J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,744 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 21, 2020 17:45:50 GMT
OK I like a challenge, and not having much else to do on a Sunday afternoon ... here's my initial attempt. Certainly tricky because it's a small region and the total allocation is so close to a half-seat. Certainly I have some awkward seat shapes, but overall the plan seems to work OK. There are several seats that could be dramatically improved in shape if the figues were just very slightly different at ward level, so we'll have to see what the final numbers look like ...  You're not helped by the shape of some of the wards in the Yorkshire end either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 17:50:27 GMT
I've always been so impressed by posters who can whip up a region of an afternoon. I struggle with a single county 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 21, 2020 17:52:36 GMT
If anybody wants a challenge, the North East is there for the taking. Suffice to say, Stockton North will become an abomination... My priorities were ensuring no ward splits were required, and the strength of ties between communities. While I tried to avoid crossing council boundaries and preserving recognisable constituencies, these were lower in my list of priorities. My solution has no orphan wards, but a large number of constituencies include several wards from one council and several from another (there are no tri-borough constituencies). But I've just realised that I've used a regional quota rather than a national one - my quota was the North East electorate divided by 26, plus or minus 5%. If this isn't allowed, then this solution is useless (I've gone well above the national quota in some cases). It seems that mattb has beaten me to it - I'll have to see how different his ideas are after I finish writing this (I won't look now or it might affect my ideas). Northumberland and Northern Tyne and Wear (8 constituencies)Northumberland, Newcastle, and North Tyneside add up to 7.76 quotas. This makes eight seats possible, but a tight squeeze - so I added in two wards from the western edge of Gateshead. These go in a slightly enlarged Hexham constituency. This new Hexham and Ryton has good communication links along the Tyne Valley, and is reasonably cohesive, with Ryton and Prudhoe having strong links. Combining some of the most rural communities in England with suburbia isn't ideal, but other solutions would probably involve an absolutely gargantuan seat including Hexham and parts of eastern Northumberland - a much worse option. The rest of Northumberland is much simpler - Berwick gains Morpeth to form Berwick and Morpeth, rump Wansbeck gains the town of Blyth to form Blyth and Ashington, and the rest of Blyth Valley goes in with Whitley Bay ( Cramlington and Whitley Bay). I'm not entirely happy with the last of those constituencies, but the wards taken from North Tyneside are a little isolated from the rest of the borough, and all have strong ties with Seaton Delaval or Seaton Sluice. The next seat is based on the riverside area - combining Wallsend and Tynemouth in one seat isn't ideal, but the Metro line and Coast Road run through both and it means we can cross the Newcastle boundary in the north of the city rather than the east. Longbenton and Killingworth are in this Newcastle constituency - a new Newcastle upon Tyne North which bears little resemblance to the old seat of that name. I'm rather pleased with this seat: it crosses an authority border but combines similar communities on both sides - Dinnington fits perfectly with Hazlerigg, and Gosforth fairly well with Longbenton. The rest of Newcastle is divided into two seats: Central and West. While I'd have liked to have called the Central seat "East", it includes the whole of the city centre as well as most of the "West End", and so such a name wouldn't be appropriate. Southern Tyne and Wear (6 seats)The current Blaydon constituency loses Birtley and Lamesley but gains Gateshead town centre. I've also renamed this to Gateshead West since this new area is now the dominant part of the constituency. The rest of Gateshead is split in two - the eastern fringes join Jarrow in a Gateshead East and Jarrow seat, while Birtley, Lamesley, and southern Gateshead are now in Gateshead South and Washington. Neither of these is a fantastic seat, and I'd much rather have had Boldon Colliery in with Jarrow than Simonside and Wrekendyke, but the numbers didn't quite work. This means that South Shields doesn't even include all of its own town centre, but other than that is a fairly cohesive unit. Sunderland Central is the right size for a constituency but it is difficult to build decent seats around it - my Sunderland Central loses some ground in the south but gains the entirety of Sunderland proper north of the Wear. Houghton and Sunderland South loses Doxford but gains St. Anne's and Barnes, becoming a bit more urban. Ideally I'd have put Hetton in a County Durham seat, but the numbers didn't work as well and parts of Hetton-le-Hole are actually in Copt Hill ward, which includes half of Houghton - the wards in that part of the city reflect community ties really badly. County Durham and Billingham (6 seats)
