|
Post by islington on Feb 23, 2022 19:08:20 GMT
Or this, which adds Test and Itchen to the list of unchanged seats and also gives us a much more compact version of Winchester. For these benefits the price is paid in the form of a messy Basingstoke seat.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,565
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 23, 2022 19:41:37 GMT
They're both awful schemes.
The BCE & Lib Dem proposals (just for clarity, I had no part in our submission this time round) look optimum compared to both of the alternatives posted here.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 23, 2022 20:50:35 GMT
They're both awful schemes. The BCE & Lib Dem proposals (just for clarity, I had no part in our submission this time round) look optimum compared to both of the alternatives posted here. Actually I agree about the merits of the LibDem scheme, once you get past the slight shock of seeing Oakley in E Hants.
I'd be happy to support it, although I feel the Winchester seat would be neater and more compact if it included Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (to go with the two other Eastleigh wards it already contains in the LD plan). This would allow Wonston, the Worthys and Alresford to go into the Meon Valley seat (or Mid Hants as I'd suggest calling it). This means that the Mid Hants seat would extend into only two LAs rather than three as in the LibDem scheme, and Eastleigh district would be divided between only two seats instead of three.
That minor point aside (affecting only two seats), it's a really good scheme.
|
|
|
Post by gerrardwinstanley on Feb 24, 2022 9:31:46 GMT
I was bored last night, so tried Berks-Oxon-Hamps-Bucks together, as 42 seats. There's certainly some undesirable parts to the plan, but there are other aspects that I do like. Also, I don't know how seriously the BCE would take such a plan. Buckinghamshire is the area that I am least happy with, but the only cross-county crossing here is the South Bucks seat into Slough, which can either take in the Wexham or Langley ward. The Oxfordshire-Berkshire crossing occurs wholly within the area that was once Berkshire, and is a relatively homogeneous rural seat, defined by downlands. The Berkshire-Hampshire crossing has been suggested before; in my opinion, this version of "Silchester" is far more compact than others, based around the area between Reading and Basingstoke, whereas others stretch over areas that have far less in common. Banbury, 72008; Oxford North & Bicester, 70843; Oxford East,75818; Witney, 73593; Abingdon & Didcot, 73593; Henley, 70626; and Wantage (or, alternatively, Downlands/Berkshire Downs), 75542. There's also the possibility of having an Abingdon seat, stretching from Abingdon down to Faringdon, and a Wantage seat with Didcot and Wallingford, and the wards from West Berkshire. Buckingham & Bletchley, 73644; Milton Keynes, 76708; Newport Pagnell, 70620; Aylesbury, 75636; Princes Risborough (or, alternatively, Chiltern Hills), 76021; Chesham & Amersham, 76021; High Wycome, 71769; and South Buckinghamshire, 76721. Newbury, 74579; Reading West, 74838; Reading East, 76655; Wokingham, 70121; Maidenhead,75291; Bracknell, 70247; Windsor, 72386; Slough, 75519; and Silchester (or, alternatively, something like Swallowfield & Yateley), 76920. Aldershot, 70039; Alton & Fleet, 76438; East Hampshire, 71602; Havant,72766; Porsmouth North, 71844; Portsmouth South, 74253; Portchseter & Waterlooville, 72156; Gosport, 73763; Fareham, 72294; Eastleigh, 76529; Southampton Itchen, 72150; Southampton Test, 69960; Basingstoke, 70700; Andover, 73326; Winchester, 71029; Romsey, 73956; New Forest West, 71009; and New Forest East, 73823. If anyone has any suggestions, I'd appreciate hearing them.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 24, 2022 11:34:38 GMT
I tried a Aldershot-Farnham crossing, and there's a reasonably nice plan available which only affects six seats*: Aldershot & Farnham 73596 East Hampshire 73214 Alton & Fleet 75950 Farnborough 73227 Basingstoke 76948 NW Hants 76155 On the plus side the cross-border seat is clearly neater than the Initial proposals and Yateley is no longer split. On the minus side, Basingstoke is ugly (there may be a nicer option with ward splits but the numbers are tight) and it requires a split of a local authority that would otherwise be kept whole. *Though if you are making changes elsewhere in Surrey, there's room for Aldershot & Farnham to grab an extra ward.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 25, 2022 14:47:51 GMT
I tried a Aldershot-Farnham crossing, and there's a reasonably nice plan available which only affects six seats*: Aldershot & Farnham 73596 East Hampshire 73214 Alton & Fleet 75950 Farnborough 73227 Basingstoke 76948 NW Hants 76155 On the plus side the cross-border seat is clearly neater than the Initial proposals and Yateley is no longer split. On the minus side, Basingstoke is ugly (there may be a nicer option with ward splits but the numbers are tight) and it requires a split of a local authority that would otherwise be kept whole. *Though if you are making changes elsewhere in Surrey, there's room for Aldershot & Farnham to grab an extra ward. I like that. Alton/Fleet is a nice-looking seat.
