Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 1, 2013 14:52:35 GMT
Lol - well, I thought if I was going to try and get away with the seat, I may as well try to get away with the name, too I'm responsible for (attempting to) sell "Valleys of Ribble and Lune", in front of the current MP for Ribble Valley at one point, so names like that are fine by me. Can I interest you in "Fleetwood and the Golden Mile" ? I toyed with a "Blackpool Promenade" seat
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 1, 2013 15:51:55 GMT
Let's keep going with what the BCE might have gone under the previous rules using the 2010 electorates. The rule for pairing boroughs is that a pairing is necessary if the borough average (assuming an integer number of seats is allocated) is more than 10,000 from the quota.
MERSEYSIDE: 14.01 (currently 15) Knowsley 1.54 Liverpool 4.38 St Helens 1.91 Sefton 2.86 Wirral 3.32 Currently: Knowsley, Liverpool and St Helens 8, Sefton 3, Wirral 4 I can't see the BCE under the old rules crossing the Mersey so the Wirral will lose a seat. Not much change on the Lancastrian side of the river.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE: 13.51 (currently 14) Barnsley 2.44 Doncaster 3.06 Rotherham 2.65 Sheffield 5.36 Currently: Doncaster 3, all others 11 Probably not much change here.
TYNE AND WEAR: 11.48 (currently 12) Gatehead 2.04 Newcastle upon Tyne 2.68 North Tyneside 2.15 South Tyneside 1.60 Sunderland 3.00 Tyne and Wear loses a seat. Tyne Bridge probably comes back.
WEST MIDLANDS: 26.93 (currently 28) Birmingham 10.15 Coventry 3.12 Dudley 3.36 Sandwell 3.05 Solihull 2.23 Walsall 2.65 Wolverhampton 2.39 Currently: Brum 10, Cov 3, Solihull 2, Walsall 3, rest 10 The Black Country loses a seat here. Under the old rules the BCE could just about get away with keeping the other boroughs alone.
WEST YORKSHIRE: 21.87 (currently 22) Bratford 4.57 Calderdale 2.01 Kirklees 4.22 Leeds 7.56 Wakefield 3.49 Currently: Bradford 5, Calderdale 2, Kirklees 4, Leeds and Wakefield 11 Not much change here. Bradford should get away with five undersized seats. Leeds and Wakefield pairing needs to continue.
cont.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 1, 2013 15:54:57 GMT
LONDON
*borough needs pairing
Barking and Dagenham 1.60 Barnet 3.08 *Bexley 2.35 *Brent 2.53 Bromley 3.20 Camden 1.90 Croydon 3.38 Ealing 2.89 Enfield 2.72 Greenwich 2.21 Hackney 2.06 *Hammersmith and Fulham 1.52 Haringey 2.08 *Harrow 2.29 *Havering 2.50 Hillingdon 2.64 Hounslow 2.27 Islington 1.89 *Kensington and Chelsea 1.20 *Kingston upon Thames 1.49 Lambeth 2.66 *Lewisham 2.38 Merton 1.84 *Newham 2.47 Redbridge 2.67 Richmond upon Thames 1.79 *Southwark 2.51 Sutton 1.85 Tower Hamlets 2.14 Waltham Forest 2.20 Wandsworth 2.88 Westminster 1.74 The City 0.08 Total 73.02
Current allocations: Barking and Dagenham, and Havering 4 (entitlement 4.10) Barnet 3 Bexley and Greenwich 5 (4.56) Brent and Camden 4 (4.43) Bromley and Lewisham 6 (5.58) Croydon 3 Ealing 3 Enfield 3 Hackney 2 Hammersmith and Kensington 3 (2.71) Haringey 2 Harrow and Hillingdon 5 (4.93) Hounslow 2 Islington 2 Kingston and Richmond 3 (3.28) Lambeth and Southwark 5 (5.16) Merton 2 Newham 2 Redbridge and Waltham Forest 5 (4.87) Sutton 2 Tower Hamlets 2 Wandsworth 3 Westminster and the City 2
Likely changes: (1) Newham now needs pairing. Probably it will go in with Tower Hamlets for five seats (4.60), an increase of one on the current allocation. (2) The Brent and Camden pairing has to lose a seat, but with a 4.43 entitlement four seats would be oversized. Camden can be considered on its own, so we might see Brent paired with Westminster and the City instead (4.35 entitlement) or with the Hammersmith/Kensington group (5.25 entitlement) Any of these options will involve a seat being abolished here. (3) There are too many seats in the four south-east boroughs (11 for an entitlement of 10.14) so some reconfiguration of the two pairs is likely, probably adding Lewisham to the Bexley/Greenwich pair for a total of seven seats (6.95) and considering Bromley separately for three seats. (4) It's now possible to dissolve the Redbridge/Waltham Forest pairing and have three seats for Redbridge and two for Waltham Forest.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 1, 2013 16:09:38 GMT
NORTH EAST
Darlington 1.09 Durham 5.61 Hartlepool 0.97 Middlesbrough 1.39* Northumberland 3.35 Redcar and Cleveland 1.46* Stockton-on-Tees 1.97
Current allocations: Durham and Darlington 7, Hartlepool 1, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland 3, Northumberland 4, Stockton 2
Northumberland will lose a seat and go down to three, otherwise not much change likely.