If I had to say which part of my map was worst, it would be County Durham. Realigning the old seats to the new wards is difficult, so all of the new seats are essentially from scratch, and are pretty poor. Consett is the best of a bad bunch - it has similar boundaries to the old Derwentside council. Easington isn't too bad either - it loses Blackhalls and gains the southernmost parts of Sunderland, but Ryhope does look along the coast to Seaham quite a lot, and the core of the seat remains unchanged. Doxford is a weaker fit with the constituency, but as mentioned is a compromise to avoid splitting communities elsewhere. But Durham and Chester-le-Street is awful and I apologise for it - ideally I'd have Brandon in with Durham but the numbers didn't quite work when I tried that. Instead Brandon is in with Weardale, Spennymoor, and Ferryhill, in a leftovers West Durham seat, while Bishop Auckland has to take Newton Aycliffe to keep it within quota after losing Spennymoor. Still, none of these are as bad as the worst seat of the entire map: Billingham and Sedgefield. I don't like this constituency but I'd rather have one awful constituency than disrupting lots of constituencies. Tees Valley (6 seats)
In contrast, this part of the map works very well. Hartlepool and Darlington are the easiest seats of all to draw - the former is unchanged and the latter becomes conterminous with the borough. Stockton isn't perfect but consists of those parts of the borough north of the Tees (and not within the Billingham and Sedgefield seat). Thornaby and Yarm then join with western Middlesbrough to form Middlesbrough West - I'd rather do a ward split of Central along Park Vale Road and Marton Road than include Ladgate within Middlesbrough West, but even the version in this solution isn't too bad. The new ward boundaries in Redcar and Cleveland are slightly odd, but I think all of the the suburban area around Eston and South Bank is in Middlesbrough East, and all of Redcar is in Redcar and Cleveland. Here are the maps:    |
|
|
|
Post by newsouthender on Jun 21, 2020 18:28:43 GMT
mattb I liked your Lancashire and admire your tenacity in doing the full region! As a Blackpool resident, I had been too wary of the Lytham St Annes pitchforks to consider crossing the southern boundary but your Fleetwood/Cleveleys/Poulton seat makes a lot of sense. Anchorsholme ward in particular, despite being in the Blackpool Council area, looks much more towards Cleveleys so is a good match with that seat. Norbreck is the other largely FY5 ward so it is reasonable that this goes too. I would however recommend an alteration to the bits of Blackpool that are transferred to Fylde. Squires Gate is very much linked to Highfield and Stanley along the airport perimeter while Hawes Side and Clifton feel quite separate (the latter being the large Mereside estate). If Waterloo was transferred as well this would unite the main South Shore communities. Moving bits of St Annes into Blackpool always triggers loads of objections but it is possible that it may be less controversial the other way round as the Fylde Council area will dominate. It would be ideal to remedy the split of Wesham from Kirkham but while Fylde would be fine, I don't think the numbers in the Mid Lancs monster allow.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 21, 2020 18:41:49 GMT
Here is an outtake. See if you can spot what the big problem is:   Oxfordshire1 Banbury 72235 Yes 2 Witney 70306 Yes 3 Bicester 73142 Yes 4 Oxford West and Abingdon 71212 Yes 5 Oxford East 71304 Yes 6 Wantage 75019 Yes Oxfordshire-Berkshire7 Henley 75593 Yes Berkshire8 Newbury 72229 Yes 9 Wokingham 70171 Yes 10 Reading West 75140 Yes 11 Reading East 74011 Yes 12 Maidenhead 72084 Yes 13 Windsor 70965 Yes 14 Bracknell 69923 Yes Berkshire-Surrey15 Camberley and Sandhurst 69223 Yes Surrey16 Runnymede and Weybridge 75241 Yes 17 Spelthorne 71197 Yes 18 Esher and Walton 71595 Yes 19 Woking 69879 Yes 20 West Surrey 70199 Yes 21 Guildford 71357 Yes 22 South West Surrey 74331 Yes 23 Mole Valley 71963 Yes 24 Epsom and Ewell 74842 Yes 25 Reigate 75373 Yes 26 East Surrey 71003 Yes Aside from those pitchforks in Leatherhead, all fairly nice, but... Where is West Surrey? What happens to Slough? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 21, 2020 18:47:34 GMT
If anybody wants a challenge, the North East is there for the taking. Suffice to say, Stockton North will become an abomination... My priorities were ensuring no ward splits were required, and the strength of ties between communities. While I tried to avoid crossing council boundaries and preserving recognisable constituencies, these were lower in my list of priorities. My solution has no orphan wards, but a large number of constituencies include several wards from one council and several from another (there are no tri-borough constituencies). But I've just realised that I've used a regional quota rather than a national one - my quota was the North East electorate divided by 26, plus or minus 5%. If this isn't allowed, then this solution is useless (I've gone well above the national quota in some cases). It seems that mattb has beaten me to it - I'll have to see how different his ideas are after