Post by greenrobinhood on Mar 26, 2016 23:12:44 GMT
My proposals for Berkshire (which unites Reading as much as possible):
1. Slough. Unchanged from current boundaries. Electorate: 76,668. 2. Reading. All Reading wards except for Tilehurst, Kentwood, and Norcot. Electorate: 75,946. 3. Windsor. As the current Windsor constituency plus Cox Green ward. Electorate: 73,691. 4. Bracknell. As the current Bracknell constituency (adjusted) minus Wokingham Without ward. Electorate: 72,197. 5. Maidenhead. As the current Maidenhead constituency minus Cox Green, Twyford, and Hurst, but plus the wards of Bulmershe & Whitegates, South Lake, and Loddon (all three of which are part of the current Reading East). Electorate: 71,833. 6. Wokingham. The Wokingham wards of Wokingham Without, Finchampstead North, Evendons, Westcott, Norreys, Emmbrook, Barkham, Hillside, Hawkedon, Winnersh, Maiden Erlegh and Arborfield, plus the Maidenhead wards of Hurst and Twyford. Electorate: 72,784. 7. Theale. The Reading wards of Tilehurst, Kentwood, and Norcot, the Wokingham wards of Shinfield North/South, and Swallowfield, and the West Berkshire wards of Mortimer, Burghfield, Calcot, Theale, Sulhamstead, Bucklebury, Basildon, Pangbourne, Purley on Thames, Birch Copse, and Westwood. Electorate: 72,820. 8. Newbury. As the current Newbury constituency minus Bucklebury and Basildon wards. Electorate: 71,737.
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 27, 2016 0:53:03 GMT
Firstly are you awere it isn;t possible to see your maps unless one has a dropbox account? Secondly, there must eb a better way than removing a ward from Maidenhead which is an integral if peripheral part of the town of Maidenhead itself
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 27, 2016 18:11:54 GMT
Another attempt at keeping Kent and Sussex separate:
All that's really needed is a small shift of electors from West to East and then a slight bit of rearranging. Most of the electorate deficit is in and around Brighton (presumably mostly a consequence of IER?), but all three West Sussex coastal seats are at the lower end of quota and thus it makes sense to leave them unchanged. Instead I've elected to switch East Grinstead into an East Sussex seat.
Hastings & Rye (71672) - unchanged Bexhill & Battle (71903) - gains Mayfield, loses Pevensey & Westham Eastbourne (74670) - unchanged, bar very minor realignment to ward boundaries Wealden (74337) - loses Mayfield and six wards round Hailsham, gains six wards around East Grinstead Seaford & Hailsham (74644) - the successor to Lewes. Gains seven wards of Wealden district, loses Newhaven and Lewes town Brighton Kemptown & Lewes (73502) - gains six wards from Lewes, including Newhaven and Lewes town, loses Queen's Park (Moulsecoomb & Bevendean would work instead, if preferred) Brighton Pavilion (71566) - loses Regency, gains Queen's Park Hove (74716) - gains Regency, no doubt somebody would suggest renaming it Brighton Hove Arundel and South Downs (72650) - loses Wisborough Green, boundary with Worthing West realigned to ward boundaries. Which is odd, as initially I made no effort to do least change here Mid Sussex (71764) - loses East Grinstead, gains three wards south and east of Crawley Crawley (72827) - gains Rusper & Colgate Horsham (71247) - loses four wards round Crawley, gains three wards in north of Chichester district Chichester (71192) - loses Fernhurst and Plaistow Bognor Regis & Littlehampton (72190) - unchanged Worthing West (74210) - realigned to ward boundaries, otherwise unchanged Worthing East & Shoreham (71723) - unchanged
Overall, I'm fairly pleased with this. I didn't manage to remove Mid Sussex's weird dumbbell (though you could do it by another small crossing of the county border), but otherwise I think these constituencies are actually a little more cohesive than the current ones. Seaford & Hailsham may not be to everybody's taste, but if you want to swap Lewes and Seaford then you have to include Woodingdean with the former, which is getting fairly ugly.
A seat has to be lost here, so rather than beginning with the existing seats I began with groups of local authorities. Shepway and Tunbridge Wells can both stand alone; Dartford, Gravesham and Sevenoaks combine for 3; you can get five out of Maidstone, Tonbridge and Medway; and it's just about possible to assign 6 to the remainder, though it is a little tight. That implies that the abolished seat is Faversham & Mid Kent, and that is indeed what happens.
