|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 24, 2020 19:48:55 GMT
My plan for Norfolk and Suffolk (cross county seat here is Stowmarket and Diss):  North Norfolk (safe Conservative) North West Norfolk (very safe Conservative) South West Norfolk (ultra safe Conservative) Mid Norfolk (ultra safe Conservative) Great Yarmouth (very safe Conservative) Broadland (very safe Conservative) Norwich North (marginal Conservative) Norwich South (very safe Labour) South East Norfolk (very safe Conservative) Stowmarket & Diss (very safe Conservative) Bury St Edmunds (very safe Conservative) West Suffolk (ultra safe Conservative) South Suffolk (very safe Conservative) Lowestoft (very safe Conservative) Woodbridge (very safe Conservative) Ipswich West (marginal Conservative) Ipswich East & Felixstowe (very safe Conservative) |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 24, 2020 19:49:26 GMT
West Yorkshire with only 4 ward splits I'd swap the Bingley wards - the boundaries are a bit awkward, but there is a road connection between Bingley and Baildon. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jun 24, 2020 19:56:08 GMT
My plan for Norfolk and Suffolk (cross county seat here is Stowmarket and Diss): North Norfolk (safe Conservative) North West Norfolk (very safe Conservative) South West Norfolk (ultra safe Conservative) Mid Norfolk (ultra safe Conservative) Great Yarmouth (very safe Conservative) Broadland (very safe Conservative) Norwich North (marginal Conservative) Norwich South (very safe Labour) South East Norfolk (very safe Conservative) Stowmarket & Diss (very safe Conservative) Bury St Edmunds (very safe Conservative) West Suffolk (ultra safe Conservative) South Suffolk (very safe Conservative) Lowestoft (very safe Conservative) Woodbridge (very safe Conservative) Ipswich West (marginal Conservative) Ipswich East & Felixstowe (very safe Conservative) If you're using boundary assistant on a phone it might be easier to take pictures in the desktop view. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Jun 24, 2020 20:03:05 GMT
My plan for Cambridgeshire: View AttachmentPeterborough 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) You've got that detached part of Milton & Waterbeach ward as a detached part of a constituency. Not sure the Commission would like that. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 24, 2020 21:40:06 GMT
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. Yeah, I'm morbidly curious about the worse ways. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jun 25, 2020 1:27:46 GMT
My plan for Cambridgeshire: Peterborough North (marginal Conservative) Peterborough South & Ramsey (very safe Conservative) Huntingdon (very safe Conservative) St Neots - South West Cambridgeshire (safe Conservative; new seat) South East Cambridgeshire (ultra marginal Liberal Democrat) Cambridge (safe Labour) Ely and Waterbeach - East Cambridgeshire (safe Conservative) Cambridgeshire Fenland/NE Cambridgeshire (ultra safe Conservative) You've got that detached part of Milton & Waterbeach ward as a detached part of a constituency. Not sure the Commission would like that. What is the point of it though? Why hasn't the Local Government boundary commission eliminated it after all these years? Why wasn't the River Cam respected as the boundary? And surely the ward could be split to eliminate the issue (wouldn't be surprised if the bit separating it was uninhabited?) Also, my 2p on the names above  How come nobody has tried adding Newmarket to East Cambridgeshire? I thought cross-county seats were allowed, and Newmarket people tend to lean to Cambridgeshire/the bits of Cambs surrounding it are very Newmarket-facing. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Jun 25, 2020 8:12:57 GMT
You've got that detached part of Milton & Waterbeach ward as a detached part of a constituency. Not sure the Commission would like that. What is the point of it though? Why hasn't the Local Government boundary commission eliminated it after all these years? Why wasn't the River Cam respected as the boundary? And surely the ward could be split to eliminate the issue (wouldn't be surprised if the bit separating it was uninhabited?) It's a detached part of Milton parish, so the LGBCE keep it with the rest of the parish. It's actually the same side of the Cam as the rest of Milton and has no physical connection across the Cam to Fen Ditton save the A14 bridge which isn't actually accessible from within the detached part, so including it in that ward wouldn't make much sense anyway. Frankly the obvious thing to do with it would be to transfer it into Cambridge. Cambridgeshire is just over 8 quotas on its own so adding extra bits just means you have to cross the boundary somewhere else as well. Personally I prefer to try to keep to counties as sub-regions as far as possible because (a) it helps break the regions down into more manageable areas and (b) counties are reasonably well understood as geographic areas (indeed more so than the regions themselves). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Jun 25, 2020 8:13:58 GMT
That map gives off very strong 'have you planned your funeral yet?' vibes. Yeah, I'm morbidly curious about the worse ways. The first one I found split Ludlow. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2020 8:19:01 GMT
