|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 11, 2016 15:23:07 GMT
What exactly is the legal significance of Northern Irish wards anyways? I'm just happy we don't see districts drawn with DEA's as the sole building blocks... Yes, I've been curious about this. Can anyone advise? Looking at Minion's two plans just upthread - I agree in preferring the second one overall, but I like the look of the W Tyrone and Mid Ulster seats from Plan A. Minion, would you consider merging the two schemes in this way? Since the redrawings in Tyrone and the southeast are completely independent from each other... there's not much merging to be done.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 11, 2016 15:25:30 GMT
Thanks to Obsie and Therealriga for clarifying this. Whatever the shortcomings of this system, it strikes me that boundaries in Scotland would be a lot easier to draw if a similar arrangement existed there. And in all the three-seater UAs and MetB's!
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 11, 2016 16:44:22 GMT
You can actually draw 17 seats within (NI)quota without splitting any DEAs. I tried it a while ago - they don't fit together very well in Belfast, forcing 4 seats, and I split Bangor in half.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 12, 2016 21:54:15 GMT
Reworking of Antrim (within the above plan's parameters) little areas in the north should be read as transferring to Causeway Coast (south of Ballymoney) and from it to Antrim East (Giants Causeway and points east, which means Causeway Coast can't be called that and is probably back to East Londonderry & Ballymoney. Maybe Coleraine & Ballymoney.) Newtownabbey's southern wing still can't be helped except by linking through Belfast, using the additional tolerance, or crossing the Blackwater in the other direction, none of which sounds supremely realistic.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by boondock on Sept 23, 2016 9:39:01 GMT
First of all I cant imagine any big changes to these proposals just some minor swapping around of some wards. There will be plenty of desperate calls from all the parties (although some more than others) but nothing much will change. The talk of gerrymandering is a little bit tiresome. Its ironic that the FPTP system a system that has helped Unionism in the past for decades win seats through pacts is now actually becoming a problem. Gerry Lynch pointed it out as Unionism is so concentrated in the East its difficult to see how any boundary changes could actually be acceptable to them. Someone posted the crude Green/Orange figures earlier but if anything they underestimate the figures. The new boundaries have Belfast North West (13%), Glenshane (20%) and Upper Bann/Blackwater (22%) all with greater differences in community background than the existing Fermanagh and South Tyrone (12%). The new FST has a 20% difference. The plus side for Unionism is that as Tom Elliot showed a pact and nationalist apathy still means these seats are in play!
|
|
|
Post by phoenixparnell on Sept 23, 2016 18:04:37 GMT
Hi guys This is my first post. I've been looking at the proposals since them came out and stumbled across your forum. I've had a go at it. I'd be interested to hear what people think. 1 North-East Down 70529 2 Lower Castlereagh 72448 3 South-East Belfast 75279 4 South Down 73134 5 Newry & Armagh 74715 6 Lower Iveagh 72717 7 Upper Bann & Blackwater 76904 8 South Antrim 77986 9 South-West Belfast 76304 10 North-West Belfast 72437 11 East Antrim 75403 12 Slemish 72674 13 Dunluce & Rathlin 70693 14 Glenshane 69438 15 North Tyrone 71565 16 Foyle 71398 17 Fermanagh & South Tyrone 69745
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 23, 2016 18:24:56 GMT
I'd be interested to hear what people think. I think you've managed to engineer even more of a nationalist gerrymander than the NI commission, which I suppose given your username shouldn't be surprising
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 23, 2016 18:36:59 GMT
Hi guys This is my first post. I've been looking at the proposals since them came out and stumbled across your forum. I've had a go at it. I'd be interested to hear what people think. 1 North-East Down 70529 13 Dunluce & Rathlin 70693 14 Glenshane 69438 17 Fermanagh & South Tyrone 69745 These 4 seats are below the quota. I know there's some kind of clause in the legislation allowing for this in Northern Ireland, but I think it's meant to be a last resort. I only discovered Boundary Assistant myself a year after the zombie review was effectively abandoned. You probably needed to find this forum a month ago if you were to get away with this plan. It deviates too much from the Commission's proposals, which we must now use at the base plan (except in North East England).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 23, 2016 18:53:52 GMT
It deviates too much from the Commission's proposals, which we must now use at the base plan (except in North East England). Is this what they've said?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 23, 2016 18:57:34 GMT
It deviates too much from the Commission's proposals, which we must now use at the base plan (except in North East England). I know this is your opinion, Foggy, but there really is nothing whatsoever to stop people submitting counterproposals that are radically different from what the Commission have come up with. People should tell the Commission exactly what they prefer, and not some watered-down version.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 23, 2016 18:59:33 GMT
It deviates too much from the Commission's proposals, which we must now use at the base plan (except in North East England). Is this what they've said? Not that I'm aware. I don't think they've admitted that they got it completely wrong in the North East, but equally I don't think they've explicitly said they won't accept wholesale changes to other regions either. I just can't imagine them being anything but dismissive if alternative suggestions deviate from their proposals too greatly. There are other sub-regions which should probably also be exceptions to that assumption, though (Brum, Sheffield, Leics/Notts border, Warks/Worcs border, the Norfolk/Suffolk/Cambs mess).