Gravesham (75299) - gains Swanscombe from Dartford Dartford (76602) - loses Dartford, gains Ash & New Ash Green from Sevenoaks Sevenoaks (76623) - the rest of Sevenoaks district Tunbridge Wells (76380) - the entirety of the district Maidstone (76000) - loses the Tunbridge wards, gains Shepway North, Shepway South and Park Wood. Name changed as there's not much of the Weald in here Tonbridge & Malling (76132) - loses the ugly arm into Sevenoaks, gains four wards covering Snodland and Larkfield Rochester & Strood (76532) - loses River, gains Walderslade Gillingham & Rainham (74631) - gains River Chatham, Aylesford & Mid Kent (77494) - the successor to Chatham & Aylesford. Loses Walderslade in Medway and four wards covering Snodland and Larkfield in Tonbridge & Malling, gains 10 wards in Maidstone from Mid Kent Sittingbourne & Sheppey (77766) - gains East Downs Ashford (76865) - loses Downs North, Downs West and Wye Canterbury & Faversham (78400) - the successor to Canterbury. Loses five wards around Whitstable, gains five wards in Swale from Faversham & Mid Kent, three wards in Ashford from Ashford and one (Saxon Shore) from Folkestone & Hythe, gains Herne & Bloomfield and the remainder of Sturry from Thanet North Thanet West & Whitstable (75738) - the successor to Thanet North. In Canterbury, loses Herne & Bloomfield and its part of Sturry but gains five wards around Whitstable, in Thanet loses Dane Valley, Salmestone and Margate Central Thanet East (76908) - the successor to Thanet South. Loses Little Stour & Ashstone, gains Dane Valley, Salmestone and Margate Central. I'm tempted to call this Margate & Ramsgate, though the western portion of the former is outside the seat Dover (78385) - gains Little Stour & Ashstone Folkestone & Hythe (77333) - lose Saxon Shore, becomes co-extensive with Shepway district
Mostly this works, though a couple of the seats are ugly. The most obvious problem is Chatham, Aylesford & Mid Kent, though I can't see that this is very much less coherent than Faversham & Mid Kent. The shape of Ashford is also pretty ugly but a) a neater shape would excise Boughton Aluph & Eastwell, which includes part of Ashford proper and b) it's still as bad as the arm on Tonbridge & Malling is now. The inclusion of Herne & Bloomfield in Canterbury is also suboptimal, though now I come to think about it you could probably swap it for Seasalter.
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 27, 2016 18:41:58 GMT
Alternative plan for west Kent, with significantly more change but better seats around the Medway and Maidstone:
Gillingham & Rainham (74631) - as in the previous map Rochester, Chatham & Aylesford (76026) - successor to Chatham & Aylesford, loses the Larkfield and Snodland wards, gains the three Rochester wards Strood & Malling (75681) - five wards west of the Medway, the Larkfield and Snodland wards, East Malling, West Malling, Kings Hill, Downs & Mereworth Gravesham (75299) - as in previous map Dartford (76602) - as in previous map Sevenoaks (76623) - as in previous map Tonbridge (77198) - the rest of Tonbridge and nine wards from the south of Maidstone district. The name is debatable Maidstone (77253) - the rest of Maidstone, taking in the whole urban area
Yet another attempt at separate Kent and Sussex with 16 seats apiece
It is of course possible to reconfigure my first two seats in Sussex as Worthing East & Lancing and Worthing West & Littlehampton, but I prefer the option I've gone for here
I like that Sussex scheme Pete (though I'd do your alternative arrangement for Worthing etc.) Outside Medway (I don't know enough about that area to know what works better) Kent looks great too.
I notice you've gone for the pitchfork name of Tonbridge for the relevant constituency, probably the only name of the constituency to get 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' rioting more than High Brooms...
Cranbrook is your chosen name for the 'Random Bits of Kent' then? It is a large baggy amorphous constituency with no cohesion at all other than it is the central bits once the other seats are cobbled together. I don't like it or the name. Mid Kent or Central Kent would be better. Hawkhurst would be better but no more appropriate in reality.
Chatham and Malling is an ugly mess and links two places with no connection and no common identity whatsoever.
Yeah I like that - I tried to come up with something on the lines of Rochester & Chatham but kept falling foul of the upper limit
That is the obvious. We need Strood/Rochester/Chatham/Gillingham/Rainham/Sittingbourne and even Faversham grouped and split into optimum seats (if possible).
However I am sure people can live with one or two rather tortured seats and as structured they all look pretty safe for the Conservatives whereas my suggestion would give Labour more of a chance. Not my motive of course.
Yet another attempt at separate Kent and Sussex with 16 seats apiece
I know that's based on the existing pattern, but the Medway area is getting very contorted. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to keep one constituency west of the Medway and put Rochester in with Chatham and Aylesford:
1 Rochester and Chatham 75374 Yes 2 Strood and Malling 75681 Yes 3 Gillingham and Rainham 75283 Yes 4 Maidstone 77299 Yes
Actually looking again at this, it wouldn't work as part of my overall plan. The reason is that I had the Higham ward from Gravesham in my Rochester & Strood seat and if you put that back in Gravesham it's going to have serious adverse knock on effects all the way across the county as every one of my seats in West Kent is close to the maximum