Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 29, 2016 20:17:08 GMT
Has anybody seen anything of the political parties counter proposals seems very little floating around this time, sure last time all the parties were more vocal in what they want changed?! I hear most Birmingham Labour MPs are happy with the changes for Birmingham. In other words, they're only interested in themselves. Is it any wonder that political parties have such a bad reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 29, 2016 23:05:43 GMT
It's somewhat obvious that Labour's proposals will try to combine Coventry with North Warwickshire. It's the only way for them to avoid the net loss of a nominal seat in that part of the region. I understand that the Greens' proposal for Birmingham is very different from the commission's proposals (though our proposals have not been finalised yet - our process has basically been to ask the local parties to contribute their thoughts, and then have the regional party work out a coherent plan based on what's been submitted. Hopefully the end result is coherent). But I will say no more for now. I think that is the best course of action anyway, to minimise disruption in Solihull and make sure there is no cross-county Warwickshire/Worcestershire seat. Solihull can be treated as a unit, with just a single ward swap. Then Coventry can either be combined with Kenilworth or with part of North Warwickshire. I'm not sure the latter can be done without splitting part of Nuneaton and/or Rugby off from the rest, though. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 30, 2016 8:02:48 GMT
My plan links Meriden ward with North Warwickshire, and Kenilworth with south Coventry. Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick/Leamington and Stratford then fall into place with minimal change. Solihull is unchanged.
I prefer a Birmingham solution with ward splits which allocates 9 seats to the city. However I don't reject in principle links with Great Barr or Smethwick. The Black Country can make 11 seats without ward splits, but better seats can be produced by splitting a ward in Dudley. Shropshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire make 12 seats comfortably without crossing the Warwickshire boundary.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 30, 2016 12:24:05 GMT
I hear most Birmingham Labour MPs are happy with the changes for Birmingham. In other words, they're only interested in themselves. Is it any wonder that political parties have such a bad reputation. I'm not sure "happy" is the right word. I think a lot of the time when parties back a sub-optimal proposal, the usual thought is "could be worse". And let's be honest, the seats in Birmingham are bad, but we've proved extensively that they could be worse. It's not an irrational response to settle for the current proposals and just accept that you'll have constituencies which face in two or more directions going forward. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 30, 2016 16:32:01 GMT
In other words, they're only interested in themselves. Is it any wonder that political parties have such a bad reputation. I'm not sure "happy" is the right word. I think a lot of the time when parties back a sub-optimal proposal, the usual thought is "could be worse". And let's be honest, the seats in Birmingham are bad, but we've proved extensively that they could be worse. It's not an irrational response to settle for the current proposals and just accept that you'll have constituencies which face in two or more directions going forward. You're right, it's not an irrational response to be weak, cowardly, ignorant, hypocritical and self-serving. |
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122 
|
Post by rocky on Oct 30, 2016 20:15:08 GMT
there needs to be some sensible changes to Northfield which really shouldn't include Moseley, Halesowen which while having history with Bartley green should not include Selly oak and Ladywood, which just doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 30, 2016 22:29:44 GMT
My plan links Meriden ward with North Warwickshire, and Kenilworth with south Coventry. Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick/Leamington and Stratford then fall into place with minimal change. Solihull is unchanged. I prefer a Birmingham solution with ward splits which allocates 9 seats to the city. However I don't reject in principle links with Great Barr or Smethwick. The Black Country can make 11 seats without ward splits, but better seats can be produced by splitting a ward in Dudley. Shropshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire make 12 seats comfortably without crossing the Warwickshire boundary. What are you doing with Meriden constituency, then? I haven't got time to check it up, but I'd think that plan would leave it undersized. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 30, 2016 22:36:26 GMT