You've got that detached part of Milton & Waterbeach ward as a detached part of a constituency. Not sure the Commission would like that. What is the point of it though? Why hasn't the Local Government boundary commission eliminated it after all these years? Why wasn't the River Cam respected as the boundary? And surely the ward could be split to eliminate the issue (wouldn't be surprised if the bit separating it was uninhabited?) Also, my 2p on the names above How come nobody has tried adding Newmarket to East Cambridgeshire? I thought cross-county seats were allowed, and Newmarket people tend to lean to Cambridgeshire/the bits of Cambs surrounding it are very Newmarket-facing. Newmarket is indeed very oddly located in Suffolk given the proximity to Cambridge. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,722
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jun 25, 2020 8:48:15 GMT
How come nobody has tried adding Newmarket to East Cambridgeshire? I thought cross-county seats were allowed, and Newmarket people tend to lean to Cambridgeshire/the bits of Cambs surrounding it are very Newmarket-facing. Pitchforks, get yer lovely pitchforks ... seriously, Newmarket fought tooth and nail to avoid being transferred to Cambridgeshire in 1974 and won, remaining in Suffolk to the present day. It would be no different now, despite what you say above, and despite the county boundary cutting across the racecourses and through people's back gardens. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 25, 2020 8:55:33 GMT
How come nobody has tried adding Newmarket to East Cambridgeshire? I thought cross-county seats were allowed, and Newmarket people tend to lean to Cambridgeshire/the bits of Cambs surrounding it are very Newmarket-facing. If the maths required a crossing between the Suffolk/Cambridgeshire boundary that would be an obvious solution. As it is, Cambridgeshire is good for 8 seats on it's own while Suffolk needs to gain territory to bring it up to 8 seats (and Norfolk needs to lose territory) |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2020 9:17:35 GMT
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. I don't see how you're going to do this. The problem with it isn't about ward splits; it's about numbers.
Assuming that the March 2020 figures are similar to those for December 2019, you have Sheffield with a quota of 5.34, so it's obviously going to be necessary to cross the boundary of a neighbouring authority. Maintaining the Penistone seat implies that this should be Barnsley, but the numbers don't work as Barnsley's entitlement of 2.43 gives a combined value of 7.77. In theory this is enough for 8 seats but they'd have to average 3% below quota and I'm very doubtful whether this could work. And even if by some miracle it could, you'd still face the problem of what to do with Rotherham (quota 2.62), especially since the only other authority conceivably in play, Doncaster, has a quota of 2.95 and can retain its existing 3 seats with only minimal change (just switch Edlington ward from Don Valley to Doncaster).
So it seems to me that the numbers dictate that Rotherham will have to be paired with Sheffield for 8 seats (entitlement 7.96). This doesn't mean you have to split off wards in the southeast of Sheffield, of course; the two Ecclesfield wards are obvious alternative candidates. But it does mean that the existing Penistone seat is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2020 9:29:42 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 Edgbaston, although I agree (through gritted teeth) that ward splits are probably going to be necessary, wouldn't it be better to use them to respect LA boundaries and (where possible) existing constituencies?
For instance, Bradford is good for 5 seats on the 2019 numbers (entitlement 4.96) and its 5 current seats are all within range. Given that you've already respected Calderdale's boundary, would it not be possible to position your splits in other authorities to respect Bradford's boundary and keeps its seats unaltered?
Also, I don't think you can treat W Yorks in isolation. Barnsley (entitlement 2.43) needs to be partnered and there's no plausible candidate in S Yorks, so I think it will have to be treated with W Yorks.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 25, 2020 12:56:12 GMT
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. I don't see how you're going to do this. The problem with it isn't about ward splits; it's about numbers. Yes, and we've just had a ward review, so the ward numbers have been equalised. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 25, 2020 13:24:39 GMT
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. I don't see how you're going to do this. The problem with it isn't about ward splits; it's about numbers. ... So it seems to me that the numbers dictate that Rotherham will have to be paired with Sheffield for 8 seats (entitlement 7.96). This doesn't mean you have to split off wards in the southeast of Sheffield, of course; the two Ecclesfield wards are obvious alternative candidates. But it does mean that the existing Penistone seat is impossible.
The first time I've used Boundary Assistant, so took a mo to work out how to use it, but it appears Doncaster and Sheffield Urban can each be done as one, and Penistone quite easily possible.  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2020 13:50:27 GMT
I don't see how you're going to do this. The problem with it isn't about ward splits; it's about numbers. ... So it seems to me that the numbers dictate that Rotherham will have to be paired with Sheffield for 8 seats (entitlement 7.96). This doesn't mean you have to split off wards in the southeast of Sheffield, of course; the two Ecclesfield wards are obvious alternative candidates. But it does mean that the existing Penistone seat is impossible.
