Boundaries Archive

[Deleted]

Andrew - are you going to critique the NW proposals at all?

"Mid Lancashire" is a fine seat which will be greatly welcomed by the population as a whole.

[andrewteale]

I will do when I get chance. I'm in Accrington tonight doing a concert and before then there's the small matter of Wales v France...

[YL]

Here's a review of some of what I've seen in the submissions to the boundary review in Yorkshire. Some of this will be similar to things I've already posted on the USElectionAtlas forum.

I'll start with the Lib Dems. They largely ignore the county and borough boundaries. Given that they adhere to the Commission's policy on ward splitting, this could be seen as sensible, as it avoids another constraint in an area where the size of the wards and the 5% rule makes things difficult, and arguably they have fewer really bad constituencies than the other attempts which don't split wards. But I feel they go a bit far: they have two constituencies crossing the S Yorks/W Yorks boundary, one crossing the S Yorks/East Riding boundary (which contains an Axholme ward for good measure) and four crossing the W Yorks/N Yorks boundary. They also give Barnsley no fewer than 7 MPs, most of whom would represent just a ward or two of it. And they do have a couple of really bad constituencies: a "Leeds North West" which extends out into Nidderdale a bit like the Commission's attempt, and a "Leeds North East" which extends from Roundhay all the way out to Ouseburn ward east of Harrogate. Their variation on the Commission's "Barnsley West and Ecclesfield" is maybe a very slight improvement on the Commission's, in that while they replace splitting Darton with splitting Hoyland the latter is at least closer to the Sheffield core of the seat. There's a surprising amount of meddling, e.g. they don't leave any of the Doncaster seats unchanged.

The Tories, on the other hand, treat North Yorkshire (including York) and the area formerly known as Humberside separately, and recommend that the former's eight seats are unchanged. This all seems pretty sensible, and their "Humberside" map with Axholme unsplit and only one Hull seat crossing the city boundary seems an improvement on the Commission's. (I haven't really looked at Grimsby/Cleethorpes.) I'm less impressed in West and South Yorkshire, where they've managed to get a 33 seat proposal with no split wards, but I think in the process have demonstrated why this isn't really a very good idea. We see parts of inner city Bradford linked with Horsforth, Leeds city centre with Ossett, Beeston & Holbeck in Leeds with Batley, and Firth Park in Sheffield linked with both rural Penistone East and a sliver of Barnsley town. None of this is any worse than the Commission's map (well, maybe the Leeds centre/Ossett thing is) and in many places (much of western West Yorkshire, and the core of Wakefield) it's better, but there are still a lot of ugly constituencies.

Labour didn't actually submit a proposal of their own. However, a couple of groups associated with Labour did. Like the Tories, Shipley CLP submitted a 33 seat South and West Yorkshire with no split wards. (Reference no. 023128.) It has a lot of similarities to the Tory map (in South Yorkshire it's identical except that the cross-border seat contains a different Wakefield ward), and there are similar flaws.

The other Labourish proposal I've seen is from Dan Howard of Labour in Cleckheaton, and endorsed by Colne Valley CLP; it only covers West Yorkshire. (Reference no. 023075.) Unlike the three proposals mentioned above, he's happy to split wards, and as a result manages to give Leeds 7 seats of its own and Kirklees 4 with no border crossing. Bradford and Calderdale share six seats, with Queensbury moving into Halifax. (All four submissions I've mentioned move Queensbury into Halifax and leave Calder Valley unchanged.) One Wakefield ward is left to go into a South Yorkshire seat.

More to come, probably...

[Deleted]

I think the North West proposals are unliked by everyone. The Labour proposals for Cumbria are a bit odd, they want a kind of Carlisle & Coastal seat and it gets worse from there. The only difference between the Conservatives and us is what to do with Shap, iirc

Lancashire is a question of "what to you do with East Lancashire". There is almost universal support for the West, so I can imagine Blackpool, the Fylde, Preston and everything to the south of the Ribble going through almost unchanged. I am not holding my breath about the counterproposal from Wyre Borough Council going through ("Wyre and Blackpool North", anyone?)

