|
Post by erimus58 on Aug 26, 2016 10:17:12 GMT
Sorry if such a thread already exists, in which case this one can be deleted, but would it be a good idea to have a specific thread regarding questions on boundaries in general rather than specific areas. As you may have guessed I have a few questions so here goes:-
1) Regarding transport links between wards I understand that you should try to avoid having wards in a constituency where it is not possible to reach without travelling through another constituency. But what if there are good transport links through the ward but a small portion is isolated. For example, if the North Downs ward to the south of the Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency was added to the constituency it appears that you cannot reach the south east bulge without leaving the constituency. Is this acceptable?
2) How do you deal with split wards as regards electorate? I am tending to avoid these wards so as to not throw out the electorate sizes.
3) The ward of Polegate North, north of Eastbourne, is split between the three constituencies of Eastbourne, Lewes and Bexhill and Battle. Looking closely at Google Maps there appears to be very little or no habitation in the parts of the ward hived off to Eastbourne or B & B. Is there any online resource available that explains why wards are split or indeed the reasoning behind the split?
4) Is there a 'Noddy's Guide' to posting images?
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 26, 2016 12:23:05 GMT
Let me have a go at these.
1) I think this quality - I call it 'internal connectivity' - is highly desirable but not 100% essential.
In the first place, as Erimus points out, it happens more often than one might think that there is some part of a ward that is inaccessible - at least, by car - from the rest of the ward. I don't think there's much to be done about this. The rules urge us to have regard to local government boundaries, including wards, so my view (others may differ) is that we should proceed on the assumption that existing LA boundaries make sense. If they don't, it's a matter to be picked up by the LGBCE (or equivalent body outside England); it should not be a factor in the current exercise.
There's a further, similar, point about linking together wards that may be perfectly logical in themselves, but with a boundary between them that follows some obstacle such as a river that lacks any bridging point within the seat thus created. This is, clearly, far from ideal but again, it happens on occasion with existing boundaries and, realistically, it sometimes has to be accepted in the interests of the best map overall. For instance, the existing seat of Lancaster & Fleetwood is divided by the river Wyre, with no bridging point within the seat (or anywhere near it). This is an egregious instance, but I don't think it's unique. In my proposals, there are a few examples, e.g. the two Poole wards in my Christchurch seat are separated from the remainder by the river Stour, and my Clackmannan & Grangemouth seat is divided by the Forth. But in both these cases, there are good bridges lying just outside the constituency boundary, so I regard this feature as a drawback but not a fatal flaw (and both seats are much less bad than the current Lancaster & Fleetwood). In practice, I think people will be interested in whether they can travel easily from place to place in the seat, rather than whether doing so will take them outside the boundary for a short part of the journey.
2) As has often been observed, I strive to avoid ward splits so I'm not best placed to answer this question. All I will say is that we've now established, contrary to my initial expectation, that it is possible to generate 600 legal seats across the UK without a single ward split anywhere, so to that extent it's fair to say that ward-splitting is optional, not required.
3) I think you'll find, in this and similar instances, that there have been changes to the ward boundaries that were in place when the current constituencies were drawn up. So if the opportunity was taken, when the wards were revised, to tidy up the boundaries, then odd scraps of territory may have found themselves left on the wrong side of the line. Don't worry about it - just focus on the current wards.
4) It took me ages to work out how to post images. The following advice is what I posted for Jamie Clark on the North East thread a little while ago. I hope it's helpful.
"Jamie, I uploaded the screenshots into Photobucket, which is free to use (although beset by annoying adverts). Once you open the image on Photobucket, it gives you the option of sharing the image. Click the bottom box (IMG) and you can then paste into your post.
"I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, but that's what worked for me."
