435 Westminster constituencies

[tiberius]

I think the Somerset issues could be easily fixed if Weston-super-Mare was split. But is there any good split of the city that could be done? Is it best to leave it whole despite the issues that exist elsewhere?

@beesley there's plenty of wiggle room in Cornwall, it's easy to avoid Devonwall. But since such wiggle room exists, there exists more choice than elsewhere to draw things in aesthetically pleasing fashion. Unifying the town of Looe makes the Newquay seat much narrower along Cornwall's southern coast, so it's a tradeoff. I get the assumption that since most of Cornwall's seats have been drawn north-to-south as opposed to east-to-west over the decades, that's something good to continue.

As regards to Devon, my feeling was that it, if there was two seats having everything lying above the northern border of council areas along Devon's southern coast, it's better to have an inland seat and a coastal seat, as opposed to two mixed inland-coastal seats. And I wanted to ensure only one of the four council areas in that portion of Devon was split. Hence the arrangement I chose.


Here's a closeup of Plymouth.
Everything in the council area south of the Devon Expressway is in one seat.

[tiberius]

Apr 30, 2018 18:05:17 GMT Foggy said:

Apr 30, 2018 18:02:08 GMT tiberius said:

Since the seats holding Yeovil and Minehead hold 3 council areas that fit for 2 seats, the rest of Somerset had to be parcelled out into 4. This area was fairly close to the top of the upper band for 4 seats. The Sedgemoor and Mendip areas were kept whole, but this meant that the North Somerset unitary authority needed to get split twice. Weston-super-Mare was kept whole, but this meant extra nastyness in outlying areas (which were aggravated by the closeness to quota that all of the seats had).

What is the obsession with keeping Mendip whole? I don't think it ever has been left intact for the purposes of parliamentary constituencies. Somerton & Frome was created for the 1983 election, which was based on the first (successfully adopted) review at which the 1970s districts had been taken into account. There are nicer seats to be made if you just tweak your priorities a little, I think. 

Mendip is being kept whole primarily because it's under quota.

[Deleted]

For the Dorset seats - The 'West Dorset' one which essentially adds Weymouth & Portland and removes the area around Sherborne is really quite good, I think. Weymouth, Dorchester and Bridport work together in a constituency just as well as Sherborne, Dorchester and Bridport do.

That very 'Central/Mid Dorset' one isn't so great, I think - it sort of combines the super rural parts of Dorset together, but with several relatively large settlements just outside on its fringes. However, a better solution isn't obvious (and I'm all in favour of reducing the number of constituencies to 435; I'd add in non-constituency members though).

EDIT: Whilst a lot of people (including some of the general public) do prefer to avoid having constituencies which cross county lines where possible, I don't think a single person in Sherborne, Gillingham or Shaftesbury would rather have an entirely Dorset constituency with places like Swanage than a cross-county one with Yeovil etc. - I'm not sure if that's an easy solution.

[Foggy]

Apr 30, 2018 18:32:54 GMT tiberius said:

I think the Somerset issues could be easily fixed if Weston-super-Mare was split. But is there any good split of the city that could be done? Is it best to leave it whole despite the issues that exist elsewhere?

Okay, that's a fair enough explanation about Mendip, but I don't believe that should be your overriding concern.

Weston-super-Mare isn't a city, but on the ground the Worle and Kewstoke areas are locally seen as somewhat separate from the town centre, sea front and Uphill (General Hospital) areas. 

[tiberius]

Is this a better solution?

[Foggy]

Apr 30, 2018 19:37:09 GMT tiberius said:

Is this a better solution?

Definitely. No solution will be ideal compared to what we're used to with such a reduction in the number of constituencies, but it didn't have to be as drastic as your original plan. Bournville looks a tad out of place being separated from the rest of 'Weston proper', but it's probably the best you can do if you're not willing to split Mendip. Backwell is still in a separate constituency from Nailsea too, which is effectively cutting off one part of a settlement from another ('Nailsea & Backwell' railway station is actually located in the latter place). 