I'd be tempted to make further changes in Surrey so that Aldershot/Farnham picks up the Ash area instead of Haslemere.
But I shan't be submitting any of this because I'm now signed up to the LibDem scheme (subject to adjustments affecting Winchester and Meon Valley (aka Mid Hants)). Yateley will just have to suffer for the greater good - and anyway, the heart of the original village is wholly in Yateley E ward, Yateley W is mostly urban sprawl). It also strikes me that a benefit of the LibDem scheme is that Elstead ward is no longer needed to make up the numbers in the Farnham seat so it can be switched to Godalming where it looks more at home.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2022 15:58:15 GMT
I tried a Aldershot-Farnham crossing, and there's a reasonably nice plan available which only affects six seats*: Aldershot & Farnham 73596 East Hampshire 73214 Alton & Fleet 75950 Farnborough 73227 Basingstoke 76948 NW Hants 76155 On the plus side the cross-border seat is clearly neater than the Initial proposals and Yateley is no longer split. On the minus side, Basingstoke is ugly (there may be a nicer option with ward splits but the numbers are tight) and it requires a split of a local authority that would otherwise be kept whole. *Though if you are making changes elsewhere in Surrey, there's room for Aldershot & Farnham to grab an extra ward. I like that. Alton/Fleet is a nice-looking seat. I'd be tempted to make further changes in Surrey so that Aldershot/Farnham picks up the Ash area instead of Haslemere. But I shan't be submitting any of this because I'm now signed up to the LibDem scheme (subject to adjustments affecting Winchester and Meon Valley (aka Mid Hants)). Yateley will just have to suffer for the greater good - and anyway, the heart of the original village is wholly in Yateley E ward, Yateley W is mostly urban sprawl). It also strikes me that a benefit of the LibDem scheme is that Elstead ward is no longer needed to make up the numbers in the Farnham seat so it can be switched to Godalming where it looks more at home.
Swapping Ash for Haslemere is a decent shout and can be done just by exchanging territory with the Godalming seat, so I will nick that idea with thanks.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 25, 2022 20:23:47 GMT
I've been looking elsewhere in the South East. In Sussex I cannot but be impressed by the BCE's display of precision engineering in getting six legal seats in the five LAs that make up (almost exactly) the pre-1974 West Sussex area. The six seats vary in electorate between 75896 and 77046 so there wasn't much elbow room. In fact, overall the Sussex scheme looks good and this is probably the BCE's best county (at least, if we exclude the ones where only minimal changes were needed).
In Kent, however, things aren't so rosy. I've no issue with the BCE's Gravesend, Gillingham, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Ashford, Canterbury and the east coast seats (I'm using my preferred names). In the centre and west of the county, however, things go badly awry, particularly with regard to a Maidstone seat that excludes too many wards that are Maidstone and includes too many that aren't; and a Chatham & Aylesford that is even more of a mess than the current seat.
Based on the LibDems' excellent scheme in Hants I had a look at their submission but I thought it was even worse.
Here's my suggestion for altering nine of the proposed seats in central and west Kent.
Chatham and Aylesford - 70728. The LibDems started well by proposing a ward swap in Medway to get Chatham town centre into this seat and keep Rochester S in Rochester; but I parted company with them after that. In comparison with the BCE scheme, this seat crosses the Medway at a point where there's actually a bridge to include the whole of Aylesford. Snodland is omitted to make room. It's still awkwardly shaped but it's contiguous and legal.
