|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 11:06:15 GMT
I was under the impression that Hertfordshire was still entitled to 11 seats on that basis in which case it isn't going to differ very significantly from either the current situation or the proposals I'm putting forward for the current review (though being fantasy boundaries I could of course choose to make it differ considerably). I don't see much point in imposing a 5% limit in this case, but will see if I can come with something which meets those demands
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 11:23:27 GMT
I was under the impression that Hertfordshire was still entitled to 11 seats on that basis in which case it isn't going to differ very significantly from either the current situation or the proposals I'm putting forward for the current review (though being fantasy boundaries I could of course choose to make it differ considerably). I don't see much point in imposing a 5% limit in this case, but will see if I can come with something which meets those demands No, the Hertfordshire entitlement is 11.62 so pairing with Bedfordshire for 17.99/18 Seats is the way to go
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 11:30:09 GMT
I was under the impression that Hertfordshire was still entitled to 11 seats on that basis in which case it isn't going to differ very significantly from either the current situation or the proposals I'm putting forward for the current review (though being fantasy boundaries I could of course choose to make it differ considerably). I don't see much point in imposing a 5% limit in this case, but will see if I can come with something which meets those demands No, the Hertfordshire entitlement is 11.62 so pairing with Bedfordshire for 17.99/18 Seats is the way to go Well if we were using the system used previously there would be no pairing with Bedfordshire - Hertfordshire would be entitled to 12 seats. My plans for a 12 seat Hertfordshire have been well rehearsed here anyway and I'm not interested in any kind of cross county seat involving Bedfordshire
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 11:31:01 GMT
No, the Hertfordshire entitlement is 11.62 so pairing with Bedfordshire for 17.99/18 Seats is the way to go Well if we were using the system used previously there would be no pairing with Bedfordshire - Hertfordshire would be entitled to 12 seats. My plans for a 12 seat Hertfordshire have been well rehearsed here anyway and I'm not interested in any kind of cross county seat involving Bedfordshire This is 650 seats under the current review rules
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 11:38:00 GMT
What's the point in doing that?
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 12:06:01 GMT
What's the point in doing that? Whats the point in 1000 seats, it's something to do
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 12:18:20 GMT
What's the point in doing that? Whats the point in 1000 seats, it's something to do I can't argue with that logic I suppose. Except that if you're doing these things as 'just a bit of fun' why take some of the fun out of it by imposing unnecessary constraints such as the 5% limit which are universally acknoweldged here to be the biggest flaw in the current legislation. We have to work with it in terms of drawing up real seats, but for fantasy seats you can adopt any rules you like. I also don't see the point in having several of these kinds of projects running simultaneously (still less simultaneously with the real thing)
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 11, 2016 13:43:56 GMT
London : I don't know if I will get around to it, just as I haven't got around to it in the 650 seats thread, along with Scotland, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside What do you mean, you haven't got round to London? Don't you realise that's the most important bit? You should have started with London.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 14:22:32 GMT
Quite
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 11, 2016 14:35:49 GMT
I don't think London is going to be possible with the absurd 5% limit thought without massive levels of ward splitting
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,556
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 11, 2016 22:21:30 GMT
HAMPSHIRE Aldershot 43406 Farnborough 45311 Fleet 43773 Tadley 42577 Basingstoke 43851 Whitchurch 43566 Andover 42999 Alton & Bordon 43193 Petersfield 43585 Winchester 42874 Romsey 46175 Ringwood 44315 Lymington & Milton 43431 Totton & Hythe 43401 Southampton Test 42976 Southampton Central 44418 Southampton Itchen 43210 Eastleigh 44029 Horton Heath 43117 Southampton Hamble 43269 Titchfield 45374 Gosport 43970 Fareham 42542 Portchester 44633 Portsmouth North 46724 Portsmouth West 45871 Portsmouth East & Hayling 43435 Havant 43329 Waterlooville 44152 That is utterly, bloody, abominable...
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 11, 2016 22:32:24 GMT
HAMPSHIRE Aldershot 43406 Farnborough 45311 Fleet 43773 Tadley 42577 Basingstoke 43851 Whitchurch 43566 Andover 42999 Alton & Bordon 43193 Petersfield 43585 Winchester 42874 Romsey 46175 Ringwood 44315 Lymington & Milton 43431 Totton & Hythe 43401 Southampton Test 42976 Southampton Central 44418 Southampton Itchen 43210 Eastleigh 44029 Horton Heath 43117 Southampton Hamble 43269 Titchfield 45374 Gosport 43970 Fareham 42542 Portchester 44633 Portsmouth North 46724 Portsmouth West 45871 Portsmouth East & Hayling 43435 Havant 43329 Waterlooville 44152 That is utterly, bloody, abominable... 1 the wards are big 2 which is the bad bit? (Portsmouth East & Hayling, which is absolutely needed otherwise Portsmouth is terrible)
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,556
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 11, 2016 22:37:22 GMT
That is utterly, bloody, abominable... 1 the wards are big 2 which is the bad bit? (Portsmouth East & Hayling, which is absolutely needed otherwise Portsmouth is terrible) Everything is terrible.
|
|
rocky
Non-Aligned
Posts: 122
|
Post by rocky on Oct 11, 2016 22:38:28 GMT
WEST MIDLANDS & WORCESTERSHIRE While you are crazy for doing all this! Looking forward to seeing your map for the west mids
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,546
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 12, 2016 0:36:30 GMT
I see you've given a great deal of thought to the names of these constituencies, then.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,768
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 12, 2016 10:27:05 GMT
CUMBERLAND Carlisle 45691 Penrith 46449 Keswick & Millom 46548 Workington 44174 Whitehaven 42615 I'm afraid that Keswick/Millom seat is a bit of a monstrosity Any chance of getting Westmorland/Furness, pretty please?
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 12, 2016 10:37:37 GMT
CUMBERLAND Carlisle 45691 Penrith 46449 Keswick & Millom 46548 Workington 44174 Whitehaven 42615 I'm afraid that Keswick/Millom seat is a bit of a monstrosity ;-| Any chance of getting Westmorland/Furness, pretty please? If you could read through my 650 seats thread and give some comments and maybe some more comments here I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning (it's 9.45 pm here)
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 13, 2016 22:33:09 GMT
CUMBERLAND Carlisle 45691 Penrith 46449 Keswick & Millom 46548 Workington 44174 Whitehaven 42615 I'm afraid that Keswick/Millom seat is a bit of a monstrosity ;-| Any chance of getting Westmorland/Furness, pretty please? I'm adding WESTMORLAND & FURNESS & LANCASHIRE NORTH OF RIBBLE right now
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,768
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 15, 2016 9:32:39 GMT
WESTMORLAND & FURNESS & LANCASHIRE NORTH OF RIBBLE Kendal 45600 Ulverston 46060 Barrow 44234 Morecambe 43710 Lancaster 45402 Bowland 45370 Preston North 46122 Preston South 45445 Fylde 45591 Lytham 44542 Blackpool South 44722 Blackpool North 46095 Cleveleys & Fleetwood 46199 Not a massive fan of that Lancaster/Morecambe split, tbh. The rest seem perfectly OK
|
|