I finish writing this (I won't look now or it might affect my ideas). Northumberland and Northern Tyne and Wear (8 constituencies)Northumberland, Newcastle, and North Tyneside add up to 7.76 quotas. This makes eight seats possible, but a tight squeeze - so I added in two wards from the western edge of Gateshead. These go in a slightly enlarged Hexham constituency. This new Hexham and Ryton has good communication links along the Tyne Valley, and is reasonably cohesive, with Ryton and Prudhoe having strong links. Combining some of the most rural communities in England with suburbia isn't ideal, but other solutions would probably involve an absolutely gargantuan seat including Hexham and parts of eastern Northumberland - a much worse option. The rest of Northumberland is much simpler - Berwick gains Morpeth to form Berwick and Morpeth, rump Wansbeck gains the town of Blyth to form Blyth and Ashington, and the rest of Blyth Valley goes in with Whitley Bay ( Cramlington and Whitley Bay). I'm not entirely happy with the last of those constituencies, but the wards taken from North Tyneside are a little isolated from the rest of the borough, and all have strong ties with Seaton Delaval or Seaton Sluice. The next seat is based on the riverside area - combining Wallsend and Tynemouth in one seat isn't ideal, but the Metro line and Coast Road run through both and it means we can cross the Newcastle boundary in the north of the city rather than the east. Longbenton and Killingworth are in this Newcastle constituency - a new Newcastle upon Tyne North which bears little resemblance to the old seat of that name. I'm rather pleased with this seat: it crosses an authority border but combines similar communities on both sides - Dinnington fits perfectly with Hazlerigg, and Gosforth fairly well with Longbenton. The rest of Newcastle is divided into two seats: Central and West. While I'd have liked to have called the Central seat "East", it includes the whole of the city centre as well as most of the "West End", and so such a name wouldn't be appropriate. Southern Tyne and Wear (6 seats)The current Blaydon constituency loses Birtley and Lamesley but gains Gateshead town centre. I've also renamed this to Gateshead West since this new area is now the dominant part of the constituency. The rest of Gateshead is split in two - the eastern fringes join Jarrow in a Gateshead East and Jarrow seat, while Birtley, Lamesley, and southern Gateshead are now in Gateshead South and Washington. Neither of these is a fantastic seat, and I'd much rather have had Boldon Colliery in with Jarrow than Simonside and Wrekendyke, but the numbers didn't quite work. This means that South Shields doesn't even include all of its own town centre, but other than that is a fairly cohesive unit. Sunderland Central is the right size for a constituency but it is difficult to build decent seats around it - my Sunderland Central loses some ground in the south but gains the entirety of Sunderland proper north of the Wear. Houghton and Sunderland South loses Doxford but gains St. Anne's and Barnes, becoming a bit more urban. Ideally I'd have put Hetton in a County Durham seat, but the numbers didn't work as well and parts of Hetton-le-Hole are actually in Copt Hill ward, which includes half of Houghton - the wards in that part of the city reflect community ties really badly. County Durham and Billingham (6 seats)
If I had to say which part of my map was worst, it would be County Durham. Realigning the old seats to the new wards is difficult, so all of the new seats are essentially from scratch, and are pretty poor. Consett is the best of a bad bunch - it has similar boundaries to the old Derwentside council. Easington isn't too bad either - it loses Blackhalls and gains the southernmost parts of Sunderland, but Ryhope does look along the coast to Seaham quite a lot, and the core of the seat remains unchanged. Doxford is a weaker fit with the constituency, but as mentioned is a compromise to avoid splitting communities elsewhere. But Durham and Chester-le-Street is awful and I apologise for it - ideally I'd have Brandon in with Durham but the numbers didn't quite work when I tried that. Instead Brandon is in with Weardale, Spennymoor, and Ferryhill, in a leftovers West Durham seat, while Bishop Auckland has to take Newton Aycliffe to keep it within quota after losing Spennymoor. Still, none of these are as bad as the worst seat of the entire map: Billingham and Sedgefield. I don't like this constituency but I'd rather have one awful constituency than disrupting lots of constituencies. Tees Valley (6 seats)
In contrast, this part of the map works very well. Hartlepool and Darlington are the easiest seats of all to draw - the former is unchanged and the latter becomes conterminous with the borough. Stockton isn't perfect but consists of those parts of the borough north of the Tees (and not within the Billingham and Sedgefield seat). Thornaby and Yarm then join with western Middlesbrough to form Middlesbrough West - I'd rather do a ward split of Central along Park Vale Road and Marton Road than include Ladgate within Middlesbrough West, but even the version in this solution isn't too bad. The new ward boundaries in Redcar and Cleveland are slightly odd, but I think all of the the suburban area around Eston and South Bank is in Middlesbrough East, and all of Redcar is in Redcar and Cleveland. Here are the maps: Love your maps, so clear! The numbers really help to identify the seats, I’m slightly colour blind! |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jun 21, 2020 18:52:26 GMT
