Dec 2019 electorates

[islington]

Jun 28, 2020 15:44:19 GMT mattb said:

Jun 28, 2020 14:49:34 GMT islington said:

Let me respond quickly so I can be the first to say that that is miles better than my plan.

I'd go for Carpenders Park as the Three Rivers ward in Watford.

This was my version (I posted some time ago before the new wards were updated into Boundary Assistant but this is the updated version). As it happens I think it combines the best bits of both suggestions above.
The real advantage of taking Bushey N as the ward to add to Watford is that it comprises Bushey Hall (physically part of the built-up area of Watford/Oxhey) and Bushey Mill, but is separated by green belt from Bushey proper. If you take any of the Three Rivers wards you unavoidably divide either South Oxhey (split between the three Watford Rural parish wards) or the core of Abbots Langley itself (split between the three Abbots Langley parish wards). It does mean that Hertsmere is no longer co-terminous with the district - but on the other hand Three Rivers is now united in a single seat. It avoids the awkward link of St Stephens in SW Herts and it means you can add St Albans to the list of almost-unchanged seats. Plus there is no imperative to retain the link between Hitchin & Harpenden (unlike say Welwyn-Hatfield or Hertford & Stortford).
It also means all the seats in Beds are retained essentially intact. Under the Dunstable & Berkhamstead option, the existing SW Beds and existing mid-Beds seats have to be significantly altered as they shuffle northwards; whereas under this option, each of them (as well as NE Beds) simply loses sufficient electors to fall within quota (apart from changes to fit with new ward boundaries).

Thanks. I think on balance I still prefer pepperminttea's scheme, but I agree that your version is also much better than my plan.

On a minor point, Stanstead Abbots shouldn't be separated from Gt Amwell so I'd put it in Broxbourne in exchange for Hertford Rural S, which looks much more comfortable in a seat with Hertford.

I also note that you have two seats straddling the boundary between C Beds and Bedford. Would it not be possible to adjust this so that this boundary is crossed only once?

I'm intrigued by the small segment of west Essex showing on your map. Have you done the whole county? I managed to treat it separately, with no cross-border seats, but I found it a real struggle to cram in 19 seats. Part of the price I ended up paying was an Epping & Harlow seat (the two Epping town wards, Broadley Common and the whole borough of Harlow).

[mattb]

Jun 28, 2020 16:27:08 GMT islington said:

Thanks. I think on balance I still prefer pepperminttes's scheme, but I agree that your version is also much better than my plan.

On a minor point, Stanstead Abbots shouldn't be separated from Gt Amwell so I'd put it in Broxbourne in exchange for Hertford Rural S, which looks much more comfortable in a seat with Hertford.

I also note that you have two seats straddling the boundary between C Beds and Bedford. Would it not be possible to adjust this so that this boundary is crossed only once?

I'm intrigued by the small segment of west Essex showing on your map. Have you done the whole county? I managed to treat it separately, with no cross-border seats, but I found it a real struggle to cram in 19 seats. Part of the price I ended up paying was an Epping & Harlow seat (the two Epping town wards, Broadley Common and the whole borough of Harlow).

You could swap the two E Herts wards as you say.

Two seats straddling C Beds and Bedford is simply a continuation of what we have today of course, so I don't see any real need to change it. The current numbers aren't kind, so you'd end up dividing Biggleswade - but even if the final numbers allowed you to take only Potton and Sandy into NE Beds I still don't think it makes sense to divide them from Biggleswade - and why disrupt the existing constituencies unnecessarily anyway?

Yes I have looked at Essex. (I also posted up thread). As you also found, on current numbers any scheme for 19 whole seats requires compromises that are (for me anyway) too great. I'm hoping the final number will allow an acceptable scheme without pairing - although note it is entirely possible the region as a whole might well get one less seat anyway, in which case you might be looking for 18 whole seats in Essex - that works reasonably well, in fact, as long as you're prepared to accept the continuing division of Basildon.
In the meantime my scheme on the current numbers has Linton and Duxford in Saffron Walden, which is perfectly acceptable in terms of where people go for services. That allows (in my opinion) a good scheme in Essex without causing anything uncomfortable in Cambs.