The first time I've used Boundary Assistant, so took a mo to work out how to use it, but it appears Doncaster and Sheffield Urban can each be done as one, and Penistone quite easily possible. Well, yes, of course, if all you are bothered about is trying to preserve Penistone. But you pay a price elsewhere, with three seats straddling the Barnsley border when you only need one. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 25, 2020 13:55:53 GMT
The first time I've used Boundary Assistant, so took a mo to work out how to use it, but it appears Doncaster and Sheffield Urban can each be done as one, and Penistone quite easily possible. Well, yes, of course, if all you are bothered about is trying to preserve Penistone. But you pay a price elsewhere, with three seats straddling the Barnsley border when you only need one. It's not about preserving Penistone, but that the most fitting cross-border seat for Sheffield is one that crosses the border into Barnsley. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Jun 25, 2020 13:59:22 GMT
I don't see how you're going to do this. The problem with it isn't about ward splits; it's about numbers. ... So it seems to me that the numbers dictate that Rotherham will have to be paired with Sheffield for 8 seats (entitlement 7.96). This doesn't mean you have to split off wards in the southeast of Sheffield, of course; the two Ecclesfield wards are obvious alternative candidates. But it does mean that the existing Penistone seat is impossible.
The first time I've used Boundary Assistant, so took a mo to work out how to use it, but it appears Doncaster and Sheffield Urban can each be done as one, and Penistone quite easily possible. View AttachmentSheffield without Stocksbridge and the Ecclesfields has an electorate of 349047 on these figures, so while it is possible you'd have five seats averaging below 70000. With the region as a whole needing to have above average seats (because it has nearly 53.5 quotas, but an allocation of 53) that is passing on a problem to the rest of the region. Really on these figures you only want to take two wards out of the city, not three. (The plans above which take out three put something back in, usually Brinsworth.) If crossing into Barnsley you could take two of the current three (but not S & UD and East Ecc, because that would be silly) or S & UD together with Stannington; if crossing into Rotherham you could take the Ecclesfields or Mosborough and Beighton. I think there's a decent chance the Sheffield March 2020 figures will be quite a bit higher, which will make a difference: Sheffield Central's General Election electorate was over 10000 higher than the "1 December" one. Also on the General Election figures the region as a whole keeps the 54th seat. That might all lean towards a Sheffield/Barnsley pairing after all. |
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 25, 2020 15:02:31 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 Edgbaston, although I agree (through gritted teeth) that ward splits are probably going to be necessary, wouldn't it be better to use them to respect LA boundaries and (where possible) existing constituencies?
For instance, Bradford is good for 5 seats on the 2019 numbers (entitlement 4.96) and its 5 current seats are all within range. Given that you've already respected Calderdale's boundary, would it not be possible to position your splits in other authorities to respect Bradford's boundary and keeps its seats unaltered?
Also, I don't think you can treat W Yorks in isolation. Barnsley (entitlement 2.43) needs to be partnered and there's no plausible candidate in S Yorks, so I think it will have to be treated with W Yorks.
I was trying to do as few splits as possible while still having nice seats. But Bradford district is a nonsensical authority so I will absolutely defend splitting it. I prefer to cross the North Lincolnshire border but have not done so yet as I am at work! But I will tonight. But. We have a very different approach to drawing these maps. So I would perhaps be disappointed if you liked my plan. I await yours. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2020 15:04:30 GMT
Well, yes, of course, if all you are bothered about is trying to preserve Penistone. But you pay a price elsewhere, with three seats straddling the Barnsley border when you only need one. It's not about preserving Penistone, but that the most fitting cross-border seat for Sheffield is one that crosses the border into Barnsley. Why?
Given that we're supposed to have regard to LA boundaries, why would you automatically reject a Sheffield Rotherham pairing (entitlement 7.96 for 8 seats) in favour of Sheffield/Barnsley (7.77)? Especially since the latter approach, assuming you leave Doncaster (2.95) undisturbed with 3, means that you have to throw Rotherham into the mix anyway.
Barnsley, with an entitlement of 2.43, has to have at least one seat crossing its boundary; but if you hive off just the two Penistone wards and one other (presumably Dodsworth) then the remaining wards form nicely into two seats wholly within the borough. Whereas if you decide that Sheffield's boundary can be crossed only with Barnsley, then you are committed to (i) a Barnsley - Sheffield seat; (ii) Barnsley - Rotherham; (iii) Barnsley - Somewhere else (presumably Wakefield). And all because you've rejected a natural pairing of two LAs sharing a long common boundary and having between then an entitlement of 7.96.
All this assumes, of course, that the March 2020 numbers will be similar to December 2019. As YL points out, this may not be so.
|
|
