Let the great boundary rejig commence

[dadge]

Click to enlarge. A ward map of Scotland with electorates in thousands. Doesn't included cities. Good for drafting your own proposals

I'm clicking but nothing happens. :-(

Adrian
ukelect.wordpress.com

[dadge]

Anyone with more experience of this fancy telling me if this would've been workable to avoid Mersey Banks?

Birkenhead - 74,264
Moels and Wallasey - 76,171
Wirral South and West Kirby - 76,871

That's fine, but it's Meols, not Moels :-) (Just call it Wallasey anyway, people won't mind too much.)

[dadge]

I've "done" the West Midlands now and I've started on the North East

ukelect.wordpress.com

[dadge]

My initial reaction was that the Commission hasn't done too bad a job with Wales. Here are my doodlings: ukelect.wordpress.com/category/wales/

[dadge]

Where can we see these submissions?

But be warned = it's slow work

If you know a reference number,you can just bung that in.

Using a fusker might help a bit. For example, go to urlscan.hierzo.be and enter consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/ip/000001/

Then click on Refresh and Autonext

Then sit back and read for a week!

It would be nice if a freindly geek would invent a less clunky way of searching the documents than the one the Commission provides. Google search doesn't even work - I've made a site crawl request but no joy.

[dadge]

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).

Quite. I'm still willing to make a small wager that the revised proposals will include at least one split ward. Maybe in Cheshire, where they have a good excuse (the 2010 wards were only temporary) or in Gloucestershire, to keep the centre of Gloucester out of Forest of Dean.

[dadge]

The best solution is a rolling review. Divide England up according to counties (as was the case at previous reviews, before the new policy of amorphous blobbism) and when the seats in a county get too big/small, review it.

[dadge]

Funny/nice going round the boards seeing the familiar names. There really ought to be a RejigCon next year - I wonder if we could get ERS or EC or JRF or someone to host?

[dadge]

What's with the Cuyahoga thing?

[dadge]

Four hours to go. I've had my final penultimate say: http://ukelect.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/response-to-revised-proposals/

I wonder what, if anything, will be salvaged from the whole expensive process?