|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2020 11:13:20 GMT
North East London.
If you think the Enfield-Edmonton boundary is bad, you should see some of the options I rejected in this area.
On the other hand, compared with Kevin's plan, I've treated TH and Newham together for 5 seats; Hackney, Islington and Camden with 6; and Enfield and Haringey with 5. This means I have fewer orphan wards on the edges of boroughs.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2020 11:19:17 GMT
The SW section.
The main difference from Kevin's plan here is that although I agree with treating Hounslow with Richmond for 4 seats, which means one must cross the Thames, I've gone for Richmond & Chiswick whereas Kevin crossed the river at Twickenham.
Also, by reshuffling wards in Wandsworth and Merton I've managed to treat Sutton separately and retain its two seats unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2020 11:30:20 GMT
The final section.
I'm reasonably happy with this. As with Kevin's plan, two wards of Bromley are treated with Croydon but by taking them from the Penge area I was able to fit three seats into the rest of Bromley with no need to cross the borough boundary elsewhere. Admittedly the Beckenham seat is awkward but with such large wards in Bromley something like this is hard to avoid and it's a price worth paying for getting Sydenham back into a Lewisham seat.
This means that the Lewisham/Greenwich/Bexley combination is treated separately with 7 seats; Bromley/Croydon/Merton/Wandsworth/Kingston with 13.
Anyway, there it is in all its glory. Comments welcome.
Edited to add: Looking at this again, if you swap Selhurst ward into the Croydon W seat and Norbury Park into Croydon N & Penge, the numbers still work and you get a neater-looking boundary running along the railway line.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jun 24, 2020 11:38:01 GMT
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. Perhaps donating a ward to Leominster is the better idea?  Shrewsbury & Wenlock 75922 Bridgnorth 76070 Ludlow & Oswestry 75274 Wellington & Market Drayton 75465 Telford 74541 There are worse ways of doing it; I know, because I found them first. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jun 24, 2020 11:45:06 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 had been shying away from Yorks but have now had a look. I could not improve much on your plan. I had a slightly different config for central part of Leeds and also Bradford but it's largely personal preference I think. I really didn't like your giant seat stretching from Filey to Bedale so I went for a different arrangement in N Yorks - there are obviously many possibilities. Your scheme respecting the boundary of "Humberside" was ingenious but I was uncofmortable with a couple of Hull wards in Beverley (my obsession with not putting one or two wards from a large town into an essentially rural seat) and with your Scunthorpe including a ward detached across the Trent. So at the cost of two extra seats crossing council boundaries, I came up with a different scheme for E Yorks & N Lincs. But I am sure your scheme is closer to what the commission would accept   |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Jun 24, 2020 12:09:28 GMT
The final section.
I'm reasonably happy with this. As with Kevin's plan, two wards of Bromley are treated with Croydon but by taking them from the Penge area I was able to fit three seats into the rest of Bromley with no need to cross the borough boundary elsewhere. Admittedly the Beckenham seat is awkward but with such large wards in Bromley something like this is hard to avoid and it's a price worth paying for getting Sydenham back into a Lewisham seat.
This means that the Lewisham/Greenwick/Bexley combination is treated separately with 7 seats; Bromley/Croydon/Merton/Wandsworth/Kingston with 13.
Anyway, there it is in all its glory. Comments welcome.
If Beckenham is the odd-point here, then I don't think it's too bad overall. The two wards moving from being aligned with Lewisham to Croydon are OK - Crystal Palace certainly looks towards Croydon as much as anything, Penge & Cator a little less so but it's not unreasonable. Beckenham gets back Clock House (that's a ward I feel can go almost anywhere, especially given that there doesn't seem to have been much complaint since it's been in LW&P). I assume it's clunky because Shortlands is much more of a natural fit here, but the numbers don't work so you have to swap that out and keep Bromley Common & Keston? This also makes it look a bit geographically odd, but the wards do fit together reasonably well as a constituency from a non-geographical viewpoint. Despite adding back in Clock House, it could probably still do with a name change though. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 24, 2020 12:42:07 GMT
There are quite a few permutations in Calderdale/Huddersfield. You can kiss goodbye to Colne Valley with this one:-  The easier solution for Calderdale (I'm not a fan of splitting wards but...) is to shave Wainstalls and Luddenden from CV and return to Halifax (pre-83). Anymore needs adding? Midgley or Southowram in Brighouse. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 24, 2020 12:53:46 GMT
West Yorkshire with only 4 ward splits  The four splits: -the polling district encompassing Netherton remains in Colne Valley -the four polling districts on the west side of Garforth go into Leeds West -very roughly, the area transferred out of the old Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward at the last local boundary review, goes into Leeds North East -the three polling districts covering the villages of Hipperholme & Norwood Green go into Halifax Colne Valley - Conservative Huddersfield - Labour Dewsbury - Labour Wakefield South & Kirkburton - Conservative Wakefield North - Conservative Hemsworth - Labour Pontefract & Castleford - Labour Elmet & Rothwell - Conservative Leeds East - Labour Leeds Central - Labour Batley & Morley - Conservative Leeds North East - Labour Leeds West - Labour Pudsey - too close to call Otley - Conservative Keighley - Conservative Shipley - Labour Bradford East - Labour Bradford South & Cleckheaton - Conservative Bradford West - Labour Halifax - Labour Calder Valley - Conservative |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 24, 2020 12:59:50 GMT
