city. This sounds quite hopeful, especially the Tory submission. Is Roger Pratt still presenting for them? As for Labour, is Greg Cook doing their presenting again? What I saw of him 5 years ago was quite poor. The party might make robust noises about criticising the Review, but the reality is weak. I've done a Google Map of my S/W Yorkshire. www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1oUM7rKAHqMg_ZjQqJjmn2Mv223c I've changed a few things from my previous ideas. I've reverted to the traditional Doncaster seats. I've added the Haworth ward to my Calder Valley seat. Not ideal, but on balance I think it's better than the 3 split wards I needed before. I'm not happy with the boundary between Central and North Leeds, but moving it will require a split ward. |
|