Hope all this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 29, 2016 22:59:27 GMT
Very general question. I favour devolution to English regions as the answer to the West Lothian Question and because i favour subsidiarity in general Are there any particular problems with using the Euro constituencies as devolved regions? Yes. They're shit To be more specific, the three southern regions outside London in particular have no meaning or identity whatsoever which is rather signified by the fact that no more evocative names could be thought up for them than those of compass points
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 29, 2016 23:14:03 GMT
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,591
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 30, 2016 1:22:29 GMT
Very general question. I favour devolution to English regions as the answer to the West Lothian Question and because i favour subsidiarity in general Are there any particular problems with using the Euro constituencies as devolved regions? Yes. Middlesbrough and Grimsby are in the wrong regions.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,379
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 30, 2016 10:57:20 GMT
Ok, so suggest to me how we could have devo to England that worked. Do you concede that North East, Yorkshire, Lancastria and London work? What works as Home Counties, Wessex, East Mercia, West Mercia or Anglia? Start with Yorkshire, and work out from there as everyone else will want it then
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,379
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 30, 2016 11:23:05 GMT
It is just about possible we might get some sort of Yorkshire regional devolution as the push seems to be to include everything except the bits where Sheffield has gone off on one, and we have held out against a mayor, so with May's change of emphasis might be able to get some sort of (at least indirectly) elected assembly
. the next stage would be to decide where to put the boundary from the top left corner of Yorkshire to Scotland (Or possibly the Irish sea) and work round anticlockwise
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 30, 2016 12:27:40 GMT
Very general question. I favour devolution to English regions as the answer to the West Lothian Question and because i favour subsidiarity in general Are there any particular problems with using the Euro constituencies as devolved regions? Yes, there are many problems with using the current English Euro constituencies as devolved regions, especially regarding geographical and cultural ties.
The South East is rather incoherent and the northern counties of this region have no real connection with the southern counties. Buckinghamshire is in fact north of London geographically and so is Oxfordshire and they have no connection with Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, or Kent.
Hampshire should join with all counties in the South West (except Gloucestershire) and form 'Wessex and Cornwall'. Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire can form a Thames Valley region. Surrey, Sussex (East and West) and Kent can consist of the remainder of the South East.
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire should form a new region called West Anglia, with Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk becoming East Anglia.
North Lincolnshire should be reunited with the rest of the East Midlands to form 'Lindsey'. Yorkshire should then take Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland areas in compensation as those were in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The North East should be renamed as Durham & Northumbria.
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire should form a region called 'Severn Valley'. The other counties in the West Midlands can form 'New Mercia'. The North West should be unchanged in size but be renamed 'Cheshire, Lancastria, and Cumbria'.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 30, 2016 14:58:30 GMT
He is seeking office. I have withdrawn my support for him in the Green party deputy leadership election on the basis of his West Anglia proposal. I will instead be supporting hempie
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 30, 2016 16:24:53 GMT
Pete Whitehead, that internal election is now over-voting for it closed on 25th August. And I am sure hempie was not standing. I can just combine West Anglia and East Anglia back into Anglia (East of England) if you like. Main issue is that Bedfordshire only connects particularly well to Hertfordshire in that context.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 30, 2016 17:13:14 GMT
To be fair West Anglia isn't the worst suggestion ever, but Cambridgeshire fits better with the rest of East Anglia than it does with Herts and Beds which in turn fit better with your Thames Valley. It seems strange that you've gone for some quite small regions there (West Anglia and Thames Valley) while creating a vast Wessex region which stretched all the way from Hampshire to Cornwall
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 30, 2016 20:37:29 GMT
To be fair, Huntingdonshire works reasonably well with Bedfordshire. It's just that pre-1965 Cambridgeshire doesn't fit at all.
And as there's more population in the pre-1965 bits than in Hunts, and as commuter flows overwhelmingly go from Huntingdonshire to Cambridgeshire rather than vice versa, it's the pre-1965 portion's links that are key.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Aug 30, 2016 20:51:49 GMT
Any English devolution dosent HAVE to follow the Euro constituencies though does it.