The Tories propose "Burnley and Accrington" and "Pendle and Burnley Rural", which essentially swaps wards between each other to keep Burnley (almost) united. They're happy with "Darwen and Haslington" and "Rochdale North and Rawtenstall", though suggest the latter should be renamed "Rochdale North and Bacup"

Labour propose "Burnley and Nelson" and"Clitheroe and Colne" which actually includes the whole of the Ribble Valley borough less Chipping.

We propose "Pendle and Clitheroe" with incorporates the borough of Pendle together with its nearest neighbour, and a "Burnley" seat which ties the borough with Read, Simonstone, Sabden and Reedley.

For the Ribble Valley, we propose a largely rural "Valleys of Ribble and Lune", the Conservatives go for a "Ribble Valley" which links the borough with bits of South Ribble and Hyndburn, and as I said, Labour link the borough with Pendle because of their creation "Garstang and Carnforth"

[rogerg]

Hi folks

Those with an interest in the new London boundaries should spend some time looking at 020996 in the name of Dr David Rossiter.

It is an exceptional submission. I might even go as far as to suggest it could turn out to be one of the most important submissions of the whole review. I gather copies have been sent to all London MPs and I guess had "the other place" still been with us it would have generated a lot of comment there.

I like it because unlike the BCE they approach the review with a clear methodology of how to take out 5 seats. It is also impeccably divorced from the political implications of what they suggest.

They prioritise minimising changes to existing constituencies which helps produce a map with fewer cross-borough seats too. I can spot a couple of obvious outrages on the split "local ties" front especially in north London, but I can see a few simple ways to remedy some of them without detracting from the general approach of minimum change.

I've been heavily involved in preparing the Lib Dem submission in London, and I really didn't see something like this coming! On my maths I think the 2010 votes on this map would produce Labour and Conservative each down 2 and Lib Dems down 1. But their Balham & Clapham is clearly too close to say either way and maybe Sarah Teather would have made different choices about where to go.....

[Deleted]

Hi Roger. Always good to see new names round here

And all the better with boundary reviews to hand...

[YL]

Some council submissions in South and West Yorkshire:

Bradford City Council (023011) don't like all the boundary crossing and suggest that it ought to be possible to have four seats entirely within the city and just one crossing the boundary. (It is: see Dan Howard's submission.)

Kirklees Borough Council (005415) don't like the splitting of Batley, Dewsbury and the Spen Valley.

Barnsley Borough Council (024418) don't like the mess the Commission made of the west end of their borough, but can't see how to put it right.

Sheffield City Council (023091) also don't like the boundary crossing, and have a (ward splitting) map which has five seats entirely within the City and no cross-border seat at all. They also don't like the "Barnsley West and Ecclesfield" name.

Rotherham Borough Council (018818) only complain about the "Rawmarsh" name; they want to call it "Rotherham North".

In addition, there's a submission (019322) which is from officials of Leeds City Council, but it's not quite clear whether it's a Council submission. (It comes up under "On behalf of another organisation", not "On behalf of a local authority".) It also objects to all the boundary crossing, and also makes some comments on the Commission's names.

[Philip Davies]

Mar 21, 2012 19:23:02 GMT rogerg said:

Hi folks

Those with an interest in the new London boundaries should spend some time looking at 020996 in the name of Dr David Rossiter.

It is an exceptional submission. I might even go as far as to suggest it could turn out to be one of the most important submissions of the whole review. I gather copies have been sent to all London MPs and I guess had "the other place" still been with us it would have generated a lot of comment there.

I like it because unlike the BCE they approach the review with a clear methodology of how to take out 5 seats. It is also impeccably divorced from the political implications of what they suggest.

They prioritise minimising changes to existing constituencies which helps produce a map with fewer cross-borough seats too. I can spot a couple of obvious outrages on the split "local ties" front especially in north London, but I can see a few simple ways to remedy some of them without detracting from the general approach of minimum change.

I've been heavily involved in preparing the Lib Dem submission in London, and I really didn't see something like this coming! On my maths I think the 2010 votes on this map would produce Labour and Conservative each down 2 and Lib Dems down 1. But their Balham & Clapham is clearly too close to say either way and maybe Sarah Teather would have made different choices about where to go.....