Dartford - 72531. Similar to the BCE version but slightly adjusted to fit better with the revised shape of Sevenoaks. Faversham - 69751. Compared with the BCE version, it loses most of its Maidstone suburbs and expands to the south to make up the numbers (just - only 27 above the minimum). 'Mid Kent' wouldn't be an unreasonable name.
South Kent - 74141. Compared with the BCE's proposal in this area, the seat extends less far north but farther west to cover more of Tunbridge Wells district, including Paddock Wood. Arguably it might relinquish Loose to Maidstone andor Kingsnorth Village to Ashford.
Maidstone - 71860. This includes the whole of the town proper and most of its immediate suburbs. Unlike the BCE version, it is wholly within Maidstone district. Rochester - 75521. Loses River ward (and with it Chatham town centre); keeps Rochester S.
Sevenoaks - 74274. Shuffles slightly northward compared with the BCE version, and takes a different bite out of Dartford.
Tonbridge - 76489. This loses all the Sevenoaks wards included in the BCE version and expands west to cover the Mallings and Snodland: contained entirely within T&M district.
Tunbridge Wells - 71329. Compared with the BCE scheme, this loses most of the rural area east of the town and expands west to include southern wards of Sevenoaks district.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 25, 2022 20:32:57 GMT
I've been looking elsewhere in the South East. In Sussex I cannot but be impressed by the BCE's display of precision engineering in getting six legal seats in the five LAs that make up (almost exactly) the pre-1974 West Sussex area. The six seats vary in electorate between 75896 and 77046 so there wasn't much elbow room. In fact, overall the Sussex scheme looks good and this is probably the BCE's best county (at least, if we exclude the ones where only minimal changes were needed).
In Kent, however, things aren't so rosy. I've no issue with the BCE's Gravesend, Gillingham, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Ashford, Canterbury and the east coast seats (I'm using my preferred names). In the centre and west of the county, however, things go badly awry, particularly with regard to a Maidstone seat that excludes too many wards that are Maidstone and includes too many that aren't; and a Chatham & Aylesford that is even more of a mess than the current seat.
Based on the LibDems' excellent scheme in Hants I had a look at their submission but I thought it was even worse. Here's my suggestion for altering nine of the proposed seats in central and west Kent.
Chatham and Aylesford - 70728. The LibDems started well by proposing a ward swap in Medway to get Chatham town centre into this seat and keep Rochester S in Rochester; but I parted company with them after that. In comparison with the BCE scheme, this seat crosses the Medway at a point where there's actually a bridge to include the whole of Aylesford. Snodland is omitted to make room. It's still awkwardly shaped but it's contiguous and legal.
Dartford - 72531. Similar to the BCE version but slightly adjusted to fit better with the revised shape of Sevenoaks. Faversham - 69751. Compared with the BCE version, it loses most of its Maidstone suburbs and expands to the south to make up the numbers (just - only 27 above the minimum). 'Mid Kent' wouldn't be an unreasonable name.
South Kent - 74141. Compared with the BCE's proposal in this area, the seat extends less far north but farther west to cover more of Tunbridge Wells district, including Paddock Wood. Arguably it might relinquish Loose to Maidstone andor Kingsnorth Village to Ashford.
Maidstone - 71860. This includes the whole of the town proper and most of its immediate suburbs. Unlike the BCE version, it is wholly within Maidstone district. Rochester - 75521. Loses Thames ward (and with it Chatham town centre); keeps Rochester S.
Sevenoaks - 74274. Shuffles slightly northward compared with the BCE version, and takes a different bite out of Dartford.
Tonbridge - 76489. This loses all the Sevenoaks ward included in the BCE version and expands west to cover the Mallings and Snodland: contained entirely within T&M district.
Tunbridge Wells - 71329. Compared with the BCE scheme, this loses most of the rural area east of the town and expands west to include southern wards of Sevenoaks district.
I commend BCE-81068 to you
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 25, 2022 21:06:15 GMT
Thanks Pete. I thought you'd probably done something in this area. However, it seems a shame to disrupt Graveshamend when it's within quota - given that Dartford has to lose at least one ward, I preferred to cross the boundary with Sevenoaks, which has to be divided anyway. Also, your Chatham seat still doesn't include the town centre, and it crosses the Medway where there's no bridge. And I do think there's merit in the BCE's Canterbury seat, which is contained within one district, and once I'd accepted that it made sense to adopt the BCE's Ashford as well since those N Downs wards from F&H have to go somewhere.
