YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Nov 16, 2016 7:31:51 GMT
Any news from the South-East hearings?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 20, 2017 17:26:31 GMT
The BCE takes its fair share of criticism on here so I'd like to restore a little balance by saying that I've been looking at the recommendations for Bucks and they're a substantial improvement on anything anyone came up with on here: Bletchley kept together, no orphan wards, no bite taken out of Aylesbury town, Beaconsfield unchanged ... it's a good solid plan.
I don't like the names of the MK seats, but that's a secondary consideration. The boundaries are good.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 20, 2017 20:24:22 GMT
The BCE takes its fair share of criticism on here so I'd like to restore a little balance by saying that I've been looking at the recommendations for Bucks and they're a substantial improvement on anything anyone came up with on here: Bletchley kept together, no orphan wards, no bite taken out of Aylesbury town, Beaconsfield unchanged ... it's a good solid plan. I don't like the names of the MK seats, but that's a secondary consideration. The boundaries are good. The boundaries for Bucks I submitted the BCE were somewhat different, but I think I agree with you nonetheless. Mine do not quite meet all your criteria since I left an orphan ward from Wycombe in Chesham and Amersham. I have since revised them to remove the orphan ward, but it's too late to tell the Commission that, sadly. I like the acknowledgement of Bletchley and Newport Pagnell in the names of the seats.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jan 20, 2017 21:03:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 20, 2017 21:19:13 GMT
I like the names too
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 22, 2017 13:19:22 GMT
Actually, on reflection, I can't resist the urge for a little tinkering in the MK area.
A lot of plans here, including mine, involved the division of Bletchley and the BCE is to be congratulated on avoiding this. Of the two MK wards it has hived off, however, Stony Stratford I agree is a logical addition to a Buckingham seat; but Wolverton, much less so. It juts a long way north and is separated from Stony Stratford by the A5 trunk road. Tattenhoe ward, on the other hand, is bordered by the A421, the main road to Buckingham from MK, and is altogether a more of a Buckingham-facing part of MK than Wolverton. And the BCE's 'MK Bletchley' seat is rather awkward at its northern end; the addition of Wolverton would round out this area nicely. So I suggest the swapping of these two wards.
As for names, I'd call the two MK seats, in this configuration, MK SW and MK NE. But if people prefer the BCE's names, I wouldn't go to the stake over it. Indeed, the NE seat includes the MK central area and the original MK village so at a push you could call it simply 'Milton Keynes', with 'Bletchley and Wolverton' for the other seat.
Numbers: MK SW 76858; Buckingham 74596
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 23, 2017 15:24:33 GMT
And in the spirit of further tinkering ...
Although I suggested the swapping of Wolverton and Tattenhoe (above) purely to improve the seats in MK, I've now spotted that it has a welcome byproduct.
Because Tattenhoe's electorate is quite a bit smaller than Wolverton's, the swap means that there are fewer MK electors - 2484 fewer, to be precise - that fall to be accommodated in the Buckingham seat. This provides some very welcome wiggle room. Specifically, Buckingham can now keep Wing and the villages south and southeast of it (the bit of Bucks that juts out between Herts and Beds); whereas, in the BCE scheme, with Wolverton in Buckingham, these areas would put the seat over the limit. And this means that Wing, &c, need not go into Aylesbury as the BCE has it, therefore Aylesbury can take the two northern wards of Wycombe district (Icknield and Risboroughs), which always looked a long way south to be in a Buckingham seat (whereas Aylesbury is just up the A4010).
Buckingham: 77556 Aylesbury: 74755
|
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,239
|
Post by ricmk on Jan 23, 2017 23:38:11 GMT
A couple of thoughts from a local. Firstly I hate the names. Neither Bletchley nor Newport are the centres of the constituencies, or are large enough to dominate. Stantonbury ward faces to Newport rather than Bletchley, but is in the Bletchley seat. I'd call them MK West and MK East.
There's no easy way to take 2 wards out of MK. Stony Stratford is the least worst choice as it's more a community in its own right, but the estate of Crownhill and the new west flank development are core MK estates. There's no direct road connection to Buckingham though, you have to go to South Northants which would be a better area to link with. Tattenhoe does link to Buckingham but it's full of new MK estates which face to the city centre, and not connected to Stony Stratford. However it is a naturally Tory ward. Splitting Bletchley is a no no, Loughton and Shenley would solve the Crownhill problem but cut a big hole in the city (Loughton is next to Central Milton Keynes) so Wolverton is probably the least worst choice, even though it's a poor cultural fit with Buckingham.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 24, 2017 0:17:36 GMT
There's no direct road connection to Buckingham though, you have to go to South Northants which would be a better area to link with. I agree with you, but we've been through this on here before. I favour the creation of a tenth English 'region' purely for Boundary Review purposes based around eastern-facing central counties that don't quite fit anywhere else. Unfortunately, as long as Northants is in the 'East Midlands' and Bucks is included within the South East, the BCE is likely to reject any cross-regional proposal out of hand.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Oct 19, 2017 5:47:25 GMT
Oxfordshire has been slightly improved, but is still a bit of a mess, with what is now proposed to be called "East Oxfordshire" still apparently trying to wrap its tentacles around Bicester and Abingdon & Oxford North having been extended both north and south, but at least no longer crossing the Thames east of Abingdon.