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 23, 2016 19:02:52 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean then by 'we must' use their proposals as the base plan. From experience it's better to do so as its more likely to get a positive outcome and for that reason I'd expect to get a better hearing with the quite minor changes to their plan that I'm advocating in Hertfordshire and in Middlesex than the wholesale redrawing that I propose in South London. But I'm not clear if you're saying that they won't even entertain my South London proposals because they deviate so much from theirs and why the North East is different in this respect?
|
|
|
Post by phoenixparnell on Sept 23, 2016 19:09:50 GMT
Hi guys This is my first post. I've been looking at the proposals since them came out and stumbled across your forum. I've had a go at it. I'd be interested to hear what people think. 1 North-East Down 70529 13 Dunluce & Rathlin 70693 14 Glenshane 69438 17 Fermanagh & South Tyrone 69745 These 4 seats are below the quota. I know there's some kind of clause in the legislation allowing for this in Northern Ireland, but I think it's meant to be a last resort. I only discovered Boundary Assistant myself a year after the zombie review was effectively abandoned. You probably needed to find this forum a month ago if you were to get away with this plan. It deviates too much from the Commission's proposals, which we must now use at the base plan (except in North East England). I started with the commissions proposals, but there are so many serious problems with them I ended up making big changes. WRT the quota issue my thinking was that parliament specifically legislated for the commission to have an extra bit of margin in NI. Where possible they should try to stick to the quota, but where possible they shouldn't be cleaving good sized towns like Dungannon and Carryduff down the middle either. It was no accident that 2 of the seat under quota will inevitably be Nationalist strongholds, and 2 Unionist strongholds. The thinking was that the commission were given the legal basis to do it, and that it is a wash politically.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 23, 2016 19:13:03 GMT
Hi guys This is my first post. I've been looking at the proposals since them came out and stumbled across your forum. I've had a go at it. I'd be interested to hear what people think. 1 North-East Down 70529 13 Dunluce & Rathlin 70693 14 Glenshane 69438 17 Fermanagh & South Tyrone 69745 These 4 seats are below the quota. I know there's some kind of clause in the legislation allowing for this in Northern Ireland, but I think it's meant to be a last resort. I don't think it's meant as a last resort, but the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland does. And that is something much harder to convince them that they're wrong on than any actual boundaries, so in practice it amounts to the same thing that you said. re the map I agree that, tempting as using the Lagan as a constituency border throughout is, Belvoir ward (most of it, to be precise) is badly served by it. But is carving up Newtownbreda the answer to that?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 23, 2016 19:14:49 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean then by 'we must' use their proposals as the base plan. From experience it's better to do so as its more likely to get a positive outcome and for that reason I'd expect to get a better hearing with the quite minor changes to their plan that I'm advocating in Hertfordshire and in Middlesex than the wholesale redrawing that I propose in South London. But I'm not clear if you're saying that they won't even entertain my South London proposals because they deviate so much from theirs and why the North East is different in this respect? Perhaps 'must' was too strong a verb to use there. Yes, they'll entertain your proposals for South London but will be more likely to weasel their way out of adopting any of them, citing whichever criterion is convenient at the time. The North East is different by comment consent here. I've no idea if the Commission will actually show humility in this regard. Fair enough. It would be nice if English and Welsh towns of a similar size had been given the same protection.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixparnell on Sept 23, 2016 20:05:14 GMT
re the map I agree that, tempting as using the Lagan as a constituency border throughout is, Belvoir ward (most of it, to be precise) is badly served by it. But is carving up Newtownbreda the answer to that? I wasn't happy with that. I wasn't happy with going across the Lagan either, but it was the best i could come up with and the Outer Ring is as good a boundary as the Lagan in that area. I'm defending it to myself as follows but even I'm not convinced there isn't a better way. 1. Although I'm carving it up, I'm only carving it up in a slightly different way than the professionals 2. Being divided between Castlereagh and S.E. Belfast it probably preferable to being carved up between West Down and Strangford 3. Anything I do to try to address it throws out every other quota in the city