Edited to add: Actually on reflection I suppose I could adopt the BCE version of Dartford as well, which then gets rid of the only orphan ward in my scheme. On this basis:
Dartford - 70038. Sevenoaks - 76767.
Edited further to add: On closer scrutiny I see the BCE has run the boundary between the Thanet seats almost through the middle of Margate. I suggest transferring Garlinge and Westbrook to the East seat, and Cliffsend ward the other way.
East Thanet - 76968. 'Ramsgate and Margate' would be a fair name.
West Thanet - 72850. Or 'Sandwich and Herne Bay'. Or 'North East Kent'.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,565
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 27, 2022 15:10:09 GMT
I tried a Aldershot-Farnham crossing, and there's a reasonably nice plan available which only affects six seats*: Aldershot & Farnham 73596 East Hampshire 73214 Alton & Fleet 75950 Farnborough 73227 Basingstoke 76948 NW Hants 76155 On the plus side the cross-border seat is clearly neater than the Initial proposals and Yateley is no longer split. On the minus side, Basingstoke is ugly (there may be a nicer option with ward splits but the numbers are tight) and it requires a split of a local authority that would otherwise be kept whole. *Though if you are making changes elsewhere in Surrey, there's room for Aldershot & Farnham to grab an extra ward. I like that. Alton/Fleet is a nice-looking seat. I'd be tempted to make further changes in Surrey so that Aldershot/Farnham picks up the Ash area instead of Haslemere. But I shan't be submitting any of this because I'm now signed up to the LibDem scheme (subject to adjustments affecting Winchester and Meon Valley (aka Mid Hants)). Yateley will just have to suffer for the greater good - and anyway, the heart of the original village is wholly in Yateley E ward, Yateley W is mostly urban sprawl). It also strikes me that a benefit of the LibDem scheme is that Elstead ward is no longer needed to make up the numbers in the Farnham seat so it can be switched to Godalming where it looks more at home.
Yateley is split any which way anyway as Blackwater & Hawley ward takes in part of Yateley town...
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 28, 2022 14:20:56 GMT
Continuing my virtual tour of the South East, I've been looking at the implications of the LibDems' plan for Hants, which I'm adopting, as I said before, except for an adjustment affecting the seats of Winchester and what would now become Mid Hants.
The LibDem scheme neatly solves the Whitehill issue and this has benefits in Surrey too, because Elstead ward can now shift into Godalming and this means in turn that the latter seat can afford to lose Ewhurst to Dorking - an orphan ward, unfortunately, but an important shift because it gets enough voters into Dorking to allow it to relinquish South Park and thus avoid the split of Reigate town. See the map below, in which uncoloured areas are left as proposed by the BCE. In a moment I'll post a northern continuation of the map, representing the best I can come up with if, as everyone tells me, my suggested Maidenhead & Marlow seat is an innovation too far that has no chance of adoption.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 28, 2022 14:53:26 GMT
Here's a Berks and Bucks map if Maidenhead & Marlow is not allowed. Since, in this arrangement, it is unavoidable that Windsor spills into Surrey, I've adopted the suggestion of Pete Whitehead that Englefield Green and Virginia Water should be transferred instead of Egham. Again, uncoloured areas are as per the BCE.
I'll add names and numbers, and a few comments, for the Bucks seats because this is a novel arrangement.
Aylesbury - 75620. Adds areas west of the town rather than east of it as in the BCE plan. But it must be added that both this arrangement and the BCE version are big improvements on the current seat. East Buckinghamshire - 75482. Or 'Chesham' if preferred. In fact the not-that-big town of Chesham was a real headache here because it's divided between three wards and it wasn't straightforward to get them all in the same seat. Wycombe - 70438. Beaconsfield and Amersham - 72202. Similar comments apply to Amersham as to Chesham: it is not helpful that a relatively small town is split between three wards. This seat also avoids the Beaconsfield split that has been the subject of a lot of adverse public comments. Note it is possible if preferred for this and the preceding two seats to do a three-ward rotation: Gt Missenden into this seat; Tylers Gn (or Hazlemere) into Wycombe; the Risboroughs into E Bucks (which would then become Mid Bucks because it would extend to the Oxon boundary). South Buckinghamshire - 72373. A long and thin seat but at least it sorts out Marlow Bottom. If you haven't swapped Tylers Gn into Wycombe, you can swap it into this seat in exchange for Denham.