One area where a new review with an accurate electorate for Oxford and the up to date Bicester boundaries would be very welcome.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 20, 2017 9:10:17 GMT
This is by way of a hat-tip to Pete Whitehead.
I originally came up with some - in hindsight - fairly rubbish plans for Kent and E Sussex. Carlton and others duly laid into them, and casting around for alternatives I found Pete Whitehead's scheme, which I then proceeded to adopt as my preferred option (I may have shifted the odd marginal ward). The Whitehead plan was thus very much the basis of my submission to the BCE for this area.
I now find that the BCE has largely adopted it (although characteristically applying a master-stroke of its own in adding Ticehurst (Sussex) to the perfectly satisfactory Mid Kent seat that I proposed). I'm name-checked in the BCE report and given credit for the plan, so I'd like to acknowledge here that it was really Pete's plan, not mine.
The BCE shifted Ticehurst as a knock-on consequence of its changes from the initial proposals in Brighton. Frankly I thought its initial scheme was a deft solution to a tricky problem and my advice was to stick to it. But BCE yielded to local complaints about taking Hove Park out of Hove and redrew the boundaries in a way that saved Hove at the expense of eviscerating Newhaven. This meant that an extra ward (Newhaven Valley) has to be accommodated in the Lewes seat, putting it above the maximum; therefore Horam ward (compared with my proposal) has to be switched to Bexhill & Battle; which then in turn needs to lose a ward. That's how Ticehurst wound up in a Kent seat.
I'll write to BCE to say thank-you for using so much of my submission; but I'll suggest that either (a) they revert to the original scheme in Brighton and Hove so that Horam can stay in Lewes, or (b) if they don't want to do that, the ward to drop out of Bexhill & Battle should be Rother Levels instead of Ticehurst. This would mean that the knock-on consequences of eviscerating Newhaven are confined to the county of Sussex, and Rother Levels can go into Hastings & Rye, with which it is actually a pretty good fit.
But I'm wandering from the main point of this email, which is to thank Pete for the plan and to say that I hope he's pleased it has been adopted (more or less), albeit under a false flag.
Edited to ask: Sorry for a dim question, but how do you tag someone?
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Oct 20, 2017 9:17:21 GMT
This is by way of a hat-tip to Pete Whitehead. I originally came up with some - in hindsight - fairly rubbish plans for Kent and E Sussex. Carlton and others duly laid into them, and casting around for alternatives I found Pete Whitehead's scheme, which I then proceeded to adopt as my preferred option (I may have shifted the odd marginal ward). The Whitehead plan was thus very much the basis of my submission to the BCE for this area. I now find that the BCE has largely adopted it (although characteristically applying a master-stroke of its own in adding Ticehurst (Sussex) to the perfectly satisfactory Mid Kent seat that I proposed). I'm name-checked in the BCE report and given credit for the plan, so I'd like to acknowledge here that it was really Pete's plan, not mine. The BCE shifted Ticehurst as a knock-on consequence of its changes from the initial proposals in Brighton. Frankly I thought its initial scheme was a deft solution to a tricky problem and my advice was to stick to it. But BCE yielded to local complaints about taking Hove Park out of Hove and redrew the boundaries in a way that saved Hove at the expense of eviscerating Newhaven. This meant that an extra ward (Newhaven Valley) has to be accommodated in the Lewes seat, putting it above the maximum; therefore Horam ward (compared with my proposal) has to be switched to Bexhill & Battle; which then in turn needs to lose a ward. That's how Ticehurst wound up in a Kent seat. I'll write to BCE to say thank-you for using so much of my submission; but I'll suggest that either (a) they revert to the original scheme in Brighton and Hove so that Horam can stay in Lewes, or (b) if they don't want to do that, the ward to drop out of Bexhill & Battle should be Rother Levels instead of Ticehurst. This would mean that the knock-on consequences of eviscerating Newhaven are confined to the county of Sussex, and Rother Levels can go into Hastings & Rye, with which it is actually a pretty good fit. But I'm wandering from the main point of this email, which is to thank Pete for the plan and to say that I hope he's pleased it has been adopted (more or less), albeit under a false flag. Given the Commission's new (relative) willingness to split wards in places - I am pretty shocked that they would rather eviscerate Newhaven than simply split one of the central Brighton wards between Constituencies - especially given the the knock-on effects on Horam and Ticehurst.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 20, 2017 9:19:45 GMT