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 23, 2016 22:43:00 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean then by 'we must' use their proposals as the base plan. From experience it's better to do so as its more likely to get a positive outcome and for that reason I'd expect to get a better hearing with the quite minor changes to their plan that I'm advocating in Hertfordshire and in Middlesex than the wholesale redrawing that I propose in South London. But I'm not clear if you're saying that they won't even entertain my South London proposals because they deviate so much from theirs and why the North East is different in this respect? A couple of thoughts. 1. There's no need to show much respect to the Commissions' proposals. Just looking at some of the names they've give to seats, it's clear that some of their staff have very little idea what they're doing. (e.g. Eddisbury without Eddisbury, Wentworth & Dearne without Dearne, and so on) 2. I'd recommend a two-pronged approach. Fair enough, prioritise editing the Commissions' most egregious proposals. But also put forward your actual preferred plan, even if it's 100% different from what is on the table. The problem with not doing this is that we end up with an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation where the Commission is given the impression, even by experts, that it has done a near-perfect job that just needs the odd ward shifting here and there. The above isn't particularly relevant to Northern Ireland, but is in response generally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 8:47:12 GMT
Foggy, there's nothing whatsoever written down stopping submissions being wholesale different from the initial proposals.
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Sept 24, 2016 9:02:58 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean then by 'we must' use their proposals as the base plan. From experience it's better to do so as its more likely to get a positive outcome and for that reason I'd expect to get a better hearing with the quite minor changes to their plan that I'm advocating in Hertfordshire and in Middlesex than the wholesale redrawing that I propose in South London. But I'm not clear if you're saying that they won't even entertain my South London proposals because they deviate so much from theirs and why the North East is different in this respect? A couple of thoughts. 1. There's no need to show much respect to the Commissions' proposals. Just looking at some of the names they've give to seats, it's clear that some of their staff have very little idea what they're doing. (e.g. Eddisbury without Eddisbury, Wentworth & Dearne without Dearne, and so on) 2. I'd recommend a two-pronged approach. Fair enough, prioritise editing the Commissions' most egregious proposals. But also put forward your actual preferred plan, even if it's 100% different from what is on the table. The problem with not doing this is that we end up with an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation where the Commission is given the impression, even by experts, that it has done a near-perfect job that just needs the odd ward shifting here and there. The above isn't particularly relevant to Northern Ireland, but is in response generally. Maybe this is a bit of naivety on my part, but my assumption was that responses to the initial proposals could be (and are invited to be) significantly different to the BCE's. Responses to the revised proposals should probably be on the minor side as they are less likely to wholesale change at that stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2016 9:12:19 GMT
A couple of thoughts. 1. There's no need to show much respect to the Commissions' proposals. Just looking at some of the names they've give to seats, it's clear that some of their staff have very little idea what they're doing. (e.g. Eddisbury without Eddisbury, Wentworth & Dearne without Dearne, and so on) 2. I'd recommend a two-pronged approach. Fair enough, prioritise editing the Commissions' most egregious proposals. But also put forward your actual preferred plan, even if it's 100% different from what is on the table. The problem with not doing this is that we end up with an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation where the Commission is given the impression, even by experts, that it has done a near-perfect job that just needs the odd ward shifting here and there. The above isn't particularly relevant to Northern Ireland, but is in response generally. Maybe this is a bit of naivety on my part, but my assumption was that responses to the initial proposals could be (and are invited to be) significantly different to the BCE's. Responses to the revised proposals should probably be on the minor side as they are less likely to wholesale change at that stage. You're bang on. A submission at this stage could be to attach Cumbria with Lancshire and have no seat look the same as the proposals: Foggy is, er foggy, on the logic with regards to respecting what the Commission has put forward.
|
|