[islington]

Well, to be frank I didn't think the compromises were all that bad. The worst feature, for me, was the continuing split of Basildon, and I don't think crossing the county boundary would help with that. Other than that, the Epping & Harlow seat isn't great, I agree, and the landward end of my Maldon seat is a bit messy (it comprises Maldon district plus Lt Baddow, Boreham and Broomfield wards from Chelmsford) but these are the kind of rough edges that tend to result from any plan. (And let's face it, we've all seen a lot worse.)

So I was, on the whole, reasonably satisfied with my 19-seat Essex, and indeed my 8-seat Cambs where the opposite constraint applied in that the seats tended to be very big.

[greenhert]

I have finally found a workable solution to the need for an extra seat between Devon and Dorset: 



Torrington (very safe Conservative seat; succeeds Torridge & West Devon; includes Okehampton as the old Torrington did but not Crediton)
Tavistock (very safe Conservative seat; de facto successor to Central Devon)
Newton Abbot (safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but unchanged otherwise)
South West Devon (very safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but unchanged otherwise)
Totnes (very safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but unchanged otherwise)
Torbay (safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but unchanged otherwise)
Plymouth West (safe Labour seat; de facto successor to Plymouth Sutton & Devonport)
Plymouth East (safe Conservative seat; de facto successor to Plymouth Moor View)
Tiverton & Honiton (ultra-safe Conservative seat)
Exeter East & Exmouth (marginal Conservative seat)
Exeter West (very safe Labour seat)
North Devon (safe Conservative seat; unchanged)
Sidmouth & Bridport (ultra-safe Conservative seat; new seat)
Dorchester & Sherborne (safe Conservative seat; succeeds West Dorset)
South Dorset (very safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged)
North Dorset (ultra-safe Conservative seat)
Christchurch (ultra-safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged)
Wimborne & Broadstone (safe Conservative seat; slightly redrawn Mid Dorset & North Poole)
Bournemouth East (safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged)
Bournemouth West (safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged)
Poole (ultra-safe Conservative seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged)

I had to abandon my initial plan of redrawing the Dorset constituencies to suit the new authorities, mainly because my proposed Wimborne & Ferndown constituency would be non-contiguous without a ward split.

[YL]

Jun 28, 2020 19:26:23 GMT greenhert said:

I have finally found a workable solution to the need for an extra seat between Devon and Dorset: 

I had to abandon my initial plan of redrawing the Dorset constituencies to suit the new authorities, mainly because my proposed Wimborne & Ferndown constituency would be non-contiguous without a ward split.

This was my attempt, which does respect the border between BCP and the rump Dorset:


BCP

Christchurch & Southbourne 75834
Bournemouth Central 72839
Poole 72401
Canford Heath & Northbourne 70341 or whatever you want to call it

Rump Dorset

East Dorset 71977
Dorchester & Purbeck 69507
Weymouth & Bridport 73035
North Dorset 73496

The rearrangement here probably isn't actually necessary

Cross border

Honiton & Lyme Regis 69442

The edges of the Dorset component are a bit more ragged than I'd like

Devon

Exmouth 71864 perhaps the Exeter component should be acknowledged in the name?
Exeter 72005
Tiverton 71227
North Devon 74112
North West Devon 69351
Tavistock & Dartmoor 69550 a bit of a mess, but replacing Central Devon so I guess a mess isn't too bad
Newton Abbot 70608
Torquay 69949
Totnes 71329
South West Devon 69451
Plymouth Sutton 75748
Plymouth Devonport 71128

[newsouthender]

Jun 28, 2020 18:21:53 GMT islington said:

Well, to be frank I didn't think the compromises were all that bad. The worst feature, for me, was the continuing split of Basildon, and I don't think crossing the county boundary would help with that. Other than that, the Epping & Harlow seat isn't great, I agree, and the landward end of my Maldon seat is a bit messy (it comprises Maldon district plus Lt Baddow, Boreham and Broomfield wards from Chelmsford) but these are the kind of rough edges that tend to result from any plan. (And let's face it, we've all seen a lot worse.)

So I was, on the whole, reasonably satisfied with my 19-seat Essex, and indeed my 8-seat Cambs where the opposite constraint applied in that the seats tended to be very big.

I only really know South East Essex well but I thought your scheme was strong and would be very credible with the Commission as representing relatively little change. Retaining Castle Point and Southend largely as is (other than the welcome joining of the two Rochford wards) should remove many of the objections seen last time. Thurrock needs to lose a ward so there aren’t many options in this area.