My priorities were ensuring no ward splits were required, and the strength of ties between communities. While I tried to avoid crossing council boundaries and preserving recognisable constituencies, these were lower in my list of priorities. My solution has no orphan wards, but a large number of constituencies include several wards from one council and several from another (there are no tri-borough constituencies). But I've just realised that I've used a regional quota rather than a national one - my quota was the North East electorate divided by 26, plus or minus 5%. If this isn't allowed, then this solution is useless (I've gone well above the national quota in some cases). It seems that mattb has beaten me to it - I'll have to see how different his ideas are after I finish writing this (I won't look now or it might affect my ideas). Northumberland and Northern Tyne and Wear (8 constituencies)Northumberland, Newcastle, and North Tyneside add up to 7.76 quotas. This makes eight seats possible, but a tight squeeze - so I added in two wards from the western edge of Gateshead. These go in a slightly enlarged Hexham constituency. This new Hexham and Ryton has good communication links along the Tyne Valley, and is reasonably cohesive, with Ryton and Prudhoe having strong links. Combining some of the most rural communities in England with suburbia isn't ideal, but other solutions would probably involve an absolutely gargantuan seat including Hexham and parts of eastern Northumberland - a much worse option. The rest of Northumberland is much simpler - Berwick gains Morpeth to form Berwick and Morpeth, rump Wansbeck gains the town of Blyth to form Blyth and Ashington, and the rest of Blyth Valley goes in with Whitley Bay ( Cramlington and Whitley Bay). I'm not entirely happy with the last of those constituencies, but the wards taken from North Tyneside are a little isolated from the rest of the borough, and all have strong ties with Seaton Delaval or Seaton Sluice. The next seat is based on the riverside area - combining Wallsend and Tynemouth in one seat isn't ideal, but the Metro line and Coast Road run through both and it means we can cross the Newcastle boundary in the north of the city rather than the east. Longbenton and Killingworth are in this Newcastle constituency - a new Newcastle upon Tyne North which bears little resemblance to the old seat of that name. I'm rather pleased with this seat: it crosses an authority border but combines similar communities on both sides - Dinnington fits perfectly with Hazlerigg, and Gosforth fairly well with Longbenton. The rest of Newcastle is divided into two seats: Central and West. While I'd have liked to have called the Central seat "East", it includes the whole of the city centre as well as most of the "West End", and so such a name wouldn't be appropriate. Southern Tyne and Wear (6 seats)The current Blaydon constituency loses Birtley and Lamesley but gains Gateshead town centre. I've also renamed this to Gateshead West since this new area is now the dominant part of the constituency. The rest of Gateshead is split in two - the eastern fringes join Jarrow in a Gateshead East and Jarrow seat, while Birtley, Lamesley, and southern Gateshead are now in Gateshead South and Washington. Neither of these is a fantastic seat, and I'd much rather have had Boldon Colliery in with Jarrow than Simonside and Wrekendyke, but the numbers didn't quite work. This means that South Shields doesn't even include all of its own town centre, but other than that is a fairly cohesive unit. Sunderland Central is the right size for a constituency but it is difficult to build decent seats around it - my Sunderland Central loses some ground in the south but gains the entirety of Sunderland proper north of the Wear. Houghton and Sunderland South loses Doxford but gains St. Anne's and Barnes, becoming a bit more urban. Ideally I'd have put Hetton in a County Durham seat, but the numbers didn't work as well and parts of Hetton-le-Hole are actually in Copt Hill ward, which includes half of Houghton - the wards in that part of the city reflect community ties really badly. County Durham and Billingham (6 seats)
If I had to say which part of my map was worst, it would be County Durham. Realigning the old seats to the new wards is difficult, so all of the new seats are essentially from scratch, and are pretty poor. Consett is the best of a bad bunch - it has similar boundaries to the old Derwentside council. Easington isn't too bad either - it loses Blackhalls and gains the southernmost parts of Sunderland, but Ryhope does look along the coast to Seaham quite a lot, and the core of the seat remains unchanged. Doxford is a weaker fit with the constituency, but as mentioned is a compromise to avoid splitting communities elsewhere. But Durham and Chester-le-Street is awful and I apologise for it - ideally I'd have Brandon in with Durham but the numbers didn't quite work when I tried that. Instead Brandon is in with Weardale, Spennymoor, and Ferryhill, in a leftovers West Durham seat, while Bishop Auckland has to take Newton Aycliffe to keep it within quota after losing Spennymoor. Still, none of these are as bad as the worst seat of the entire map: Billingham and Sedgefield. I don't like this constituency but I'd rather have one awful constituency than disrupting lots of constituencies. Tees Valley (6 seats)