I'm not entirely happy with this plan because it maintains the unwanted Berks/Surrey crossing (although it substitutes a less offensive version of it) and Windsor still extends into three top-tier authorities. Also, it fails to resolve the Ascot split (although you can argue that this is the town's own fault for allowing itself to be divided between two UAs). If you really want to unite Ascot you can exchange Ascot & Sunninghill ward with Bray - it's legal but it leaves the Maidenhead seat looking really messy.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Feb 28, 2022 16:41:47 GMT
I'll add names and numbers, and a few comments, for the Bucks seats because this is a novel arrangement. Aylesbury - 75620. Adds areas west of the town rather than east of it as in the BCE plan. But it must be added that both this arrangement and the BCE version are big improvements on the current seat. East Buckinghamshire - 75482. Or 'Chesham' if preferred. In fact the not-that-big town of Chesham was a real headache here because it's divided between three wards and it wasn't straightforward to get them all in the same seat. Wycombe - 70438. Beaconsfield and Amersham - 72202. Similar comments apply to Amersham as to Chesham: it is not helpful that a relatively small town is split between three wards. This seat also avoids the Beaconsfield split that has been the subject of a lot of adverse public comments. Note it is possible if preferred for this and the preceding two seats to do a three-ward rotation: Gt Missenden into this seat; Tylers Gn (or Hazlemere) into Wycombe; the Risboroughs into E Bucks (which would then become Mid Bucks because it would extend to the Oxon boundary). South Buckinghamshire - 72373. A long and thin seat but at least it sorts out Marlow Bottom. If you haven't swapped Tylers Gn into Wycombe, you can swap it into this seat in exchange for Denham. I guess you can't rotate both Hazlemere and Tylers Green & Loudwater into Wycombe, because that would split Chesham. Every time I try things in Buckinghamshire I come to the conclusion that its ward map is really not very good. If the real complaint in Egham is as much being separated from Englefield Green (which did seem to be the gist of some of the comments) as being separated from Surrey, then is it a completely crazy idea to move both Egham and Englefield Green into Windsor?
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 3, 2022 18:52:12 GMT
Back to Buckinghamshire...
I mentioned above that I was drafting a proposal that fixed the split of Beaconsfield by splitting two wards, Chiltern Villages and Gerrards Cross:
Marlow & South Buckinghamshire (75034) As proposed by BCE, minus the part of Gerrards Cross ward in Beaconsfield parish, plus all of Chiltern Villages ward except for the three parishes of Lane End, Turville and Ibstone.
Chesham & Amersham (74127) As proposed by BCE, plus the part of Gerrards Cross ward in Beaconsfield parish and the part of Chiltern Ridges ward they haven't included.
High Wycombe (70385) As proposed by BCE, minus Chiltern Villages ward (all of it), plus Hazlemere.
Princes Risborough (70933) As proposed by BCE, minus the part of Chiltern Ridges ward they included, plus those three parishes of Lane End, Turville and Ibstone in Chiltern Villages ward.
The second split there is needed to bring Marlow & South Bucks back up to quota after the loss of the rest of Beaconsfield, but has the side benefit of putting Marlow Bottom back with Marlow.
But if you're prepared to split two wards, you can do the following, which scores highly on "minimal change":
Beaconsfield (73831) Current constituency less the Flackwell Heath part of Flackwell Heath, Little Marlow & Marlow South East ward (i.e. the part in Chepping Wycombe parish).
Chesham & Amersham (73015) Unchanged.
High Wycombe (73004) Gains Flackwell Heath as above; loses Chiltern Villages and the parishes of West Wycombe and Piddington & Wheeler End in West Wycombe ward; also doesn't gain the part of Stokenchurch parish in that ward (which is currently in Aylesbury); retains Hazlemere. As such it would be exactly the High Wycombe unparished area plus the parishes of Downley, Hazlemere and Chepping Wycombe.
Princes Risborough (70629) Compared with BCE version, loses Great Missenden and its part of Chiltern Ridges, gains Chiltern Villages and the parished part of West Wycombe ward as above.
