|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Apr 15, 2021 8:00:35 GMT
The issue of how far it is acceptable to propose seats that straddle substantial bodies of water has come up a couple of times in the Scotland thread, but in principle it could arise in any part of the UK so I'm addressing it here. In defence of these seats the plea is often entered that there is a bridge. My question is whether this is enough.
Take the case illustrated. It certainly passes the 'bridge' test (there are three) but would this seat (electorate 72463) be acceptable if someone were to suggest it? I think not; because there's a difference between a river and an estuary (or inlet). A river is generally acceptable to cross, definitely if there's a bridge within the seat and perhaps on occasion even if there isn't. But I'm much more dubious about an estuary or inlet, even if bridged. As to where one draws the line between a river and an estuary (or inlet), we might need to ask the advice of a geographer. I'd say it's something to do with (a) how wide it is; (b) whether it is tidal; and (c) more nebulously, something to do with how closely the line of each bank tracks the line of the other. I'm not sure any of these factors is decisive in itself - it's a matter of how they combine in the particular case. In its Guide to the 2018 Review, the Boundary Commission for England stated: 35 As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies:
• from wards that are adjacent to each other; and
• that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel through a different constituency. If the Commission issues the same guidance this time, it means that detachment is not about the width of a river or estuary, it is about travel links. Can you travel between parts of the proposed seat? By car? On foot?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Apr 15, 2021 8:44:07 GMT
In its Guide to the 2018 Review, the Boundary Commission for England stated: 35 As far as possible, the BCE seeks to create constituencies:
• from wards that are adjacent to each other; and
• that do not contain ‘detached parts’, i.e. where the only physical connection between one part of the constituency and the remainder would require travel through a different constituency. If the Commission issues the same guidance this time, it means that detachment is not about the width of a river or estuary, it is about travel links. Can you travel between parts of the proposed seat? By car? On foot?
Or canoe? I forgot the Wyre estuary in my previous post: the current Wyre & Preston North spans this without even a passenger ferry connection, which it least its infamous neighbour Lancaster & Fleetwood does have. This was also true of the 1997-2010 Lancaster & Wyre (which included Poulton-le-Fylde). The existing Norwich North includes a small exclave on the south bank of the River Yare, though I think it has no electors unless someone's registered address is a boathouse. In this area the river is within the city of Norwich and in Norwich South constituency, the north bank is in Broadland district and Norwich North constituency, and the south bank is mostly in South Norfolk district and constituency, but for some reason there's a small area on the south bank between the river and the railway which is in Broadland and is also assigned to Norwich North. (Why are the district boundaries in this area like that?) If the Commission actually take the policy above absolutely literally then they ought to propose moving Thorpe Hamlet ward of Norwich, which includes this bit of the river, from South to North. (But would they choose this way of dealing with Norwich North's undersize electorate just for this reason?) As has been discussed it is not uncommon, especially in areas with new developments, to have small areas which are only accessible (by road anyway) across a ward or sometimes even a district boundary, and inevitably some of these become constituency boundaries. There's also Rossendale & Darwen, which is very poorly connected except on foot. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 15, 2021 9:05:56 GMT
Also Harwich & North Essex, where the 2010 boundary changes meant that you can only get to the portion of the constituency on the west bank of the Colne by going via Colchester (although in the summer there's sometimes a very occasional foot-ferry.)
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Apr 15, 2021 12:27:52 GMT
What happens if the only bridge collapses or is closed for repairs, right around review time? (In the "very literally minded Commission" scenario.) What is the relevant date for an extant travel connection - same as for electorates?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 15, 2021 12:33:05 GMT
What happens if the only bridge collapses or is closed for repairs, right around review time? (In the "very literally minded Commission" scenario.) What is the relevant date for an extant travel connection - same as for electorates? Tat rule almost makes Stannington a detatched part of Sheffield Hallam - as I pointed out in the original review that added it on, it's only joined to the rest of the constituency by a horrible hairpin road that you wouldn't want to traverse in bad weather. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 15, 2021 14:38:48 GMT
What happens if the only bridge collapses or is closed for repairs, right around review time? (In the "very literally minded Commission" scenario.) What is the relevant date for an extant travel connection - same as for electorates? Tat rule almost makes Stannington a detatched part of Sheffield Hallam - as I pointed out in the original review that added it on, it's only joined to the rest of the constituency by a horrible hairpin road that you wouldn't want to traverse in bad weather.