[tiberius]

Apr 30, 2018 19:46:39 GMT Foggy said:

Apr 30, 2018 19:37:09 GMT tiberius said:

Is this a better solution?

Definitely. No solution will be ideal compared to what we're used to with such a reduction in the number of constituencies, but it didn't have to be as drastic as your original plan. Bournville looks a tad out of place being separated from the rest of 'Weston proper', but it's probably the best you can do if you're not willing to split Mendip. Backwell is still in a separate constituency from Nailsea too, which is effectively cutting off one part of a settlement from another ('Nailsea & Backwell' railway station is actually located in the latter place). 

I actually looked at splitting Mendip, but the problem is that you will always have some of it left over. And where does that remainder go? The pitch-perfect Bath constituency is going to be messed up and/or you wind up pairing parts of Mendip and parts of the North Somerset unitary authority anyway.
As for Backwell, perhaps one could add a ward or two in the vicinity of Weston-super-mare to the Mendip seat, in return for placing Backwell in the Weston-super-mare one?
EDIT: so the ward can't come from the area of the Weston-super-mare. However it can come from somewhere nearby Backwell, potentially.

[tiberius]

[Foggy]

Apr 30, 2018 19:54:14 GMT tiberius said:

Apr 30, 2018 19:46:39 GMT Foggy said:

Definitely. No solution will be ideal compared to what we're used to with such a reduction in the number of constituencies, but it didn't have to be as drastic as your original plan. Bournville looks a tad out of place being separated from the rest of 'Weston proper', but it's probably the best you can do if you're not willing to split Mendip. Backwell is still in a separate constituency from Nailsea too, which is effectively cutting off one part of a settlement from another ('Nailsea & Backwell' railway station is actually located in the latter place). 

I actually looked at splitting Mendip, but the problem is that you will always have some of it left over. And where does that remainder go? The pitch-perfect Bath constituency is going to be messed up and/or you wind up pairing parts of Mendip and parts of the North Somerset unitary authority anyway.
As for Backwell, perhaps one could add a ward or two in the vicinity of Weston-super-mare to the Mendip seat, in return for placing Backwell in the Weston-super-mare one?
EDIT: so the ward can't come from the area of the Weston-super-mare. However it can come from somewhere nearby Backwell, potentially.

Well, you could split it in half I suppose, and linking it with parts of South Somerset or BANES would ruin some neat constituencies nextdoor.

Yeah, the Weston wards are too big. Long Ashton is also twice the size of Backwell ward, and a poor fit for a seat stretching out as far as Street and Frome since it's basically an outer suburb of Bristol. Yatton is too large as well and would in any case make the Portishead & Kewstoke constituency non-contiguous. I guess you'll have to leave it as it is, but at least it's an improvement upon your first effort.

[tiberius]

Lowlands


Central Belt


Highlands+NE Scotland
@boogieeck ntyuk1707 any criticism/praise/commentary?

[tiberius]

Apr 30, 2018 22:10:54 GMT @boogieeck said:

It may be praiseworthy but I hate it.

The Fife border is sacrosanct and demographic similarities between Newburgh and Abernethy are of zero significance regardless of the demographic differences between Strathmiglo and Methilhill

The Lecht pass means that regardless of supposed similarities between Tomintoul and Braemar, they are different nations. Communities cross rivers, even if they are council boundaries. They do not cross mountain ranges

How is it praiseworthy?

[J.G.Harston]

Apr 30, 2018 22:10:54 GMT @boogieeck said:

The Lecht pass means that regardless of supposed similarities between Tomintoul and Braemar, they are different nations. Communities cross rivers, even if they are council boundaries. They do not cross mountain ranges

I did my driving lessons up and down there. In the snow. In July.

[Pete Whitehead]

[The Bishop]

A few old constituency names being revived there, I see.

[Pete Whitehead]

May 1, 2018 10:50:24 GMT The Bishop said:

A few old constituency names being revived there, I see.