It is very impressive. Crossing the Thames between the Chelsea Road bridge and Vauxhall Bridge is novel.

[kevinlarkin]

rogerg, thanks for highlighting this. One of the signatories is Roger Johnston, a legend in the field of electoral geography. But their 'Battersea and Victoria' is daft beyond description.

[kevinlarkin]

This map shows the responses to the BCE's initial proposals by the respondent's post code.
boundaryassistant.org/AllResponses.htm

There are some inconsistencies in the data on the BCE website. The two responses in the Marylebone area categorised as 'Agree' both start 'I would like to object...'. Suspect that 'Agree' was the default option on the input form. Also, some of those who 'Disagree' are actually disagreeing with one of the parties' counter-proposals.
Some of the responses relate to a different area from the respondent's post code (including URN 016926 - worth a read), but I think the map highlights places where people are particularly happy/unhappy with the BCE proposals.

[Deleted]

Kevin, marry me. What a brilliant map!

[Pete Whitehead]

You're referring to URN 019697?
Yes very impressive

[YL]

Good work on the map. I've also noticed a couple which said "Agree" on the consultation website but based on the text clearly didn't.

Has everyone here seen the suggested names in submission 013694? Some are a bit crazy (like "Port Solent and HMS Victory") but some are improvements on the Commission's ideas. For another take on the names of the Sheffield seats (also against compass points) see 003312.

[Deleted]

Submission 013694 is the stuff of legend and I hope the Internet never allows it to be removed from the fabric of reality. Or fantasy, whichever is more accurate.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I'm pleased to note that according to that map I made the most northerly submission of any respondents to the BCE.

I'm less pleased to be reminded of what a half-arsed job I did in my submission, because I only remembered I had yet to fill it in on the night I was taking my partner out for an anniversary meal, but you can't have everything...

[Pete Whitehead]

I now realise what map youa re all talking about - I seem to have problems navigating between pages
Kevin's London map is rather good too, but lets have a look at this one. I had noticed thatt here was not a single representation from Hertsmere

[Pete Whitehead]

Thats brilliant. Not just showing where submissions have come from but with links to the submissions themselves. This will be a far more useful way of serching than the BC site itself

[Pete Whitehead]

Disgusted of Wembley Central lol

Just like referendum for AV, it is a waste of time exercise and research to be bothered about futile electoral systems when the world is beseiged with unending uncontrollable problems, poverty, crimes, natural disasters, diseases, harricane, flood, riots and unending problems. Con-Demn Cabinet led by liars, cheats and robbers Cameron and George Osborne and Nick Clegg are futile waste of time, space and cheating and robbing the resources, money and time of millions of voters, residents and citizens by lying and unprecedented and unparallel lying to people by blaming Labour Blair and Brown Wake up ignorant and arrogant Con-Demn Cabinet. Wake up to truths and justice, their ignorance and arrogance are robbing the UK and the world.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Yes, the consultation does show a worryingly large proportion of people who either a) didn't understand what the consultation was about or b) are obvious lunatics. Or in quite a lot of cases both.

There are also a lot of complaints about property prices and having to share a constituency with undesirables if you look in the right place.

[johnloony]

Mar 26, 2012 19:33:33 GMT kevinlarkin said:

This map shows the responses to the BCE's initial proposals by the respondent's post code.
boundaryassistant.org/AllResponses.htm

It is interesting to notice that the proposal to split the current Carshalton & Wallington is the 2nd most contentious proposal in London (the River Lea crossing being the 1st most).

I had been tending to think that the proposed boundaries for Croydon & Sutton would probably be enacted (albeit with different names) on the grounds that the submissions from Carshalton & Wallington tend to be lacking in viable counter-proposals, but perhaps the response will be strong enough to force the BCE to find a different arrangement after all.

There is, if anything, broad support from people in Croydon for the BCE's proposals, but my main concern is the stay in Gavin Barwell's constituency which is why I'm against the proposed "Croydon Central & St Helier".