In contrast, this part of the map works very well. Hartlepool and Darlington are the easiest seats of all to draw - the former is unchanged and the latter becomes conterminous with the borough. Stockton isn't perfect but consists of those parts of the borough north of the Tees (and not within the Billingham and Sedgefield seat). Thornaby and Yarm then join with western Middlesbrough to form Middlesbrough West - I'd rather do a ward split of Central along Park Vale Road and Marton Road than include Ladgate within Middlesbrough West, but even the version in this solution isn't too bad. The new ward boundaries in Redcar and Cleveland are slightly odd, but I think all of the the suburban area around Eston and South Bank is in Middlesbrough East, and all of Redcar is in Redcar and Cleveland. Here are the maps: Love your maps, so clear! The numbers really help to identify the seats, I’m slightly colour blind! I can't take credit - it's a new feature of Boundary Assistant! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 21, 2020 18:52:46 GMT
You think that works fine for Kent? I can tell you, the heirs of Jack Cade are after you.... What am I missing? I'm not sure what a good answer would be and as I haven't tried to come up with a good solution myself so who am I to say? Indeed it's years since I last tried to come up with answers to constituency boundaries for real having once been the Lib Dem representative at the Inquiry for Kent, sharing the role with Mike Steed- that was a very long time ago. However I am fairly unhappy with the Folkestone and Hythe boundaries, where Canterbury comes right down to the fringes of Folkestone like Hawkinge, and Ashford losing the whole of West Ashford and Tenterden into that massive rural wealden constituency. As you say , you sort out awkwardnesses in Maidstone, but it just shifts them elsewhere. There may not be a good answer, I totally accept. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 21, 2020 19:00:21 GMT
Betjeman's advice has clearly been taken |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 21, 2020 19:35:11 GMT
If anybody wants a challenge, the North East is there for the taking. Suffice to say, Stockton North will become an abomination... My priorities were ensuring no ward splits were required, and the strength of ties between communities. While I tried to avoid crossing council boundaries and preserving recognisable constituencies, these were lower in my list of priorities. My solution has no orphan wards, but a large number of constituencies include several wards from one council and several from another (there are no tri-borough constituencies). But I've just realised that I've used a regional quota rather than a national one - my quota was the North East electorate divided by 26, plus or minus 5%. If this isn't allowed, then this solution is useless (I've gone well above the national quota in some cases). It seems that mattb has beaten me to it - I'll have to see how different his ideas are after I finish writing this (I won't look now or it might affect my ideas). Northumberland and Northern Tyne and Wear (8 constituencies)Northumberland, Newcastle, and North Tyneside add up to 7.76 quotas. This makes eight seats possible, but a tight squeeze - so I added in two wards from the western edge of Gateshead. These go in a slightly enlarged Hexham constituency. This new Hexham and Ryton has good communication links along the Tyne Valley, and is reasonably cohesive, with Ryton and Prudhoe having strong links. Combining some of the most rural communities in England with suburbia isn't ideal, but other solutions would probably involve an absolutely gargantuan seat including Hexham and parts of eastern Northumberland - a much worse option. The rest of Northumberland is much simpler - Berwick gains Morpeth to form Berwick and Morpeth, rump Wansbeck gains the town of Blyth to form Blyth and Ashington, and the rest of Blyth Valley goes in with Whitley Bay ( Cramlington and Whitley Bay). I'm not entirely happy with the last of those constituencies, but the wards taken from North Tyneside are a little isolated from the rest of the borough, and all have strong ties with Seaton Delaval or Seaton Sluice. The next seat is based on the riverside area - combining Wallsend and Tynemouth in one seat isn't ideal, but the Metro line and Coast Road run through both and it means we can cross the Newcastle boundary in the north of the city rather than the east. Longbenton and Killingworth are in this Newcastle constituency - a new Newcastle upon Tyne North which bears little resemblance to the old seat of that name. I'm rather pleased with this seat: it crosses an authority border but combines similar