|
Post by islington on Sept 14, 2016 16:46:45 GMT
I hope people this this is worthy of a new thread.
I've been wandering around England, courtesy of the interactive map on the BCE website, savouring the new and exciting feature of Polling District boundaries. This is mostly because of the sheer wonderment of it all, but also partly because the site has so many advocates of using them for Parliamentary boundaries.
Doubtless many of them would make decent enough boundaries, but others would be wildly unsuitable. So far, my favourite is the snappily-named E08000025CSE, which is in the King's Heath area of Birmingham. (You may want to use the map's facility of highlighting it in green to see what I mean.)
But I've barely scratched the surface - there must be many other beauties waiting to be discovered.
Offers?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 14, 2016 17:01:38 GMT
I hope people this this is worthy of a new thread.
I've been wandering around England, courtesy of the interactive map on the BCE website, savouring the new and exciting feature of Polling District boundaries. This is mostly because of the sheer wonderment of it all, but also partly because the site has so many advocates of using them for Parliamentary boundaries.
Doubtless many of them would make decent enough boundaries, but others would be wildly unsuitable. So far, my favourite is the snappily-named E08000025CSE, which is in the King's Heath area of Birmingham.
But I've barely scratched the surface - there must be many other beauties waiting to be discovered.
Offers? That's polling district CSE; the rest is digits added by the ONS who like to label everything with long code numbers. Coincidentally I was looking at that PD last night because it's one of the ones I want to switch from Hall Green to Kings Norton. I've now updated my Birmingham/Sandwell plan with the correct figures. I was happy to see that my estimates weren't far out. ukelect.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/2016-review-birmingham-sandwell/ Just like wards, PDs serve a particular purpose, which is why neither are particularly well suited to the job of forming constituencies. PD CSG includes parts of both Moseley and Kings Heath, which is a bit of a nuisance. A lot of them are oddly shaped. If I was the boundary commissioner I would draw the boundaries wherever was best. This would mostly be along ward boundaries, sometimes along PD boundaries, and now and again elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by WestCountryRadical on Sept 14, 2016 18:29:41 GMT
E07000044SAN in Dartmouth is amazing, I think the Electoral Registration Officer was drunk when drawing the boundaries
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,503
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 14, 2016 19:09:14 GMT
But I've barely scratched the surface - there must be many other beauties waiting to be discovered. Offers? In Walkley we have (possibly) the smallest polling district in the country South Road Number 2. Three electors due to a development being built on top of the ward boundary between Walkley and Crookes drawn in 2004, the 2005 parliamentary review followed this ward boundary, and the 2016 ward review moved the boundary to the edge of the property. Resulting in a tiny PD that is required for the two different types of elections. Thank Glod we haven't had a city election and parliamentary election on the same day, or we'd have needed a polling station for those three electors. The BCE proposals put both Walkley and Crookes in the same seat, so if that stands (or the BCE uses a model with the new ward boundaries) the micro-PD will vanish. (Between 2004 and 2010 we had a PD with no electors in it! The boundary was moved a few yards from a river to a railway line.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2016 20:05:24 GMT
I've noticed a few instances of polling districts with detached parts covering single properties or streets, I'm guessing this is due to boundary changes? I also noticed a single farm with its own polling district, entirely surrounded by another.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 17, 2016 20:18:30 GMT
I so wish we could use polling districts as a matter of routine. I could create the perfect St Albans seat if so. Removing any element of Three Rivers and adding Sandridge instead is what I would have liked to do but it falls just short with an electorate of 70,727 (304 short). But I'd thought that adding the St Michaels parish might bring it up to size - it's a tiny parish with just a few scattered hamlets and an anomalous bit of Chiswell Green but sure enough it has 379 electors, many of whom have little enough connection to Harpenden never mind Hitchin. This would mean St Albans would contain the city and all five neighbouring parishes - no need to include Leavesden or Primrose Hill or any of this other nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 17, 2016 20:30:55 GMT
It would also solve some problems with Watford and Hertsmere. The addition of Carpenders Park ward to Hertsmere is unsatisfactory as there is no road link between there and Bushey and also it divides South Oxhey. Many people have also commented on the strong connections between Leavesden ward and neighbouring parts of Watford. Using polling districts you could keep the Oxhey Hall (DCA) and Carpenders Park (DCD) polling districts in Watford (1808 + 3875) and also the Leavesden ward which gives an electorate of 74,278. You can then move the Oxhey Villae PD (LB) (2710) to Hertsmere where it links very well with Bushey (this area was actually annexed from Bushey 100 years ago which then gives Watford an electorate of 71,568 and takes Hertsmere up to 72535 This would then keep the 5 South Oxhey PDs together in SW Herts (which is where things might get more tricky as it would need to lose Tring presumably, but I'm not concerned with that at the moment)
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Sept 17, 2016 23:19:39 GMT
Polling districts aren't good units for boundaries, although I understand the BCE's position.
In urban areas PDs are set for 2 reasons:
(a). The availability of polling stations (b). The convenience of voters in getting to these stations
They don't relate at all to natural units, except insofar as (b) will reflect barriers like railways. The point is that administrative convenience is the primary issue rather than community of interest. Where do the schools happen to be? Is there a church hall we can use?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 18, 2016 7:08:14 GMT
This is true in many cases although in all those I was discussing above they do relate to natural units (in the case of the Watford Rural PDs they differentiate South Oxhey from the rest, in the case of the Oxhey (Watford) PD it is the area East of the railway which is effectively the occupied territory of Bushey, in the case of St Michaels it is the whole parish). Incidentally I carried on with this plan through the rest of Herts and it wasn't necessary to remove Tring. In effect SW Herts remains completely unchanged and though with a very high electorate is within quota and I was able to make the other Hertfordshire seats work without too much change
|
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,710
|
Post by myth11 on Sept 18, 2016 10:58:12 GMT
single seat council wards would make it easy but then get "your putting my village in 2 seats" moans.
|
|