Let the great boundary rejig commence
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:00:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Let the great boundary rejig commence
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 41
Author Topic: Let the great boundary rejig commence  (Read 185526 times)
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #825 on: March 09, 2012, 03:47:22 PM »

Somewhere in the London transcript is a quote from the Assistant Commissioner who says "It is not the Commission's policy to split wards"

As we knew.

However, the Yorkshire Assistant Commissioner seems quite interested in the idea, if you look at the Leeds transcripts.

Speaking of which, I've found a sensible proposal for West Yorkshire.  It's by someone called Dan Howard, who appears to have Labour connections in Kirklees, but it isn't an official Labour proposal.  (I found it because I was searching by organisation type and found a Colne Valley Labour submission endorsing it.)  It has 7 seats in Leeds without any border crossing, four in Kirklees, four in Bradford minus Queensbury, three in Wakefield excluding one ward which would go with Barnsley, and the same arrangement in Calderdale+Queensbury that the Lib Dems and Tories have.  A handful of wards are split to achieve this.  The reference number is 023075.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #826 on: March 13, 2012, 12:32:45 AM »

I've found this classic rant in the Scottish Commission comments section


Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #827 on: March 13, 2012, 04:18:30 AM »

Nice pun. "You don't move me".
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #828 on: March 13, 2012, 06:39:51 AM »

Cheesy Class.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #829 on: March 13, 2012, 02:26:02 PM »

Win.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #830 on: March 13, 2012, 02:47:32 PM »

Another West and South Yorkshire proposal is from Shipley Labour Party, reference no. 023128.  Like the Tory map, it's a 33 seat proposal for the two counties with no split wards, and so perhaps unsurprisingly it has a lot in common with the Tory map.  Instead of linking central Leeds with Ossett they link it with Normanton (slightly better? even worse? not sure) and instead of the Tories' Bradford East/Horsforth link they have Bradford East and Bramley (this looks a bit less random on a map, at any rate).  For their own constituency their plan is to have a Shipley and Bradford North containing Shipley, Baildon, Bingley, Windhill & Wrose, Heaton, Manningham and Toller.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #831 on: March 13, 2012, 02:52:59 PM »

For their own constituency their plan is to have a Shipley and Bradford North containing Shipley, Baildon, Bingley, Windhill & Wrose, Heaton, Manningham and Toller.

O.K, that deserves a Grin
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #832 on: March 13, 2012, 03:07:12 PM »

So where's the Frankfurt map, Al? Grin
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #833 on: March 13, 2012, 03:11:47 PM »


About half done. For some reason I've decided to do the top seven candidates.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #834 on: March 13, 2012, 03:30:22 PM »


About half done. For some reason I've decided to do the top seven candidates.
Makes sense. Or would if the PARTEI, Pirate and Left map didn't all sort of look alike. Grin
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #835 on: March 13, 2012, 04:05:50 PM »

For their own constituency their plan is to have a Shipley and Bradford North containing Shipley, Baildon, Bingley, Windhill & Wrose, Heaton, Manningham and Toller.

O.K, that deserves a Grin

I thought you might like it...
Logged
Pete Whitehead
Rookie
**
Posts: 29
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #836 on: March 13, 2012, 05:38:04 PM »

2010 Notional result for that Shipley & Bradford North

Lab    20455   38.1%
Con   20367   38.0%
LD       9513   17.7%
Grn     1822     3.4%
UKIP     364     0.7%
BNP      235     0.4%
oth       909     1.7%
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #837 on: March 13, 2012, 06:50:37 PM »

2010 Notional result for that Shipley & Bradford North

Lab    20455   38.1%
Con   20367   38.0%
LD       9513   17.7%
Grn     1822     3.4%
UKIP     364     0.7%
BNP      235     0.4%
oth       909     1.7%


If this was a genuine suggestion, I feel as though seats like this for MPs like this (Phil Davies) would cause many there to be government rebels to be honest.
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #838 on: March 16, 2012, 09:57:27 AM »

The Boundary Commission for England has produced an Excel spreadsheet in which every constituency has a refernence number associated with it, making it easier to look at opinions/submissions on a seat-by-seat basis.

In terms of Preston, there's only one topic of debate; Fishwick. Everyone who has written in wants Fishwick to stay in Preston (for some reasons more partisan than others), and as there is cross-Party support in all the counter submissions, I have no doubt that it will happen.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #839 on: March 16, 2012, 01:30:42 PM »
« Edited: March 16, 2012, 02:09:01 PM by YL »

The Boundary Commission for England has produced an Excel spreadsheet in which every constituency has a refernence number associated with it, making it easier to look at opinions/submissions on a seat-by-seat basis.

Thanks for pointing that out.

NB what it does is list submissions according to which existing constituency the respondent's address is in.
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #840 on: March 16, 2012, 02:16:45 PM »

Any chance of linking the aforementioned excel sheet here?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #841 on: March 16, 2012, 02:18:46 PM »

Anyway, I looked through those for the six current Sheffield constituencies (i.e. the five with Sheffield in the name and Penistone & Stocksbridge).

- Hardly anyone is impressed.  Actually, I think no-one is impressed.
- A lot of people don't want seats crossing the City boundary.
- Further to the above, people in north Sheffield don't like the "Barnsley West & Ecclesfield" name.
- A number of people prefer traditional names to compass points.
- There aren't many actual counterproposals.