communities on both sides - Dinnington fits perfectly with Hazlerigg, and Gosforth fairly well with Longbenton. The rest of Newcastle is divided into two seats: Central and West. While I'd have liked to have called the Central seat "East", it includes the whole of the city centre as well as most of the "West End", and so such a name wouldn't be appropriate. Southern Tyne and Wear (6 seats)The current Blaydon constituency loses Birtley and Lamesley but gains Gateshead town centre. I've also renamed this to Gateshead West since this new area is now the dominant part of the constituency. The rest of Gateshead is split in two - the eastern fringes join Jarrow in a Gateshead East and Jarrow seat, while Birtley, Lamesley, and southern Gateshead are now in Gateshead South and Washington. Neither of these is a fantastic seat, and I'd much rather have had Boldon Colliery in with Jarrow than Simonside and Wrekendyke, but the numbers didn't quite work. This means that South Shields doesn't even include all of its own town centre, but other than that is a fairly cohesive unit. Sunderland Central is the right size for a constituency but it is difficult to build decent seats around it - my Sunderland Central loses some ground in the south but gains the entirety of Sunderland proper north of the Wear. Houghton and Sunderland South loses Doxford but gains St. Anne's and Barnes, becoming a bit more urban. Ideally I'd have put Hetton in a County Durham seat, but the numbers didn't work as well and parts of Hetton-le-Hole are actually in Copt Hill ward, which includes half of Houghton - the wards in that part of the city reflect community ties really badly. County Durham and Billingham (6 seats)
If I had to say which part of my map was worst, it would be County Durham. Realigning the old seats to the new wards is difficult, so all of the new seats are essentially from scratch, and are pretty poor. Consett is the best of a bad bunch - it has similar boundaries to the old Derwentside council. Easington isn't too bad either - it loses Blackhalls and gains the southernmost parts of Sunderland, but Ryhope does look along the coast to Seaham quite a lot, and the core of the seat remains unchanged. Doxford is a weaker fit with the constituency, but as mentioned is a compromise to avoid splitting communities elsewhere. But Durham and Chester-le-Street is awful and I apologise for it - ideally I'd have Brandon in with Durham but the numbers didn't quite work when I tried that. Instead Brandon is in with Weardale, Spennymoor, and Ferryhill, in a leftovers West Durham seat, while Bishop Auckland has to take Newton Aycliffe to keep it within quota after losing Spennymoor. Still, none of these are as bad as the worst seat of the entire map: Billingham and Sedgefield. I don't like this constituency but I'd rather have one awful constituency than disrupting lots of constituencies. Tees Valley (6 seats)
In contrast, this part of the map works very well. Hartlepool and Darlington are the easiest seats of all to draw - the former is unchanged and the latter becomes conterminous with the borough. Stockton isn't perfect but consists of those parts of the borough north of the Tees (and not within the Billingham and Sedgefield seat). Thornaby and Yarm then join with western Middlesbrough to form Middlesbrough West - I'd rather do a ward split of Central along Park Vale Road and Marton Road than include Ladgate within Middlesbrough West, but even the version in this solution isn't too bad. The new ward boundaries in Redcar and Cleveland are slightly odd, but I think all of the the suburban area around Eston and South Bank is in Middlesbrough East, and all of Redcar is in Redcar and Cleveland. Lots of similarities here, esp in Northumberland & Teeside. But yes, I was using national quota, so I couldn't keep Darlington Borough in one seat. Nor, sadly, does your Consett work with national quota (about 150 electors too big  ) otherwise my Washington & Chester seat would look much better with Sacriston instead of Sherburn!. That's also why I had such an odd arrangement for Hartlepool (adding Blackhills to the whole borough puts you just over the top and I needed it to take some extra electors). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 19:38:02 GMT
mattb I liked your Lancashire and admire your tenacity in doing the full region! As a Blackpool resident, I had been too wary of the Lytham St Annes pitchforks to consider crossing the southern boundary but your Fleetwood/Cleveleys/Poulton seat makes a lot of sense. Anchorsholme ward in particular, despite being in the Blackpool Council area, looks much more towards Cleveleys so is a good match with that seat. Norbreck is the other largely FY5 ward so it is reasonable that this goes too. I would however recommend an alteration to the bits of Blackpool that are transferred to Fylde. Squires Gate is very much linked to Highfield and Stanley along the airport perimeter while Hawes Side and Clifton feel quite separate (the latter being the large Mereside estate). If Waterloo was transferred as well this would unite the main South Shore communities. Moving bits of St Annes into Blackpool always triggers loads of objections but it is possible that it may be less controversial the other way round as the Fylde Council area will dominate. It would be ideal to remedy the split of Wesham from Kirkham but while Fylde would be fine, I don't think the numbers in the Mid Lancs monster allow. I've always rejected adding Blackpool to Lytham. It seems unavoidable now. But as you say there will be pitchforks. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 21, 2020 19:38:48 GMT