If you mean Lodge Lane, on the Lodge Moor side, it's actually often clearer than some of the main roads immediately after it snows, as the farmer who lives on it has the gritting contract. Its also a simple hairpin, you only need to go down to second gear; well its simple if you live just off said road, and have driven it for 30 years.  I would have said Rails Road on the other side of the Stannington side would probably be more trecherous.
I do agree with your overall point point that the transport and social links between the areas is minimal, the unintended consequence of Sheffield deciding not to build in its green valleys in the 1930s.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 15, 2021 17:41:50 GMT
Tat rule almost makes Stannington a detatched part of Sheffield Hallam - as I pointed out in the original review that added it on, it's only joined to the rest of the constituency by a horrible hairpin road that you wouldn't want to traverse in bad weather. If you mean Lodge Lane, on the Lodge Moor side, it's actually often clearer than some of the main roads immediately after it snows, as the farmer who lives on it has the gritting contract. Its also a simple hairpin, you only need to go down to second gear; well its simple if you live just off said road, and have driven it for 30 years. I would have said Rails Road on the other side of the Stannington side would probably be more trecherous.
I do agree with your overall point point that the transport and social links between the areas is minimal, the unintended consequence of Sheffield deciding not to build in its green valleys in the 1930s.
My father drove up and down it daily for 30+ years working at Lodge Moor Hospital, and it was our route to Redmires and Stanege Edge. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 15, 2021 21:45:46 GMT
What happens if the only bridge collapses or is closed for repairs, right around review time? (In the "very literally minded Commission" scenario.) What is the relevant date for an extant travel connection - same as for electorates? Tat rule almost makes Stannington a detatched part of Sheffield Hallam - as I pointed out in the original review that added it on, it's only joined to the rest of the constituency by a horrible hairpin road that you wouldn't want to traverse in bad weather. I, for the life of me, have never been able to understand this desire for good communications, lots of roads, rail links, 'one side of the river/main road/railway, never over an estuary', etc., etc? What is this all about? Electors are not much interested in the boundaries and largely don't care where they are. They travel about to schools, work, entertainment, pubs and for shopping. They don't care who the other electors are, where they live, or how difficult or easy it is to get from any one part of the constituency to any other part. The electors think 'Vote', 'Equality of Value of Vote', and are other electors pretty much like me, and where is the polling station? That is the only place in the constituency that matters to them in any manner at all. Nothing else at all matters. They don't need to travel to any other place 'in the constituency' for any purpose ever. They travel to places they want to get to not because they are in the constituency. It doesn't matter to the typical elector how big or small the consituency is. It doesn't matter if it is split into 17 small exclaves in 12 other constituencies. It doesn't matter if it it separated by the Swale, Forth, Thames or Solent Estuary because it has no effect at all on their vote. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 15, 2021 23:15:09 GMT
Tat rule almost makes Stannington a detatched part of Sheffield Hallam - as I pointed out in the original review that added it on, it's only joined to the rest of the constituency by a horrible hairpin road that you wouldn't want to traverse in bad weather. I for the life of me have never been able to understand this desire for good communications, lots of roads, rail links, 'one side of the river/main road/railway, never over an estuary, etc., etc? What is this all about? Electors are not much interested in the boundaries and largely don't care where they are. They travel about to schools, work, entrtainment, pub and for shopping. They don't care who the other electors are, where they live, or how difficult or easy it is to get from any one part of the constituency to any other part. The electors think 'Vote', 'Equality of Value of Vote', and are other electors pretty much like me, and where is the polling station. That is the only place in the constituency that matters to them in any manner at all. Nothing else at all matters. They don't need to travel to any other place 'in the constituency' for any purpose ever. They travel to places they want to get to not because they are in the constituency. It doesn't matter to the typical elector how big or small the consituency is. It doesn't matter if it is split into 17 small exclaves in 12 other constituencies. It doesn't matter if it it separated by the Swale, Forth, Thames or Solent Estuary because it has no effect at all on their vote. Looks like you're over halfway to supporting PR... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 16, 2021 9:15:33 GMT