NORTH WEST
Blackburn with Darwen 1.42* Blackpool 1.56* Cheshire East 3.98 Cheshire West and Chester 3.46 Cumbria 5.41 Halton 1.28* Lancashire 12.45 Warrington 2.12
Current allocations: Cheshire East, West and Halton 9, Cumbria 6, Lancashire, Blackburn and Blackpool 16, Warrington 2
Cumbria and Lancashire (15.41) lose a seat each. Cheshire East can be considered separately from Cheshire West and Halton (4.74).
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 1, 2013 16:25:12 GMT
YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER
East Riding 3.68 Hull 2.54 NE Lincs 1.61 N Lincs 1.73 N Yorks 6.35 York 2.09
Current allocations: Humberside 10, N Yorks 6, York 2
With Humberside at 9.55 it will just keep 10 seats, so little change is likely.
WEST MIDLANDS
Herefordshire 1.91 Shropshire 3.17 Staffordshire 9.08 Stoke-on-Trent 2.58 Telford and Wrekin 1.68* Warwickshire 5.66 Worcestershire 6.05
Current allocations: Herefs 2, Shrops and Telford 5, Staffs 12, Warks 6, Worcs 6
Not much change likely here.
EAST MIDLANDS
Derby 2.43 Derbyshire 8.32 Leicester 3.02 Leicestershire 7.05 Lincolnshire 7.42 Northants 7.02 Nottingham 2.68 Nottinghamshire 8.26 Rutland 0.39
Current allocations: Derby and Derbyshire 11, Leicester 3, Leicestershire and Rutland 7, Lincolnshire 7, Northants 6, Nottingham 3, Nottinghamshire 8
Northamptonshire gains a seat, otherwise not much change.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 1, 2013 16:56:29 GMT
SOUTH WEST
BANES 1.87 Bournemouth 1.84 Bristol 4.22 Cornwall and Scilly 5.81 Devon 8.14 Dorset 4.57 Gloucestershire 6.41 N Somerset 2.18 Plymouth 2.53* Poole 1.56* Somerset 5.69 S Glos 2.80 Swindon 2.12 Torbay 1.43* Wiltshire 4.86
Current allocations: BANES 2, Bristol 4, Cornwall 6, Devon and boroughs 12, Dorset and boroughs 8, Glos 6, N Somerset 2, Somerset 5, S Glos 3, Swindon 2, Wiltshire 5
The only main change here is Somerset gaining a seat.
SOUTH EAST
Berkshire 8.44 Brighton and Hove 2.70 Buckinghamshire 5.19 East Sussex 5.47 Hampshire 13.91 IOW 1.54* Kent 14.54 Medway 2.58 Milton Keynes 2.31* Oxfordshire 6.59 Portsmouth 1.99 Southampton 2.30* Surrey 11.47 West Sussex 8.35
Current allocations: Berkshire 8, Buckinghamshire 5, East Sussex and Brighton 8, Hampshire and Southampton 16, Kent and Medway 17, Milton Keynes 2, Oxfordshire 6, Portsmouth 2, Surrey 11, West Sussex 8
The main changes here are: (1) Milton Keynes goes back in with Buckinghamshire with the combined area being allocated eight seats (7.503). (2) Oxfordshire gains a seat. (3) The Isle of Wight can have a second seat if it wants one.
