|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 23, 2020 7:32:31 GMT
What is the electoral allocation for Teesside-in-Yorkshire? And on the same topic, Lincolnshire-in-Humberside. I've been drafting notes for a submission to the consultation on those points. I have Teesside-in-Yorkshire as 237,712 electors, or 3.27 times the constituency quota. To make this area up to a fourth seat, you must either cross the boundary between East Cleveland and Whitby/Scarborough or between Yarm and Hambleton. The former will probably involve splitting Scarborough town, but the latter actually works well (though Richmond will need to go into a seat with Ripon/Skipton). I've included a map to show one possible arrangement, which retains the same basic pattern as now. 1: Northallerton and Yarm (71,325) 2: Redcar (69,572) 3: Middlesbrough and Thornaby (71,505) 4: Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (71,228)  The electorate of Lincolnshire-in-Humberside is 235,723, or 3.25 times the constituency quota. Note for Teesside-in-Yorkshire, I haven't included the parts of Teesdale south of the Tees. I estimate its electorate at between 3,000 and 4,000 based on population. I'd be interested to see what your Richmond and Skipton constituencies end up looking like on that pattern. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 23, 2020 9:22:32 GMT
 As I'm playing around with Yorkshire (this is not the full map btw) I keep ending up with a Ripon and Thirsk seat. I suppose it's not dissimilar to the old Vale of York seat plus Ripon, but I can't help calling it the Downton Abbey constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 23, 2020 10:57:38 GMT
I solemnly promise never to submit a plan in this form again, but it demonstrates the potential of the BA revamp, so congrats to Kevin Larkin.
I think this is my final tinker with Y&H until we get the real numbers and ward boundaries. It's mainly the same as I've posted before except for a few changes in the Leeds/York area. I feel on reflection that Fulford should go in the York seat rather than Selby, since the numbers work either way and it avoids a very awkward boundary in Heslington village. Also, I've added Bishop Monkton to the Vale of York seat, switching Claro to Harrogate & K; this allows me to keep Washburn in Skipton & Ripon, where it looks more comfortable. In Leeds, I've swapped Alwoodley and Roundhay wards between the Leeds N and Wetherby seats; this makes virtually no difference on the numbers but it means that 'Wetherby' feels like more of a Leeds seat, which I think it is really (albeit with rural bits added) and I'd like to call it Leeds NE. An unsatisfactory feature of my previous plan was a boundary separating key parts of central Leeds - the station, Leeds Minster, the riverside area generally - from the rest of the city centre so I've rejigged further Leeds wards to create a Leeds C seat (Lt London, Hunslet, Burmantofts, Gipton, Killingbeck); Beeston then goes into Leeds W, where I agree it looks out on a limb (although there are road links); Leeds W now retains Bramley; and Farnley goes into Pudsey.
Electorates of the altered seats -
Pudsey 71070 Leeds W 76058 Leeds C 74285 Leeds S & Ossett 73269 (boundary the same as before but this seat contains too much of Leeds to be called simply Ossett as previously suggested) Leeds SE 74630 (again, same boundary but I think Leeds needs to be reflected in the name (was previously Rothwell))
Leeds N 69531 Leeds NE 72114 Skipton & Ripon 75107 Harrogate & Knaresborough 74282 Vale of York 73230 York 75816 Selby 73442
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 23, 2020 11:59:31 GMT
Electorates of the altered seats -
Pudsey 71070 Leeds W 76058 Leeds C 74285 Leeds S Metropolitan & Ossett 73269 (boundary the same as before but this seat contains too much of Leeds to be called simply Ossett as previously suggested) Leeds SE 74630 (again, same boundary but I think Leeds needs to be reflected in the name (was previously Rothwell))
Leeds N 69531 Leeds NE 72114 Skipton & Ripon 75107 Harrogate & Knaresborough 74282 Vale of York 73230 York 75816 Selby 73442 FTFY |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 23, 2020 12:06:36 GMT
Here is my West Midlands plan: WestMidlandsPlanAB 2.json (353.94 KB) The best place to cross the West Midlands/Staffordshire border is via Dudley vis a vis the old Brierley Hill seat. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 23, 2020 14:46:29 GMT