This is by way of a hat-tip to Pete Whitehead. I originally came up with some - in hindsight - fairly rubbish plans for Kent and E Sussex. Carlton and others duly laid into them, and casting around for alternatives I found Pete Whitehead's scheme, which I then proceeded to adopt as my preferred option (I may have shifted the odd marginal ward). The Whitehead plan was thus very much the basis of my submission to the BCE for this area. I now find that the BCE has largely adopted it (although characteristically applying a master-stroke of its own in adding Ticehurst (Sussex) to the perfectly satisfactory Mid Kent seat that I proposed). I'm name-checked in the BCE report and given credit for the plan, so I'd like to acknowledge here that it was really Pete's plan, not mine. The BCE shifted Ticehurst as a knock-on consequence of its changes from the initial proposals in Brighton. Frankly I thought its initial scheme was a deft solution to a tricky problem and my advice was to stick to it. But BCE yielded to local complaints about taking Hove Park out of Hove and redrew the boundaries in a way that saved Hove at the expense of eviscerating Newhaven. This meant that an extra ward (Newhaven Valley) has to be accommodated in the Lewes seat, putting it above the maximum; therefore Horam ward (compared with my proposal) has to be switched to Bexhill & Battle; which then in turn needs to lose a ward. That's how Ticehurst wound up in a Kent seat. I'll write to BCE to say thank-you for using so much of my submission; but I'll suggest that either (a) they revert to the original scheme in Brighton and Hove so that Horam can stay in Lewes, or (b) if they don't want to do that, the ward to drop out of Bexhill & Battle should be Rother Levels instead of Ticehurst. This would mean that the knock-on consequences of eviscerating Newhaven are confined to the county of Sussex, and Rother Levels can go into Hastings & Rye, with which it is actually a pretty good fit. But I'm wandering from the main point of this email, which is to thank Pete for the plan and to say that I hope he's pleased it has been adopted (more or less), albeit under a false flag. Edited to ask: Sorry for a dim question, but how do you tag someone? Yes it is much better now and Pete's proposals were good. Glad to note your concession to him. I can just about live with the bastard Mid Kent seat but the title is daft. Your plan to re-sort all in Sussex with Rother Levels ending in Hastings is excellent.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 20, 2017 9:48:20 GMT
Edited to ask: Sorry for a dim question, but how do you tag someone? You type "@ name", the name being not the "surface" name, but the underlying ID. So "@ petewhitehead" without the space gives you Pete Whitehead .
Iain is "@ admin" which a lot of people don't know - BossMan
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 20, 2017 9:52:02 GMT
I thought that Tunbridge Wells arrangement looked familiar lol
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2017 10:54:45 GMT
I seem to remember the problem with the T Wells solution is that it's slightly too big to use in a cross-border seat. Thus making it difficult to avoid something like the Ticehurst orphan without splitting a ward or two somewhere. It is irritating when the Commission acknowledges the inadvisability of knock-on effects but then throws its hands up as though nothing can be done.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2017 14:01:59 GMT
Yeah this was my version: ukelect.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/kent-east-sussex/ also with the big Sussex seats and little Kent seats. The minimum tweak to the Commission's plans now, I think, would be to also transfer the Salehurst ward so that the orphaning isn't so egregious. A better solution would probably be to reconfigure the cross-border area into Weald, Tonbridge (including T Wells), and Mid Kent seats but that's a big ask at this stage.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2017 20:29:20 GMT
Here's my Newhaven fix:
Brighton Pavilion 71527 + EY EZ (1983) = 73510 Brighton Kemptown & Seahaven 76167 + N Valley (2554) – EY EZ (1983) = 76738 Lewes 77696 – N Valley (2554) = 75142
The small change in Brighton will unite all of Hanover in one seat.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 20, 2017 20:36:43 GMT
Minimum change would just be to move Ticehurst into Tunbridge Wells & Crowborough, then you only have one cross-border seat.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 20, 2017 21:36:27 GMT
Minimum change would just be to move Ticehurst into Tunbridge Wells & Crowborough, then you only have one cross-border seat. Yes, thanks. I'd made the (natural?) assumption that Ticehurst had been added to Mid Kent to bring it up to quota. How bizarre.
|
|