I for the life of me have never been able to understand this desire for good communications, lots of roads, rail links, 'one side of the river/main road/railway, never over an estuary, etc., etc? What is this all about? Electors are not much interested in the boundaries and largely don't care where they are. They travel about to schools, work, entrtainment, pub and for shopping. They don't care who the other electors are, where they live, or how difficult or easy it is to get from any one part of the constituency to any other part. The electors think 'Vote', 'Equality of Value of Vote', and are other electors pretty much like me, and where is the polling station. That is the only place in the constituency that matters to them in any manner at all. Nothing else at all matters. They don't need to travel to any other place 'in the constituency' for any purpose ever. They travel to places they want to get to not because they are in the constituency. It doesn't matter to the typical elector how big or small the consituency is. It doesn't matter if it is split into 17 small exclaves in 12 other constituencies. It doesn't matter if it it separated by the Swale, Forth, Thames or Solent Estuary because it has no effect at all on their vote. Looks like you're over halfway to supporting PR... It has nothing at all to do with any form of PR in any way whatsoever. That is a typical LD obsessional red herring. I hate loath and totally abominate all and every sort of PR to which I am adamantly opposed. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Apr 16, 2021 14:20:25 GMT
I am pretty sure that if Labour had been in power for 90% of the last 50 years whilst picking up 40% of the vote, you would be a loud outspoken advocate of PR  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 16, 2021 14:30:09 GMT
For fuck sake, can we not, on every thread ?
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 16, 2021 15:05:33 GMT
For fuck sake, can we not, on every thread ? Another outbreak of the pernicious PR variant.  |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 16, 2021 15:24:46 GMT
For fuck sake, can we not, on every thread ? Another outbreak of the pernicious PR variant.
Lockdown all threads immediately |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 16, 2021 15:28:37 GMT
Another outbreak of the pernicious PR variant.
Lockdown all threads immediately No more than six people on a thread at any one time! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 19, 2021 12:47:11 GMT
Is there any rule against splitting a ward where this is not necessary to bring the electorate of one or more constituencies into quota?
|
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 19, 2021 12:49:40 GMT
Is there any rule against splitting a ward where this is not necessary to bring the electorate of one or more constituencies into quota? No, they actually did it in Chesham and Amersham |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 19, 2021 13:06:39 GMT
Thanks you're right. I had a feeling they had done it somewhere. Justified there I suppose by the ward itself being a ridiculous combination (in that case if urban and rural).
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 19, 2021 15:27:45 GMT
Is there any rule against splitting a ward where this is not necessary to bring the electorate of one or more constituencies into quota? No, they actually did it in Chesham and Amersham No, this was number-driven.
Had the entire ward in question (Chiltern Ridges) been placed in Prince's Risborough, that seat's numbers would be in range but C&A would be light by 4867.
Had it been wholly put in C&A, then PR would have been 2092 short.
I don't like the BCE's C&A anyway. Apart from the ward split, it puts a boundary right through the middle of the Old Town area of Beaconsfield. On the numbers C&A can be left unchanged and in my view it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 19, 2021 15:53:13 GMT
OK - but is there a rule or not?
|
|
I would have said Rails Road on the other side of the Stannington side would probably be more trecherous. 