EASTERN
Bedford 1.56* Cambridgeshire 6.14 C Beds 2.67 Essex 14.49 Hertfordshire 11.26 Luton 1.76 Norfolk 9.03 Peterborough 1.66* Southend 1.75 Suffolk 7.52 Thurrock 1.52
Current allocations: Bedfordshire 6, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough 7, Essex and boroughs 18, Hertfordshire 11, Norfolk 9, Suffolk 7
There are extra seats here for Cambridgeshire and Suffolk.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jul 1, 2013 16:56:44 GMT
YORKSHIRE AND THE HUMBER East Riding 3.68 Hull 2.54 NE Lincs 1.61 N Lincs 1.73 N Yorks 6.35 York 2.09 Current allocations: Humberside 10, N Yorks 6, York 2 With Humberside at 9.55 it will just keep 10 seats, so little change is likely. WEST MIDLANDS Herefordshire 1.91 Shropshire 3.17 Staffordshire 9.08 Stoke-on-Trent 2.58 Telford and Wrekin 1.68* Warwickshire 5.66 Worcestershire 6.05 Current allocations: Herefs 2, Shrops and Telford 5, Staffs 12, Warks 6, Worcs 6 Not much change likely here. EAST MIDLANDS Derby 2.43 Derbyshire 8.32 Leicester 3.02 Leicestershire 7.05 Lincolnshire 7.42 Northants 7.02 Nottingham 2.68 Nottinghamshire 8.26 Rutland 0.39 Current allocations: Derby and Derbyshire 11, Leicester 3, Leicestershire and Rutland 7, Lincolnshire 7, Northants 6, Nottingham 3, Nottinghamshire 8 Northamptonshire gains a seat, otherwise not much change. No changes in numbers of seats. Northamptonshire already has 7 (gained one last time), although the populations have shifted quite a lot. Northamptonshire South is at 83k and Corby at 79k, whilst Northampton N and S are at 62k and 63k. I'd guess Corby would lose some of the E Northamptonshire wards shifting them along to Wellingborough who would lose some to Northamptonshire S, which would lose a lot of its electorate to Northampton North and South. Derbyshire Dales is looking a little low (63.7k), although its probably best left alone. In Nottinghamshire, all three Nottingham seats are undersized, with S at 69k, N at 64k and E at 59k. Mansfield is a little over at 80k, with Bassetlaw at 78k and Ashfield at 77k. I'd guess the easiest is for Nottingham E to lose wards to Nottingham N, and then to break the city boundary around Gedling, and then for Gedling to expand into Sherwood or Newark, which then gains at the expense of other seats. All the Leicestershire seats are within 10% - leave alone. In Lincolnshire, Sleaford & NH (86k) and Grantham (79k) are both quite large - only Gainsborough at 64k is small.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jul 1, 2013 17:26:30 GMT
LONDON Likely changes: (1) Newham now needs pairing. Probably it will go in with Tower Hamlets for five seats (4.60), an increase of one on the current allocation. (2) The Brent and Camden pairing has to lose a seat, but with a 4.43 entitlement four seats would be oversized. Camden can be considered on its own, so we might see Brent paired with Westminster and the City instead (4.35 entitlement) or with the Hammersmith/Kensington group (5.25 entitlement) Any of these options will involve a seat being abolished here. (3) There are too many seats in the four south-east boroughs (11 for an entitlement of 10.14) so some reconfiguration of the two pairs is likely, probably adding Lewisham to the Bexley/Greenwich pair for a total of seven seats (6.95) and considering Bromley separately for three seats. (4) It's now possible to dissolve the Redbridge/Waltham Forest pairing and have three seats for Redbridge and two for Waltham Forest. - Agree on SE London. Probably the Greenwich & Woolwich seat would disappear. - Is Croydon not too big - put with Sutton or Merton for a 5 seat area (5.23)? - Instead of with Tower Hamlets, why not put Newham with Barking & Dagenham for a 4 seat area (4.07), and put Havering with Waltham Forest & Redbridge, for a 7 seat area (7.37)? - Put Brent with Harrow for a 5 seat area (4.82), then put Hillingdon with Hounslow for another 5 seat area (4.91)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Morgan on Jul 1, 2013 17:40:52 GMT