The reunification of Basildon has been long desired but is difficult given the constraints of the Thames and London boundary giving little flexibility in Thurrock. Indeed with the number of residential towers that are being built and approved in Basildon Town Centre it will get increasingly difficult. Similarly, heavy development in the outskirts of Chelmsford mean that wards need to be chipped off the city and there is not necessarily a natural home for these. Billericay and the Chelmsford villages is a decent combination as is moving Wickford back into a Basildon Borough seat. South Woodham Ferrers was with Rayleigh in the pre-2010 constituency.


May have read the colours wrong but I would switch Kursaal back to Southend East and St Laurence to Southend West, if indeed they have been moved.

[islington]

Jun 28, 2020 20:04:24 GMT newsouthender said:

Jun 28, 2020 18:21:53 GMT islington said:

Well, to be frank I didn't think the compromises were all that bad. The worst feature, for me, was the continuing split of Basildon, and I don't think crossing the county boundary would help with that. Other than that, the Epping & Harlow seat isn't great, I agree, and the landward end of my Maldon seat is a bit messy (it comprises Maldon district plus Lt Baddow, Boreham and Broomfield wards from Chelmsford) but these are the kind of rough edges that tend to result from any plan. (And let's face it, we've all seen a lot worse.)

So I was, on the whole, reasonably satisfied with my 19-seat Essex, and indeed my 8-seat Cambs where the opposite constraint applied in that the seats tended to be very big.

I only really know South East Essex well but I thought your scheme was strong and would be very credible with the Commission as representing relatively little change. Retaining Castle Point and Southend largely as is (other than the welcome joining of the two Rochford wards) should remove many of the objections seen last time. Thurrock needs to lose a ward so there aren’t many options in this area.


The reunification of Basildon has been long desired but is difficult given the constraints of the Thames and London boundary giving little flexibility in Thurrock. Indeed with the number of residential towers that are being built and approved in Basildon Town Centre it will get increasingly difficult. Similarly, heavy development in the outskirts of Chelmsford mean that wards need to be chipped off the city and there is not necessarily a natural home for these. Billericay and the Chelmsford villages is a decent combination as is moving Wickford back into a Basildon Borough seat. South Woodham Ferrers was with Rayleigh in the pre-2010 constituency.


May have read the colours wrong but I would switch Kursaal back to Southend East and St Laurence to Southend West, if indeed they have been moved.

Thanks for the kind comments.

I agree completely about the Southend wards but unfortunately the numbers are difficult. Southend W is currently slightly too small (by 364) but if you simply add a ward (Milton), then it's slightly too big (by 110).  To get it within range you have too look for a ward of below average size you can swap in (Kursaal) in exchange for a larger ward (St Laurence). The result is a less-than-lovely boundary but at least it gets Southend W below the upper limit (by 319).

Of course once we get the March 2020 numbers this kind of expedient may not be needed.

I was pleased, though, to be able to avoid putting a boundary through the middle of Rochford.

[lancastrian]

Jun 27, 2020 19:46:40 GMT greenhert said:

Cheshire & The Wirral is much easier on the 2019 electorate figures as well (no ward splits needed either!):




Birkenhead (ultra-safe Labour)
Wallasey (ultra-safe Labour)
Wirral & Neston (marginal Labour; succeeds Wirral West)
Bebington (safe Labour; succeeds Wirral South)
Ellesmere Port (marginal Labour)
City of Chester (safe Labour)
Widnes & Runcorn (ultra-safe Labour; renamed but unchanged Halton)
Northwich (marginal Conservative; succeeds Weaver Vale)
Nantwich & Winsford (very safe Conservative; succeeds Eddisbury)
Crewe & Alsager (marginal Conservative; succeeds Crewe & Nantwich)
Congleton (very safe Conservative)
Macclesfield (very safe Conservative)
Knutsford & Lymm (ultra-safe Conservative; succeeds Tatton)
Warrington North East (ultra-marginal Labour, renamed but unchanged Warrington North)
Warrington South West (ultra-marginal Labour, succeeds Warrington South)

With thanks to greenhert for producing a plan without any crossings of the Cheshire/Greater Manchester boundary, here's 28 whole seats in Greater Manchester:



Ward splits in Crumpsall (Salford/Manchester North & Failsworth), Tyldesley (small part in Leigh), Worsley Mesnes (Makerfield/Wigan) and Smithills (Bolton W/Bolton NE).