My plan links Meriden ward with North Warwickshire, and Kenilworth with south Coventry. Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick/Leamington and Stratford then fall into place with minimal change. Solihull is unchanged. I prefer a Birmingham solution with ward splits which allocates 9 seats to the city. However I don't reject in principle links with Great Barr or Smethwick. The Black Country can make 11 seats without ward splits, but better seats can be produced by splitting a ward in Dudley. Shropshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire make 12 seats comfortably without crossing the Warwickshire boundary. What are you doing with Meriden constituency, then? I haven't got time to check it up, but I'd think that plan would leave it undersized. It would - you would have to either add in Coleshill & Water Orton (which works if North Warks takes back Hartshill and Arley & Whitacre) or alternatively Tanworth in Arden |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 31, 2016 11:02:54 GMT
My plan links Meriden ward with North Warwickshire, and Kenilworth with south Coventry. Nuneaton, Rugby, Warwick/Leamington and Stratford then fall into place with minimal change. Solihull is unchanged. I prefer a Birmingham solution with ward splits which allocates 9 seats to the city. However I don't reject in principle links with Great Barr or Smethwick. The Black Country can make 11 seats without ward splits, but better seats can be produced by splitting a ward in Dudley. Shropshire, Herefordshire & Worcestershire make 12 seats comfortably without crossing the Warwickshire boundary. What are you doing with Meriden constituency, then? I haven't got time to check it up, but I'd think that plan would leave it undersized. Adding the Arden wards to the south. They fit well with the commuter villages in Solihull District, and enable me to rename the constituency Arden, which is short and pleasing. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Nov 1, 2016 3:04:48 GMT
These are my suggestions for the West Midlands starting with Staffordshire:
Staffordshire
1)Staffordshire Moorlands - Same as the commission.
2)Stoke-on-Trent North - Existing seat + Newchapel.
3)Stoke-on-Trent Central - Existing seat + Fenton W and Mount Pleasant, Fenton E, Sandford Hill, Meir Hay.
4)Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone - Rest of existing Stoke South + Barlaston, Fulford, Swynnerton and Oulton, St Michael's and Stonefield, Walton.
5)Newcastle-under-Lyme - Existing seat + Madeley, Loggerheads and Whitmore.
6)Burton - Same as commission
7)Stafford - As Comission proposed + Eccleshall.
8)Lichfield - Same as commission.
9)Tamworth - Same as commission.
10)Cannock Chase - Same as commission.
11)South Staffordshire - Same as commission.
Mostly I think their proposals for Staffordshire are ok the main changes I would make would be around the Stoke area. Their proposed 'West Staffordshire' is a hideous creation stretching from urban Stoke, down to Stone and then curling round Newcastle and to take in rural wards in the west going across three local authorities in the process. I think this suggestion is far more sensible.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Nov 1, 2016 3:33:41 GMT
Shropshire-Herefordshire-Worcestershire
1)North Shropshire - Same as commission.
2)Shrewsbury - Same as commission.
3)Bridgnorth and The Wrekin - Same as commission but simplified name, Wellington is part of The Wrekin constituency currently.
4)Telford - Same as commission.
5)Ludlow and Leominster - Same as commission minus the two Bromyard wards.
6)Hereford - Same as commission but simplified name.
7)Malvern and Ledbury - Similar to commission. Gains the 2 Bromyard wards, Hartlebury. Loses Kempsey, Ripple, Upton and Hanley, Longdon, Morton.
8)Wyre Forest - Same as commission but without Hartlebury (existing seat).
9)Worcester - Same as commission but without Drakes Broughton.
10)Evesham - Commission's seat but without all Warwickshire wards. Gains Kempsey, Ripple, Upton and Hanley, Longdon, Morton, Drakes Broughton.
11)Bromsgrove and Droitwich - Same as commission.
12)Redditch - Same as commission.
The main change here has been rejigging the seats to get 12 constituencies without crossing the Warwickshire border and this can be done in a nice way and allows for Warwickshire-Coventry-Solihull to have 10 constituencies. I am not a huge fan of Bridgnorth and The Wrekin but any alternative requires splitting Telford.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Nov 1, 2016 3:59:25 GMT
Warwickshire-Coventry-Solihull
1)Stratford-on-Avon - Existing seat + Wellesbourne E, Wellesbourne W, Red Horse, Kineton.