Looking at the other mets. - In the West Midlands, having Sandwell on its own (3 seats), and putting Walsall with Wolverhampton/Dudley. Then create a Wolverhampton West seat, Wolverhampton Central, with parts of Wolverhampton in Dudley North and one of the Walsalls. - In Tyne & Wear, Gateshead is nearly ok. So link Newcastle E & Wallsend again, and create a "Tyne Banks" across the mouth of the Tyne? - In West Yorkshire some seats are getting quite big; Leeds Central (80.9k), Colne Valley (80.8k) and Normanton, Pontefract & Castleford (83.3k). No obvious answer in Leeds/Wakefield other than crossing into the quite small Bradford seats
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 17:45:30 GMT
They've only got rid of Tyne Bridge, I'm not sure they'd like it back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:56:18 GMT
I think Labour will also be giving consideration to overall population, not just numbers of electors. London MP's in particular have huge amounts of casework from people who aren't actually electors. Poorer constituencies or those with high numbers of young people and large families can often produce a ridiculously heavy workload as well. Pre 1958 rural seats had smaller populations than urban ones for reasons of transport accessibility so there is a precedent for other factors to be taken into account Then give them more expenses to pay for extra staff. I'm sure that would be acceptable in extremis. A precedent from 50 years ago is not really valid, and if it is, why would rurality still not be a factor? Labour has enough inbuilt advantages. I do not think this should be considered at all acceptable. It is downright crookery and you know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:58:44 GMT
Its far more preferable to link Northern/Western Newcastle to Northumberland than bring back Tyne Bridge.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,517
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 1, 2013 21:07:22 GMT
Less happy with this - controversially I've crossed the Mersey - tried a version where I didn't, but it leaves Wirral either over or under represented. View AttachmentBootle & Fazakerley 74377 (Q+5.41%) Crosby & Maghull 76750 (Q+8.77%) Knowsley 68287 (Q-3.22%) Liverpool Mossley Hill 73890 (Q+4.72%) Liverpool Norris Green 70304 (Q-0.36%) Liverpool Old Swan 71959 (Q+1.98%) Southport 77555 (Q+9.91%) St Helens North 75688 (Q+7.27%) St Helens South & Whiston 73054 (Q+3.53%) Three Graces & Birkenhead 76076 (Q+7.82%) Wallasey 66658 (Q-5.53%) Wirral South 65173 (Q-7.63%) Wirral West 65577 (Q-7.06%) Woolton & Halewood 75474 (Q+6.96%) Naughty boy! Leave the classroom and report to Mr. Tricky Seriously, just stick Wirral Borough with the rest of the peninsular and the rest of Cheshire if you're struggling. You do not cross an estuary whose narrowest point is a mile wide!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 21:39:21 GMT
I think Labour will also be giving consideration to overall population, not just numbers of electors. London MP's in particular have huge amounts of casework from people who aren't actually electors. Poorer constituencies or those with high numbers of young people and large families can often produce a ridiculously heavy workload as well. Pre 1958 rural seats had smaller populations than urban ones for reasons of transport accessibility so there is a precedent for other factors to be taken into account Then give them more expenses to pay for extra staff. I'm sure that would be acceptable in extremis. A precedent from 50 years ago is not really valid, and if it is, why would rurality still not be a factor? Labour has enough inbuilt advantages. I do not think this should be considered at all acceptable. It is downright crookery and you know it. The Labour Party argument is funny (but also a disgrace). They want population, not electorate, to fix the system. They want smaller urban seats protected, to fix the system. They whinge about "gerrymandering" whilst demanding that their own seats are "protected" regardless of community links (you should have seen their proposals for the NW, good heavens, I know we came along with VoRaL and the like but jeez Louise....)