Leftbehind: see
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/news/existing-constituencies-look-up-feature/
(The link is about halfway down.)
Logged
Pete Whitehead
Rookie
**
Posts: 29
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #842 on: March 16, 2012, 09:01:35 PM »

The Boundary Commission for England has produced an Excel spreadsheet in which every constituency has a refernence number associated with it, making it easier to look at opinions/submissions on a seat-by-seat basis.

Thanks for pointing that out.

NB what it does is list submissions according to which existing constituency the respondent's address is in.

Indeed -  I suppose it would have been difficlut to do it any other way. What it does mean of course is that my several submissions covering various parts of London and Southern England all come under St Albans. I noticed there were no submissions from Hertsmere. although I did make representations about Hertsmere as part of my wider submission on the Eastern region.
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #843 on: March 17, 2012, 02:56:35 AM »

If you want to read some good rants try looking at some of the submissions from Ellesmere Port & Neston.  (Not the first one though: that actually votes "Agree"!)

And just how many submissions are there from Al's favourite West Midlands commuter town?
Logged
doktorb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,072
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #844 on: March 18, 2012, 08:14:52 AM »

Looking at the Lancashire submissions, it's certainly obvious that the western parts are going to be barely touched from the initial proposals.

Blackpool South - no submissions at all, the main parties don't touch anything at all, I think we move a couple of wards around
Blackpool North and Fleetwood - main parties don't do much with this, Wyre Borough Council seem to be the only group who want to change things (and "Wyre and Blackpool North" is utterly bonkers).
Fylde - most seem to support it, including some residents, and again it's only Wyre Borough Council who are against.
"Lancaster" is supported more or less by the Conservatives, who nibble around the edges and reintroduce "...and Wyre" to the constituency name. Labour and our lot go for something far more extreme ("Garstang and Carnforth" for the former, "Wyre and Preston North" and "Valleys of Ribble and Lune" for the latter).
Preston has submissions from members of the public dealing with just one ward rather than the whole seat, and with the Conservatives only dealing with the whole constituency it seems likely that Labour (adding bits of Fulwood and suburban outcrops) and our idea (cutting it through the middle and adding as much of South Ribble as we could get away with) won't convince anyone to change things.

Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #845 on: March 18, 2012, 03:52:00 PM »

Cheers, YL.

Most of the ones I read for Redcar raise the ridiculous splitting of Normanby, but less than I expected for further lumping Greater Eston with Redcar, and not Middlesbrough.
Logged
joevsimp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 482


Political Matrix
E: -5.95, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #846 on: March 21, 2012, 04:39:59 PM »


I'd just like to say, that playing with that for a few hours really shows you what a difficult task the boundary commission have to do, and how awkward the ward population numbers are in some areas to build sensible constiuencies, (having said that, there's no excuse for Billericay and Dunmow)
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #847 on: March 22, 2012, 02:49:53 AM »


I'd just like to say, that playing with that for a few hours really shows you what a difficult task the boundary commission have to do, and how awkward the ward population numbers are in some areas to build sensible constiuencies, (having said that, there's no excuse for Billericay and Dunmow)

Certainly, although:

- It was the English Commission's own decision to refuse to split wards.  The other three Commissions all have split at least one, and I'm sure the English Commission would have done a much better job in certain areas (South and West Yorkshire, north Cheshire, around Birmingham, maybe a few others) if they'd been prepared to do that.

- There's no excuse for the mess they made of Cumbria (for example), where the wards are quite small.

I think that either they basically rushed the job because they had 500 constituencies to draw in a short time using tight new rules, or they have an inexcusable lack of knowledge of the geography of certain parts of the country (see Copeland & Windermere or Consett & Barnard Castle).
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #848 on: March 22, 2012, 07:13:40 AM »

My summary after reading a few of the counter proposals

Dear Commission

I am absolutely appalled at your lack of local knowledge when grouping together the village of Nonentity with parts of Somecity. This disgrace will affect the 72 villagers who live in Nonentity who have nothing to do with Somecity and haven't since 1066. I myself work in Somecity, shop in Somecity and my kids go to school in Somecity. While the pen pushers at the Commission may think it sensible to include Nonentity with Somecity because of the direct rail and road links, how can you expect an MP to cover so large an area in 2012? He might not have a car, e-mail or legs.

Instead you can link Nonentity with the rest of Someshire via a road that I would never drive down and I'm not sure what it's called but it's been there for a while and used to connect Nonentity with a rural district that it was part of until 1974. Now I know that this will give Somecounty South an electorate of 90,000 but as you can tell I don't really care for numbers and rules. Should the Commission find this unacceptable then bits of Somecity can be lopped off and added elsewhere buggering up the rest of your proposals.

Sincerely

A. N. Arse
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #849 on: March 22, 2012, 12:51:26 PM »


I'd just like to say, that playing with that for a few hours really shows you what a difficult task the boundary commission have to do, and how awkward the ward population numbers are in some areas to build sensible constiuencies, (having said that, there's no excuse for Billericay and Dunmow)

Certainly, although:

- It was the English Commission's own decision to refuse to split wards.  The other three Commissions all have split at least one, and I'm sure the English Commission would have done a much better job in certain areas (South and West Yorkshire, north Cheshire, around Birmingham, maybe a few others) if they'd been prepared to do that.
Anywhere with unitaries, basically. And there is no excuse for that decision.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Unmistakably both.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 41  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.