2)Warwick and Leamington - Existing seat + Arden, Stoneleigh and Cubbington.
3)Rugby and Southam - Same as commission except without Kineton, + Radford Semele.
4)Nuneaton - Same as commission.
5)North Warwickshire - Same as commission.
6)Solihull - Gains Blythe. Loses Elmdon.
7)Meriden - Gains Elmdon. Loses Blythe.
8)Coventry South West and Kenilworth - Cheylesmore, Earlsdon, Wainbody, Westwood, Woodlands, Abbey, Park Hill, St John's.
9)Coventry North West - Loses Woodlands. Gains Foleshill, St. Michael's.
10)Coventry East - Existing Coventry NE. Loses Foleshill. Gains Binley and Willenhall.
You can carve 10 nice seats out of Warwickshire-Coventry-Solihull and thus eliminate the hideous mess the commission has made of Coventry and Solihull. There is literally no need to shove Meriden and Knowle into a Coventry seat, I really wonder why they did it...
I have a plan for the remaining metropolitan boroughs without splitting wards though it is hideous so is probably not worth posting though perhaps a slight improvement on what the commission came up with. Obviously the best thing to do is to split some of the giant Birmingham wards but I don't really know what the best way to do that would be or which ones to split.
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 1, 2016 6:40:06 GMT
I have pretty much written a Birmingham submission which is for 9 self-contained seats. It involves splits to Oscott, Kings Norton, Shard End and a double split of Nechells.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 1, 2016 11:49:18 GMT
I have pretty much written a Birmingham submission which is for 9 self-contained seats. It involves splits to Oscott, Kings Norton, Shard End and a double split of Nechells. Sounds exactly the same as mine! I haven't submitted it yet, because I'm still trying to work out the best option for the Black Country, but obviously it helps if someone has the same idea. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 1, 2016 19:24:38 GMT
I have pretty much written a Birmingham submission which is for 9 self-contained seats. It involves splits to Oscott, Kings Norton, Shard End and a double split of Nechells. Sounds exactly the same as mine! I haven't submitted it yet, because I'm still trying to work out the best option for the Black Country, but obviously it helps if someone has the same idea. Well, there aren't that many options really are there. I have seen a crazed option with involves trying to replicate the new ward boundaries as much as possible, but as I said to the person who did it, they are not even going to consider something with over 20 ward splits. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Nov 1, 2016 22:11:41 GMT
I seem to remember that using the new wards (without splitting them) means creating an Erdington-Aston seat, thereby opening a whole new can of worms.
It's hard to know what to say really. The process is so kafkaesque - in truth the new ward boundaries should be used, but the law specifically says they can't. It's hard enough getting the BCE to see sense about things that aren't illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 2, 2016 5:41:19 GMT
I seem to remember that using the new wards (without splitting them) means creating an Erdington-Aston seat, thereby opening a whole new can of worms. It's hard to know what to say really. The process is so kafkaesque - in truth the new ward boundaries should be used, but the law specifically says they can't. It's hard enough getting the BCE to see sense about things that aren't illegal. I would prefer to use the new wards as they allow the creation of better constituencies within the 5% limits, but I can understand that there has to be a cut off point for both electorates and for what building blocks to use. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 2, 2016 11:55:00 GMT
In the case of Birmingham, the new wards are still technically just proposals as the legislation hasn't been passed yet, so I don't see how the BCE could possibly use them for this review. This is different from somewhere like Sheffield where the new wards have already been used in elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorw on Nov 4, 2016 8:10:54 GMT
Some news on the Tories proposals for Birmingham, they want Stockland Green ward to go from Erdington into Perry Barr, Aston ward back into Ladywood and Tyburn ward back into Erdington
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Nov 4, 2016 9:54:18 GMT
Some news on the Tories proposals for Birmingham, they want Stockland Green ward to go from Erdington into Perry Barr, Aston ward back into Ladywood and Tyburn ward back into Erdington As opposed to Labour MPs who were all happy with the changes, to create a number of bizarre seats that are statistical functions rather than representatives of the communities within Birmingham. |
|