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 1, 2013 22:37:08 GMT
...And Lancashire... Accrington & Blackburn East 74588 (Q+5.71%) Blackburn West & Darwen 72501 (Q+2.75%) Blackpool 69609 (Q-1.35%) Burnley 67003 (Q-5.04%) Chorley 68074 (Q-3.52%) Fleetwood 70911 (Q+0.50%) Fylde & Preston North 73357 (Q+3.96%) Lancaster & Wyre 66434 (Q-5.85%) Lytham St Annes 68276 (Q-3.24%) Morcambe & Lunesdale 72905 (Q+3.32%) Pendle 66735 (Q-5.42%) Preston South & Penwortham 67373 (Q-4.52%) Ribble Valley 74062 (Q+4.96%) Rossendale & Oswaldtwistle 68083 (Q-3.51%) Skelmersdale & Ormskirk 65973 (Q-6.50%) West Lancashire 65908 (Q-6.59%) Can East Lancashire not be left as it is? I would rather put Rawtenstall and Haslingden together but then you have to split Blackburn and Hyndburn. Personally I'd rather keep the Preston constituency, though it needs expanding, which is awkward. Does that Lytham St Anne's cross into Blackpool? They won't like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 22:38:59 GMT
...And Lancashire... Accrington & Blackburn East 74588 (Q+5.71%) Blackburn West & Darwen 72501 (Q+2.75%) Blackpool 69609 (Q-1.35%) Burnley 67003 (Q-5.04%) Chorley 68074 (Q-3.52%) Fleetwood 70911 (Q+0.50%) Fylde & Preston North 73357 (Q+3.96%) Lancaster & Wyre 66434 (Q-5.85%) Lytham St Annes 68276 (Q-3.24%) Morcambe & Lunesdale 72905 (Q+3.32%) Pendle 66735 (Q-5.42%) Preston South & Penwortham 67373 (Q-4.52%) Ribble Valley 74062 (Q+4.96%) Rossendale & Oswaldtwistle 68083 (Q-3.51%) Skelmersdale & Ormskirk 65973 (Q-6.50%) West Lancashire 65908 (Q-6.59%) Can East Lancashire not be left as it is? I would rather put Rawtenstall and Haslingden together but then you have to split Blackburn and Hyndburn. Personally I'd rather keep the Preston constituency, though it needs expanding, which is awkward. Does that Lytham St Anne's cross into Blackpool? They won't like that. I have mentioned many times on here, and elsewhere, just how important it is never, ever, to join Blackpool with Lytham St Annes. We're talking pitchforks at dawn (or I suppose, being Lytham, we're talking polite but angry letters, handwritten, in the Gazette.)
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 1, 2013 22:42:31 GMT
NORTH EAST Darlington 1.09 Durham 5.61 Hartlepool 0.97 Middlesbrough 1.39* Northumberland 3.35 Redcar and Cleveland 1.46* Stockton-on-Tees 1.97 Current allocations: Durham and Darlington 7, Hartlepool 1, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland 3, Northumberland 4, Stockton 2 Northumberland will lose a seat and go down to three, otherwise not much change likely. NORTH WEST Blackburn with Darwen 1.42* Blackpool 1.56* Cheshire East 3.98 Cheshire West and Chester 3.46 Cumbria 5.41 Halton 1.28* Lancashire 12.45 Warrington 2.12 Current allocations: Cheshire East, West and Halton 9, Cumbria 6, Lancashire, Blackburn and Blackpool 16, Warrington 2 Cumbria and Lancashire (15.41) lose a seat each. Cheshire East can be considered separately from Cheshire West and Halton (4.74). Under the old rules haven't Cumbria and Northumberland kept the extra seat because of the geography- even though Cumbria already only had 5 quotas and Northumberland 3- they got 6 and 4 seats. Has anyone tried to come up with constituencies based on population yet? I hope they don't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 1, 2013 23:25:09 GMT
|
|
Clarko
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 149
|
Post by Clarko on Jul 2, 2013 7:45:01 GMT
Less happy with this - controversially I've crossed the Mersey - tried a version where I didn't, but it leaves Wirral either over or under represented. Bootle & Fazakerley 74377 (Q+5.41%) Crosby & Maghull 76750 (Q+8.77%) Knowsley 68287 (Q-3.22%) Liverpool Mossley Hill 73890 (Q+4.72%) Liverpool Norris Green 70304 (Q-0.36%) Liverpool Old Swan 71959 (Q+1.98%) Southport 77555 (Q+9.91%) St Helens North 75688 (Q+7.27%) St Helens South & Whiston 73054 (Q+3.53%) Three Graces & Birkenhead 76076 (Q+7.82%) Wallasey 66658 (Q-5.53%) Wirral South 65173 (Q-7.63%) Wirral West 65577 (Q-7.06%) Woolton & Halewood 75474 (Q+6.96%) Naughty boy! Leave the classroom and report to Mr. Tricky Seriously, just stick Wirral Borough with the rest of the peninsular and the rest of Cheshire if you're struggling. You do not cross an estuary whose narrowest point is a mile wide! Ah, but we're using the current rules, which keep Counties together - otherwise I would have crossed into Cheshire That's why I wasn't happy with it
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 2, 2013 7:59:17 GMT
Under the old rules haven't Cumbria and Northumberland kept the extra seat because of the geography- even though Cumbria already only had 5 quotas and Northumberland 3- they got 6 and 4 seats. Has anyone tried to come up with constituencies based on population yet? I hope they don't happen. At the last review Northumberland was entitled to 3.48, and Cumbria 5.50 so it was easy to justify rounding them up. Anyone fancy a 9 seat combined Cumbria/Northumberland? Berwick and the Border?
|
|