Re: Horsham & Crawley, I recall on one of the 1974 election programmes David BUtler discussing that seat and describing how it would inevitably fall to Labour in the near future as Crawley continued to grow. IN actual fact that seat (which had a larger rural hinterland than mine above) would perhaps only narrowly have voted Labour in 1997 or perhaps not at all and not been close in any other election

[Pete Whitehead]

[yellowperil]

re Kent: I quite like this (on the understanding that is accompanied by the appropriate number of list seats). In terms of communities I think this makes a lot more sense than any recent configuration in Kent. Romney Marsh was of course always part of the Ashford constituency back in its earliest history and I personally am not opposed to Hythe splitting from Folkestone. The pretty enormous Kent Weald constituency (which is where I personally  would finish up) still does look like the "bits left over" one, but is a lot more coherent than a number of versions we have had to endure in the recent past -the people in the M20/A20 corridor like Charing and Lenham would probably say they weren't Weald they're Downland, but its arguable. You seem to have created an eminently winnable Lib Dem target in Maidstone which would probably delight my Maidstone LD colleagues.It's probably right that Ashford constituency is kept a bit on the low side as it will catch up fast. I like the single Thanet seat, and the elongated north-south constituencies in West Kent (Sevenoaks, Tonbridge) are no odder than what has happened there in the past. 

Then I want 6 All-County list seats to go with these 12 constituencies! On the basis of a national electoral scene much as now that would probably give the Lib Dems 2 seats (Maidstone + 1 county list), Labour 3-4 seats ( Canterbury+ one possible other -perhaps Dover/Folk?,+2 list seats) and the Tories the rest 9/10 constituencies and 3 list seats. Of course a new system, together with  changing events,might mean people voted quite differently.

[Pete Whitehead]

May 1, 2018 13:06:36 GMT yellowperil said:

re Kent: I quite like this (on the understanding that is accompanied by the appropriate number of list seats). In terms of communities I think this makes a lot more sense than any recent configuration in Kent. Romney Marsh was of course always part of the Ashford constituency back in its earliest history and I personally am not opposed to Hythe splitting from Folkestone. The pretty enormous Kent Weald constituency (which is where I personally  would finish up) still does look like the "bits left over" one, but is a lot more coherent than a number of versions we have had to endure in the recent past -the people in the M20/A20 corridor like Charing and Lenham would probably say they weren't Weald they're Downland, but its arguable. You seem to have created an eminently winnable Lib Dem target in Maidstone which would probably delight my Maidstone LD colleagues.It's probably right that Ashford constituency is kept a bit on the low side as it will catch up fast. I like the single Thanet seat, and the elongated north-south constituencies in West Kent (Sevenoaks, Tonbridge) are no odder than what has happened there in the past. 

Then I want 6 All-County list seats to go with these 12 constituencies! On the basis of a national electoral scene much as now that would probably give the Lib Dems 2 seats (Maidstone + 1 county list), Labour 3-4 seats ( Canterbury+ one possible other -perhaps Dover/Folk?,+2 list seats) and the Tories the rest 9/10 constituencies and 3 list seats. Of course a new system, together with  changing events,might mean people voted quite differently.

I wouldn't get too carried away about Maidstone - the Lib Dems have never matched their local election strength there when it comes to general elections. Maidstone was one of those seats where the Lib Dems held up relatively well in 2015 but they then collapsed in 2017 to 16% of the vote - and that's the good news for them. In Faversham & Mid Kent and Chatham & Aylesford which provide the rest of the seat they got a derisory vote, I know the LDs used to get a very good local election vote in the Aylesford/Larkfield/Ditton area but it never counted for much in generals and doesn't count for much in locals anymore either, so I'd stick to relying on the list seats.
Also Labour wouldn't win Canterbury with Herne Bay included

[Pete Whitehead]

Fitting Oxfordshire into three seats was a struggle.  While it looks like the Henley & Bicester seat is just over quota, it actually isn't because the Sandford and the Wittenhams wards includes an area South of the Thames that would actually be in the Abingdon division of Berkshire

[Pete Whitehead]