Here is my West Midlands plan: The best place to cross the West Midlands/Staffordshire border is via Dudley vis a vis the old Brierley Hill seat. Thanks for sharing. I had been going to ask if anyone had looked at West Mids because I had been struggling with it. This is my latest scheme. Actually quite pleased with my Met area - 27 whole seats and mostly pretty coherent. Birmingham loses Erdington as a named seat but Small Heath makes a reappearance. But then I could not create 5 whole seats in Shropshire (has anyone found a way to do that?) so ended up donating a ward to Leominster. Worcs doesn't need pairing but the existing seats just don't work, ended up with a fair few wards shifting between seats and a slightly messy final outcome, no doubt someone can point me to a better scheme. The potteries is really awkward (regardless what pairing you use for Staffs) - again people probably have better options than this. And finally that left me with pairing Warwicks & Staffs which works ok in terms of not splitting communities but goodness knows what you call that cross-county seat. I have seen the schemes pairing Warwicks with Solihull but I couldn't then make that work with 5% variance for every seat across the Met area, so this was the least-worst I could come up with within the constraints. Any suggestions ..?   |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 23, 2020 14:58:24 GMT
Tamworth used to be in Warwickshire so some sharing is acceptable, but I think you should prepare for offcut pots to be hurled your way by outraged residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the five towns of Stoke. They don't have pitchforks there, you see.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 23, 2020 15:11:34 GMT
Electorates of the altered seats -
Pudsey 71070 Leeds W 76058 Leeds C 74285 Leeds S Metropolitan & Ossett 73269 (boundary the same as before but this seat contains too much of Leeds to be called simply Ossett as previously suggested) Leeds SE 74630 (again, same boundary but I think Leeds needs to be reflected in the name (was previously Rothwell))
Leeds N 69531 Leeds NE 72114 Skipton & Ripon 75107 Harrogate & Knaresborough 74282 Vale of York 73230 York 75816 Selby 73442 FTFY Surely Morley & Ossett would be a more accurate description ? |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 23, 2020 15:26:43 GMT
I solemnly promise never to submit a plan in this form again, but it demonstrates the potential of the BA revamp, so congrats to Kevin Larkin.
I think this is my final tinker with Y&H until we get the real numbers and ward boundaries. It's mainly the same as I've posted before except for a few changes in the Leeds/York area. I feel on reflection that Fulford should go in the York seat rather than Selby, since the numbers work either way and it avoids a very awkward boundary in Heslington village. Also, I've added Bishop Monkton to the Vale of York seat, switching Claro to Harrogate & K; this allows me to keep Washburn in Skipton & Ripon, where it looks more comfortable. In Leeds, I've swapped Alwoodley and Roundhay wards between the Leeds N and Wetherby seats; this makes virtually no difference on the numbers but it means that 'Wetherby' feels like more of a Leeds seat, which I think it is really (albeit with rural bits added) and I'd like to call it Leeds NE. An unsatisfactory feature of my previous plan was a boundary separating key parts of central Leeds - the station, Leeds Minster, the riverside area generally - from the rest of the city centre so I've rejigged further Leeds wards to create a Leeds C seat (Lt London, Hunslet, Burmantofts, Gipton, Killingbeck); Beeston then goes into Leeds W, where I agree it looks out on a limb (although there are road links); Leeds W now retains Bramley; and Farnley goes into Pudsey.
Electorates of the altered seats -
Pudsey 71070 Leeds W 76058 Leeds C 74285 Leeds S & Ossett 73269 (boundary the same as before but this seat contains too much of Leeds to be called simply Ossett as previously suggested) Leeds SE 74630 (again, same boundary but I think Leeds needs to be reflected in the name (was previously Rothwell))
Leeds N 69531 Leeds NE 72114 Skipton & Ripon 75107 Harrogate & Knaresborough 74282 Vale of York 73230 York 75816 Selby 73442
I do recognise the ingenuity in West Yorkshire demonstrated here. But all the positives in this plan are undone by Leeds Met & Ossett mark 2. I beg you not to submit it when the time comes and give the commission any ideas in that direction  A reformed Normanton seat of: Normanton, Outwood East, Outwood West, Ardsley & Rothwell is dying to be born! |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 23, 2020 15:28:49 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ?
|
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 23, 2020 15:30:59 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,722
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 23, 2020 15:40:47 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? Well, you then get North Ossettia and South Ossettia.