Betjeman's advice has clearly been taken Good plan, although it's just my brain fade insisting that Slough is in Buckinghamshire. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 21, 2020 19:43:17 GMT
I'm not sure what a good answer would be and as I haven't tried to come up with a good solution myself so who am I to say? Indeed it's years since I last tried to come up with answers to constituency boundaries for real having once been the Lib Dem representative at the Inquiry for Kent, sharing the role with Mike Steed- that was a very long time ago. However I am fairly unhappy with the Folkestone and Hythe boundaries, where Canterbury comes right down to the fringes of Folkestone like Hawkinge, and Ashford losing the whole of West Ashford and Tenterden into that massive rural wealden constituency. As you say , you sort out awkwardnesses in Maidstone, but it just shifts them elsewhere. There may not be a good answer, I totally accept. As far as I can make out, all the development around the edge of Ashford is included in the proposed Ashford seat. True the boundary cuts it fine around the west of the town - unless there are parts of the town in the 'Weald' wards?? But certainly too many electors nowadays to keep Tenterden in the same seat. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,051
|
Post by jamie on Jun 21, 2020 19:48:33 GMT
Just to clarify, what would my legal quota and 5% deviation be for the North East of England?
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 21, 2020 19:51:54 GMT
Here is an outtake. See if you can spot what the big problem is: Here is my version of SE. Bucks - works fine although I struggled to come up with a name for the extra rural seat once I'd taken out all the urban/suburban seats Oxon - very similar to yours (without the extra Thames crossing  ) Berks - again similar to yours although I avoided the long tail on Bracknell by allowing Windsor to take a horrible bite out of Slough I tried the Sandhurst wards in both Surrey and Hants and in the end went with Sandhurst & Fleet rather than Camberley. Whichever of Hants and Surrey doesn't pair with Berks then has to pair with Sussex and I came to the conclusion that the Hants-Berks / Surrey-Sussex pairs were marginally preferable (either way Hampshire is not at all easy given the ward sizes). Surrey - we have differences because of the different pairings - but I do like your Reigate (I hadn't thought of that option) so will see if I can incorporate into my scheme. Kent works fine with the extra Kent Weald seat enabling the current muddle around Maidstone to be more-or-less sorted out.     Are you putting Caversham in with Oxfordshire? That is so much pitchfork terrory that you shouldn't even bother proposing it. No crossing the Thames either outside of Reading. A Henley and Marlow seat with Hambleden and Stokenchurch in it would work much much better at a review unless that screws up Bucks too much. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 21, 2020 20:01:41 GMT
Are you putting Caversham in with Oxfordshire? That is so much pitchfork terrory that you shouldn't even bother proposing it. On the contrary, it would go about as well as when the Welsh Local Government Commission first created the Lisvane and St Mellon's ward of Cardiff. They were expecting outrage for drawing something that looked slightly odd, but it actually resulted in no objections at all, as it basically amounted to guaranteed Conservative representation. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 21, 2020 20:05:13 GMT
Here is my version of SE. Bucks - works fine although I struggled to come up with a name for the extra rural seat once I'd taken out all the urban/suburban seats Oxon - very similar to yours (without the extra Thames crossing ) Berks - again similar to yours although I avoided the long tail on Bracknell by allowing Windsor to take a horrible bite out of Slough I tried the Sandhurst wards in both Surrey and Hants and in the end went with Sandhurst & Fleet rather than Camberley. Whichever of Hants and Surrey doesn't pair with Berks then has to pair with Sussex and I came to the conclusion that the Hants-Berks / Surrey-Sussex pairs were marginally preferable (either way Hampshire is not at all easy given the ward sizes). Surrey - we have differences because of the different pairings - but I do like your Reigate (I hadn't thought of that option) so will see if I can incorporate into my scheme. Kent works fine with the extra Kent Weald seat enabling the current muddle around Maidstone to be more-or-less sorted out. Are you putting Caversham in with Oxfordshire? That is so much pitchfork terrory that you shouldn't even bother proposing it. No crossing the Thames either outside of Reading. A Henley and Marlow seat with Hambleden and Stokenchurch in it would work much much better at a review unless that screws up Bucks too much. Yup. Not much option on these numbers, assuming you stick with the regional boundaries. Even if you pair with Bucks, you're then faced with splitting Slough in half, half with Beaconsfield and half with Windsor. Frankly I suspect the pitchforks in Caversham are relatively blunt faced with that alternative ... Although, thinking about it, I suppose the other option might be Wantage & Hungerford ... perhaps I'll have a look. Edit: Yes actually that would work - and frankly that option would never have occurred to me!  |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 21, 2020 20:27:55 GMT