There are quite a few permutations in Calderdale/Huddersfield. You can kiss goodbye to Colne Valley with this one:- The easier solution for Calderdale (I'm not a fan of splitting wards but...) is to shave Wainstalls and Luddenden from CV and return to Halifax (pre-83). Anymore needs adding? Midgley or Southowram in Brighouse. Put Queensbury into Halifax, Ellend into Huddersfield, Kirkburtion into Penistone, and Dodworth into Barnsley central/north - it makes for better seats in both Wakefield and Bradford. The obvious solution to this mess is to split a Calderdale ward though as you say... see above |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 24, 2020 13:29:03 GMT
There are quite a few permutations in Calderdale/Huddersfield. You can kiss goodbye to Colne Valley with this one:- The easier solution for Calderdale (I'm not a fan of splitting wards but...) is to shave Wainstalls and Luddenden from CV and return to Halifax (pre-83). Anymore needs adding? Midgley or Southowram in Brighouse. Put Queensbury into Halifax, Ellend into Huddersfield, Kirkburtion into Penistone, and Dodworth into Barnsley central/north - it makes for better seats in both Wakefield and Bradford. The obvious solution to this mess is to split a Calderdale ward though as you say... see above Holly Lynch won't want Hipperholme and Craig W won't want to lose it. They could leave Bradford alone. All seats within quota. Split Luddenden Foot in Calderdale. That would be neutral. Both MPs happy. Ideally only cross the Kirklees/Wakefield/Leeds boundary once and a few small splits. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jun 24, 2020 13:50:35 GMT
Hopefully the job security of incumbent MPs is an serendipitous outcome rather than a reason for a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 24, 2020 14:41:23 GMT
The final section. I'm reasonably happy with this. As with Kevin's plan, two wards of Bromley are treated with Croydon but by taking them from the Penge area I was able to fit three seats into the rest of Bromley with no need to cross the borough boundary elsewhere. Admittedly the Beckenham seat is awkward but with such large wards in Bromley something like this is hard to avoid and it's a price worth paying for getting Sydenham back into a Lewisham seat.
This means that the Lewisham/Greenwich/Bexley combination is treated separately with 7 seats; Bromley/Croydon/Merton/Wandsworth/Kingston with 13.
Anyway, there it is in all its glory. Comments welcome.
I agree with most of the changes you have made compared to my plan, especially in Wandsworth/Merton/Sutton, K&C/Westminster and Hackney/Islington. Not so sure about Richmond/Chiswick as the Hounslow/Richmond borough boundary is now being crossed in two different places. The Ilford N/S variation seems more disruptive of existing arrangements as does the Eltham/Welling seat, surely better to keep Thamesmead together? The Barnet problem can be solved with a split of Mill Hill ward which resembles the new ward boundary in the LGBCE's final recommendations, and this also works if Edgware rather than Brunswick Park is the ward left out.  |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 24, 2020 14:48:52 GMT
I see where people are coming from. Taking it to the point of representing community areas properly? Fully? wouldn't you need a mix of single member constituencies for smaller ones and multi member constituencies for larger ones? Sounds like an excellent gerrymander to me. Smaller communities like Sutton Coldfield, one member, Conservative. Larger communities like Birmingham, nine members, six Labour, two Conservatives, and a Lib Dem (2019 results on the Webster/St-Lague method). Can't say fairer than that. Give those metropolitan Lib Dems that element of proportionality they've always craved. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 24, 2020 14:54:40 GMT
I had been shying away from Yorks but have now had a look. I could not improve much on your plan. I had a slightly different config for central part of Leeds and also Bradford but it's largely personal preference I think. I really didn't like your giant seat stretching from Filey to Bedale so I went for a different arrangement in N Yorks - there are obviously many possibilities. Your scheme respecting the boundary of "Humberside" was ingenious but I was uncofmortable with a couple of Hull wards in Beverley (my obsession with not putting one or two wards from a large town into an essentially rural seat) and with your Scunthorpe including a ward detached across the Trent. So at the cost of two extra seats crossing council boundaries, I came up with a different scheme for E Yorks & N Lincs. But I am sure your scheme is closer to what the commission would accept Oo, I quite like that Filey & Bridlington seat, and I dare say the residents of Filey would like it as well. There was an expectation that in 1974 Filey would go into a local government unit along with Brid, and lumping it at the far end of SBC and at the far end of Thirsk & Malton has left it dangling at the end of nowhere. I feel that if three wards in Sheffield need to be paired with outsiders, the best fit would be the old (and current) Penistone seat taking Stocksbridge and the two Ecclesfields. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2020 15:30:33 GMT
The final section. I'm reasonably happy with this. As with Kevin's plan, two wards of Bromley are treated with Croydon but by taking them from the Penge area I was able to fit three seats into the rest of Bromley with no need to cross the borough boundary elsewhere. Admittedly the Beckenham seat is awkward but with such large wards in Bromley something like this is hard to avoid and it's a price worth paying for getting Sydenham back into a Lewisham seat.