I'll get my Astrakhan ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 23, 2020 16:00:34 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread
Having worked in Leeds I understand your point from the snobs in Ossets point of view, but in a way saying that is actually being offensive to inner city Leeds dwellers.
In reality is any wards can be put together to make seats.
People objecting to certain wards being together because they have less in common, as they have through this thread, are in my opinion pandering to the historical segregation of our society.
Why should Psephology do this? I'm genuinely interested!
I am not posting in this design a constituency thread as mine wouldn't take much account of history or town ande city borders, they'd be more numbers and therefore panned.
Outer Sheffield with Derbyshire; East Sheffield with Rotherham; Newcastle-U-T with Gateshead, Newcastle-U-L with Stoke (where I have lived), I just don't see the problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 16:13:02 GMT
Electorates of the altered seats -
Pudsey 71070 Leeds W 76058 Leeds C 74285 Leeds S Metropolitan & Ossett 73269 (boundary the same as before but this seat contains too much of Leeds to be called simply Ossett as previously suggested) Leeds SE 74630 (again, same boundary but I think Leeds needs to be reflected in the name (was previously Rothwell))
Leeds N 69531 Leeds NE 72114 Skipton & Ripon 75107 Harrogate & Knaresborough 74282 Vale of York 73230 York 75816 Selby 73442 FTFY Oh I hope they bring that name back! |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 23, 2020 16:22:01 GMT
That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread
Having worked in Leeds I understand your point from the snobs in Ossets point of view, but in a way saying that is actually being offensive to inner city Leeds dwellers.
In reality is any wards can be put together to make seats.
People objecting to certain wards being together because they have less in common, as they have through this thread, are in my opinion pandering to the historical segregation of our society.
Why should Psephology do this? I'm genuinely interested!
I am not posting in this design a constituency thread as mine wouldn't take much account of history or town ande city borders, they'd be more numbers and therefore panned.
Outer Sheffield with Derbyshire; East Sheffield with Rotherham; Newcastle-U-T with Gateshead, Newcastle-U-L with Stoke (where I have lived), I just don't see the problem. I quite like the idea of instead seats like N-u-T w/Stoke, N-u-L w/Gateshead. Perhaps we could have St Ives & St Ives... |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 23, 2020 16:26:24 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? Well, you then get North Ossettia and South Ossettia. I'll get my Astrakhan ...
Post of the week. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 16:26:38 GMT
That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread Having worked in Leeds I understand your point from the snobs in Ossets point of view, but in a way saying that is actually being offensive to inner city Leeds dwellers. In reality is any wards can be put together to make seats. People objecting to certain wards being together because they have less in common, as they have through this thread, are in my opinion pandering to the historical segregation of our society. Why should Psephology do this? I'm genuinely interested! I am not posting in this design a constituency thread as mine wouldn't take much account of history or town ande city borders, they'd be more numbers and therefore panned.
Outer Sheffield with Derbyshire; East Sheffield with Rotherham; Newcastle-U-T with Gateshead, Newcastle-U-L with Stoke (where I have lived), I just don't see the problem.
I'm not sure pandering the right word. But for a constituency to make sense, for its validity to really work as a seat, the communities within the boundaries have to have some kind of relationship together. This forum has gone back and forth before about the need to connect internal parts of a seat together with some kind of valid association - bus routes, for example, school allocations another. The two different attitudes will argue their case for some time, I will wager. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 16:27:23 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? Well, you then get North Ossettia and South Ossettia.
I'll get my Astrakhan ...
Brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 23, 2020 16:49:43 GMT
Well, you then get North Ossettia and South Ossettia. I'll get my Astrakhan ...
Post of the week. The much sought after Vote UK chequebook and pen are on their way. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 23, 2020 17:35:04 GMT
Where is the logic of splitting Ossett between two constituencies ? That's not the issue, the point is the Town's inclusion in a central Leeds seat. See Islington's map up thread Well, in defence of the seat, it penetrates into Leeds only as far as Middleton Park ward, which is definitely Leeds, I agree, but well to the south of the city centre; whereas the celebrated 'Leeds Met & Ossett' proposal, if I remember correctly, went right into the heart of Leeds.
As for road connectivity, there's some kind of obscure local byway running the whole length of the seat. I believe it's called the 'M1', or something like that.
|
|