Are you putting Caversham in with Oxfordshire? That is so much pitchfork terrory that you shouldn't even bother proposing it. No crossing the Thames either outside of Reading. A Henley and Marlow seat with Hambleden and Stokenchurch in it would work much much better at a review unless that screws up Bucks too much. Yup. Not much option on these numbers, assuming you stick with the regional boundaries. Even if you pair with Bucks, you're then faced with splitting Slough in half, half with Beaconsfield and half with Windsor. Frankly I suspect the pitchforks in Caversham are relatively blunt faced with that alternative ... Although, thinking about it, I suppose the other option might be Wantage & Hungerford ... perhaps I'll have a look. Edit: Yes actually that would work - and frankly that option would never have occurred to me! The best option given the Wantage and Hungerford seat would be to be to put the Vale of White Horse and part of South Oxon west of the Thames back in Berkshire where it bloody should be, but they'll never think of that.Wantage and Hungerford are pretty well connected anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jun 21, 2020 20:31:27 GMT
Are you putting Caversham in with Oxfordshire? That is so much pitchfork terrory that you shouldn't even bother proposing it. On the contrary, it would go about as well as when the Welsh Local Government Commission first created the Lisvane and St Mellon's ward of Cardiff. They were expecting outrage for drawing something that looked slightly odd, but it actually resulted in no objections at all, as it basically amounted to guaranteed Conservative representation. As someone who is Caversham born and bred, guaranteed Tory representation is something that would go down like a cup of cold sick here. It is the part of Reading that is most strongly trending to Labour, partly because of demographic change and partly because Reading Labour have not been the incumbents there on the council to piss them off enough. Caversham has been in Berkshire for over 100 years now and it is a core part of Reading. On the contrary, Henley and Marlow would make the quota and link two areas very well connected and on the same side of the Thames and similar demographically. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 21, 2020 22:40:41 GMT
I agree that's better for Cheshire, it's unfortunate Chester has to be split though. Here's an attempt to combine my Lancashire with your Cheshire and Stockport. (Manchester Central does span three boroughs, as do Droylsden and Westhoughton.) Fair enough - personally I still prefer my Lancs on balance (I don't like splitting Pendle when it's not needed and I don't like 2 urban Preston wards in the big mid-Lancs seat - but that's partly my personal prejudice against seats combining a small part of a larger town in an otherwise very rural seat). I also don't like so many 3-borough seats (though recognising I had one myself). One very minor tweak - if you need to take High Leigh out of Tatton, rather than introducing another crossing of the E/W Cheshire border, you can put it into the Sandbach/Congleton seat (and if you want you can then move Sutton back into Macclesfield where it probably more naturally fits). It isn't necessary to split Pendle, but there is a continuous urban area along the valley there, in contrast to the moors you have to cross to reach Rossendale - I would argue my map only has two constituencies separated by hills, Pendle and Rossendale and Darwen, whereas yours adds Burnley and gives Rossendale a third distinct part in Rochdale, albeit those extra parts aren't very big. The difference in Preston is mostly because I like Chorley and Horwich, but Fulwood has been making up the numbers in rural seats for the past 37 years anyway, they probably wouldn't protest too much at their continuing separation from Preston. FWIW, seeing as it's fairly horrible however you draw it, I do prefer the greater concentration of the electorate around the A6/Longridge in my Mid Lancashire. The three borough seats I admit I don't like very much - though I think you could sensibly draw one in central Manchester with more of Salford. I have managed to redraw the area to get rid of them:  Various other combinations are possible for the Manchester seats. |
|
) otherwise my Washington & Chester seat would look much better with Sacriston instead of Sherburn!. That's also why I had such an odd arrangement for Hartlepool (adding Blackhills to the whole borough puts you just over the top and I needed it to take some extra electors). 
)