The second version isn't so great for the Marlow area, but it keeps Great Missenden where it is now, doesn't split Stokenchurch parish and by adding that western end of West Wycombe ward to the Princes Risborough seat avoids the odd constriction most versions of that have near Stokenchurch (though TBH the geography of the area still means that north/south connections aren't great).
Thoughts? How reasonable is putting Flackwell Heath into High Wycombe?
(Names here are as per BCE except for the obvious renaming back to Beaconsfield in the second proposal; other names are of course available.)
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 19, 2022 6:54:30 GMT
I submitted something with both those options for avoiding the split of Beaconsfield. Both split two wards, which I don't think is unreasonable in Buckinghamshire given the temporary nature of the wards and their tendency to carve up towns with reckless abandon. (Is it the worst ward map in the country?) The left option ("Option 1") avoids the split of Beaconsfield by moving the whole town into Chesham & Amersham; to make Marlow & South Buckinghamshire big enough it then adds a large part of Chiltern Villages ward, uniting Marlow and Marlow Bottom. The right option ("Option 2") leaves Chesham & Amersham unchanged and trims the existing Beaconsfield constituency by removing Flackwell Heath; to get enough electorate for the new Princes Risborough constituency (other names are available) that then takes in the whole of Chiltern Villages and the western parts of West Wycombe ward, leaving a compact High Wycombe constituency. Option 2 does very well on the "minimum change" criterion, better than any whole ward solution in the area and way better than the BCE's proposals. The reference is 88612.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 19, 2022 9:53:40 GMT
I submitted something with both those options for avoiding the split of Beaconsfield. Both split two wards, which I don't think is unreasonable in Buckinghamshire given the temporary nature of the wards and their tendency to carve up towns with reckless abandon. (Is it the worst ward map in the country?) The left option ("Option 1") avoids the split of Beaconsfield by moving the whole town into Chesham & Amersham; to make Marlow & South Buckinghamshire big enough it then adds a large part of Chiltern Villages ward, uniting Marlow and Marlow Bottom. The right option ("Option 2") leaves Chesham & Amersham unchanged and trims the existing Beaconsfield constituency by removing Flackwell Heath; to get enough electorate for the new Princes Risborough constituency (other names are available) that then takes in the whole of Chiltern Villages and the western parts of West Wycombe ward, leaving a compact High Wycombe constituency. Option 2 does very well on the "minimum change" criterion, better than any whole ward solution in the area and way better than the BCE's proposals. The reference is 88612. I've giving this a huge 'like' for the sake of option 2, which is far and away the best plan I've seen if you don't want to cross the Berks-Bucks boundary. This is exactly what ward splits are for, in my view: not to correct real or imagined deficiencies the way wards are drawn, but to get the numbers to work in a plan that is markedly better than the best possible non-split plan.
YL, do you have numbers for Flackwell Heath?
The other split is less attractive because it removes from the Wycombe seat areas that definitely belong in it. So I'd suggest leaving Wycombe as the BCE has it, subject to the addition of Flackwell Heath, which I'm guessing might be about 2500 or so.
Mid Bucks, as I'd call it, then takes Hazlemere and makes up the numbers by adding Gt Brickhill ward at the northern end. That leaves the three northern Bucks wards plus MK to make three smallish seats and we have plans that do that.
All that said, the main drawback with this approach is that it leaves unresolved the multiple problems in the east Berks area (Windsor spilling into Surrey, Ascot divided, &c).
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,369
|
Post by YL on Mar 19, 2022 10:47:24 GMT
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,723
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 19, 2022 11:04:42 GMT
Wasn't there a directive from the Electoral Commission after 2010 to get polling districts under 2000-2500?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 19, 2022 12:19:45 GMT
Thanks.
Just to put a few numbers on this, that would give us
Beaconsfield - 73831 (as in YL's option 2) Wycombe - 76462 (BCE version plus Flackwell Heath) Mid Bucks - 76431 (including both Hazlemere and Gt Brickhill but no part of the BCE's Wycombe seat)
That leaves MK + three wards in the far north of Bucks = 211712 and we have at least three non-split ways of getting three legal seats from that.
That does Bucks/MK quite tidily, far better than the BCE version with only the same number of ward splits (one). But it does nothing to help with the holy mess BCE has proposed for eastern Berks.
|
|