This means that the Lewisham/Greenwich/Bexley combination is treated separately with 7 seats; Bromley/Croydon/Merton/Wandsworth/Kingston with 13.
Anyway, there it is in all its glory. Comments welcome.
I agree with most of the changes you have made compared to my plan, especially in Wandsworth/Merton/Sutton, K&C/Westminster and Hackney/Islington. Not so sure about Richmond/Chiswick as the Hounslow/Richmond borough boundary is now being crossed in two different places. The Ilford N/S variation seems more disruptive of existing arrangements as does the Eltham/Welling seat, surely better to keep Thamesmead together? The Barnet problem can be solved with a split of Mill Hill ward which resembles the new ward boundary in the LGBCE's final recommendations, and this also works if Edgware rather than Brunswick Park is the ward left out. Thanks Kevin. That version of Barnet looks a lot better, and it's a salutary reminder that a lot of these schemes we're cooking up will be rendered irrelevant in a few months by the new wards (in a lot of places) and the March 2020 electorate figures (everywhere). |
|
|
|
Post by ClevelandYorks on Jun 24, 2020 15:46:48 GMT
I had been shying away from Yorks but have now had a look. I could not improve much on your plan. I had a slightly different config for central part of Leeds and also Bradford but it's largely personal preference I think. I really didn't like your giant seat stretching from Filey to Bedale so I went for a different arrangement in N Yorks - there are obviously many possibilities. Your scheme respecting the boundary of "Humberside" was ingenious but I was uncofmortable with a couple of Hull wards in Beverley (my obsession with not putting one or two wards from a large town into an essentially rural seat) and with your Scunthorpe including a ward detached across the Trent. So at the cost of two extra seats crossing council boundaries, I came up with a different scheme for E Yorks & N Lincs. But I am sure your scheme is closer to what the commission would accept Not a bad plan considering how awkward Yorkshire's going to be within the constraints. However, I would still swap out Stokesley/Great Ayton for Bedale/Tanfield, as the latter has relatively good links with Thirsk and I don't think a seat including communities on opposite sides of the North York Moors would go down too well. With the removal of the Filey area it wouldn't be too much of a sprawling seat considering we're in very rural country. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,999
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 24, 2020 16:24:54 GMT
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. Perhaps donating a ward to Leominster is the better idea? View AttachmentShrewsbury & Wenlock 75922 Bridgnorth 76070 Ludlow & Oswestry 75274 Wellington & Market Drayton 75465 Telford 74541 There are worse ways of doing it; I know, because I found them first. That map gives off very strong 'have you planned your funeral yet?' vibes. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jun 24, 2020 16:44:32 GMT
I'm not sure that putting Ludlow South into Herefordshire would be that much less pitchforky. In an ideal world, Chirbury would go into Montgomeryshire, and Shropshire would be easy.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Jun 24, 2020 17:19:55 GMT
I had been shying away from Yorks but have now had a look. I could not improve much on your plan. I had a slightly different config for central part of Leeds and also Bradford but it's largely personal preference I think. I really didn't like your giant seat stretching from Filey to Bedale so I went for a different arrangement in N Yorks - there are obviously many possibilities. Your scheme respecting the boundary of "Humberside" was ingenious but I was uncofmortable with a couple of Hull wards in Beverley (my obsession with not putting one or two wards from a large town into an essentially rural seat) and with your Scunthorpe including a ward detached across the Trent. So at the cost of two extra seats crossing council boundaries, I came up with a different scheme for E Yorks & N Lincs. But I am sure your scheme is closer to what the commission would accept Oo, I quite like that Filey & Bridlington seat, and I dare say the residents of Filey would like it as well. There was an expectation that in 1974 Filey would go into a local government unit along with Brid, and lumping it at the far end of SBC and at the far end of Thirsk & Malton has left it dangling at the end of nowhere. I feel that if three wards in Sheffield need to be paired with outsiders, the best fit would be the old (and current) Penistone seat taking Stocksbridge and the two Ecclesfields.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. It makes far more sense in terms of historic and current links to maintain this seat. A bit of fiddling around with final numbers and polling districts should make an in-quota seat in south eastern Sheffield fairly simple. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 24, 2020 19:40:55 GMT
My plan for Cambridgeshire:  Peterborough North (marginal Conservative) Peterborough South & Ramsey (very safe Conservative) Huntingdon (very safe Conservative) St Neots (safe Conservative; new seat) South Cambridgeshire (ultra marginal Liberal Democrat) Cambridge (safe Labour) Ely & Waterbeach (safe Conservative) Fenland (ultra safe Conservative) |
|