To refer to @boogieeck 's original point, it would depend how large or small you want to make each "region". Only once that has been decided can you start contemplating how best to divvy up the electoral map
|
|
|
Post by erimus58 on Aug 31, 2016 3:47:30 GMT
Very general question. I favour devolution to English regions as the answer to the West Lothian Question and because i favour subsidiarity in general Are there any particular problems with using the Euro constituencies as devolved regions? Yes. Middlesbrough and Grimsby are in the wrong regions. Hear, hear!
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,508
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 31, 2016 13:21:17 GMT
Very general question. I favour devolution to English regions as the answer to the West Lothian Question and because i favour subsidiarity in general Are there any particular problems with using the Euro constituencies as devolved regions? Yes, there are many problems with using the current English Euro constituencies as devolved regions, especially regarding geographical and cultural ties.
The South East is rather incoherent and the northern counties of this region have no real connection with the southern counties. Buckinghamshire is in fact north of London geographically and so is Oxfordshire and they have no connection with Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, or Kent.
Hampshire should join with all counties in the South West (except Gloucestershire) and form 'Wessex and Cornwall'. Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire can form a Thames Valley region. Surrey, Sussex (East and West) and Kent can consist of the remainder of the South East.
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire should form a new region called West Anglia, with Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk becoming East Anglia.
North Lincolnshire should be reunited with the rest of the East Midlands to form 'Lindsey'. Yorkshire should then take Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland areas in compensation as those were in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The North East should be renamed as Durham & Northumbria.
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire should form a region called 'Severn Valley'. The other counties in the West Midlands can form 'New Mercia'. The North West should be unchanged in size but be renamed 'Cheshire, Lancastria, and Cumbria'.
Erm, no, it really shouldn't. The vast majority of Hampshire looks north and east (where it looks anywhere else at all) and the only affinities to the west are Dorset only and Salisbury and surrounds in Wilts. If you're not sure what to do with it, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight would make a perfectly reasonable small region on it's own.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,044
|
Post by peterl on Aug 31, 2016 13:56:06 GMT
A proper model for local government: County > District > Parish. This allows for both strategic decision making on some issues and more local decision making on others. Regions? No thanks.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 31, 2016 15:04:23 GMT
Yes, there are many problems with using the current English Euro constituencies as devolved regions, especially regarding geographical and cultural ties.
The South East is rather incoherent and the northern counties of this region have no real connection with the southern counties. Buckinghamshire is in fact north of London geographically and so is Oxfordshire and they have no connection with Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, or Kent.
Hampshire should join with all counties in the South West (except Gloucestershire) and form 'Wessex and Cornwall'. Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire can form a Thames Valley region. Surrey, Sussex (East and West) and Kent can consist of the remainder of the South East.
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire should form a new region called West Anglia, with Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk becoming East Anglia.
North Lincolnshire should be reunited with the rest of the East Midlands to form 'Lindsey'. Yorkshire should then take Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland areas in compensation as those were in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The North East should be renamed as Durham & Northumbria.
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire should form a region called 'Severn Valley'. The other counties in the West Midlands can form 'New Mercia'. The North West should be unchanged in size but be renamed 'Cheshire, Lancastria, and Cumbria'.
Erm, no, it really shouldn't. The vast majority of Hampshire looks north and east (where it looks anywhere else at all) and the only affinities to the west are Dorset only and Salisbury and surrounds in Wilts. If you're not sure what to do with it, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight would make a perfectly reasonable small region on it's own. This leads us to questions of viability, though, and also whether such a small region could/should have power the same level of powers as the Scottish Parliament.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 31, 2016 15:06:14 GMT
I'd also add in that I'm against merging Hampshire with Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset. People in Plymouth have very little in common with people in Eastleigh. I'd prefer the current regions to that as a basis for devolution.
This isn't the thread for that...
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 31, 2016 15:49:10 GMT
Hampshire + IOW would be a similar size to Northern Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 31, 2016 18:46:34 GMT
Absolutely not-instead, Northern Ireland should put aside its religious differences and reunite with 'Southern' Ireland (i.e. the Republic of Ireland) and thus leave the United Kingdom.
|
|