The Clifford ward of Trafford is in the orange Manchester Central (Moss Side?) seat.

[lancastrian]

And then Lancashire and Cumbria (20.48 quotas) have to squeeze in to 20 seats:



Not sure what you'd call the constituency which is not Preston. Alternatively you could have Preston North and South, with a 50-50 split of the urban Preston wards, so either Ribbleton or Ashton seems to go in North with all the rural bits, which isn't ideal.

[Deleted]

Jun 28, 2020 23:26:00 GMT lancastrian said:

And then Lancashire and Cumbria (20.48 quotas) have to squeeze in to 20 seats:



Not sure what you'd call the constituency which is not Preston. Alternatively you could have Preston North and South, with a 50-50 split of the urban Preston wards, so either Ribbleton or Ashton seems to go in North with all the rural bits, which isn't ideal.

  Ooof that's a lot of choices!

[greenhert]

Jun 28, 2020 22:48:06 GMT lancastrian said:

Jun 27, 2020 19:46:40 GMT greenhert said:

Cheshire & The Wirral is much easier on the 2019 electorate figures as well (no ward splits needed either!):




Birkenhead (ultra-safe Labour)
Wallasey (ultra-safe Labour)
Wirral & Neston (marginal Labour; succeeds Wirral West)
Bebington (safe Labour; succeeds Wirral South)
Ellesmere Port (marginal Labour)
City of Chester (safe Labour)
Widnes & Runcorn (ultra-safe Labour; renamed but unchanged Halton)
Northwich (marginal Conservative; succeeds Weaver Vale)
Nantwich & Winsford (very safe Conservative; succeeds Eddisbury)
Crewe & Alsager (marginal Conservative; succeeds Crewe & Nantwich)
Congleton (very safe Conservative)
Macclesfield (very safe Conservative)
Knutsford & Lymm (ultra-safe Conservative; succeeds Tatton)
Warrington North East (ultra-marginal Labour, renamed but unchanged Warrington North)
Warrington South West (ultra-marginal Labour, succeeds Warrington South)

With thanks to greenhert for producing a plan without any crossings of the Cheshire/Greater Manchester boundary, here's 28 whole seats in Greater Manchester:



Ward splits in Crumpsall (Salford/Manchester North & Failsworth), Tyldesley (small part in Leigh), Worsley Mesnes (Makerfield/Wigan) and Smithills (Bolton W/Bolton NE).

The Clifford ward of Trafford is in the orange Manchester Central (Moss Side?) seat.

This makes a right mess of the City of Manchester's constituencies (will the Boundary Commission allow Manchester Openshaw & Droylsden, for instance?) but it does at least avoid the "Rochdale & Bacup" mess I came up with in my bid to ensure all of Manchester's constituencies were entirely in Manchester. Yes, the Manchester Central seat should be renamed Manchester Moss Side in this plan. 

[greenhert]

Jun 28, 2020 23:26:00 GMT lancastrian said:

And then Lancashire and Cumbria (20.48 quotas) have to squeeze in to 20 seats:



Not sure what you'd call the constituency which is not Preston. Alternatively you could have Preston North and South, with a 50-50 split of the urban Preston wards, so either Ribbleton or Ashton seems to go in North with all the rural bits, which isn't ideal.

Bamber Bridge would be a good name for it.

[andrewteale]

Jun 28, 2020 22:48:06 GMT lancastrian said:

Jun 27, 2020 19:46:40 GMT greenhert said:

Cheshire & The Wirral is much easier on the 2019 electorate figures as well (no ward splits needed either!):




Birkenhead (ultra-safe Labour)
Wallasey (ultra-safe Labour)
Wirral & Neston (marginal Labour; succeeds Wirral West)
Bebington (safe Labour; succeeds Wirral South)
Ellesmere Port (marginal Labour)
City of Chester (safe Labour)
Widnes & Runcorn (ultra-safe Labour; renamed but unchanged Halton)
Northwich (marginal Conservative; succeeds Weaver Vale)
Nantwich & Winsford (very safe Conservative; succeeds Eddisbury)
Crewe & Alsager (marginal Conservative; succeeds Crewe & Nantwich)
Congleton (very safe Conservative)
Macclesfield (very safe Conservative)
Knutsford & Lymm (ultra-safe Conservative; succeeds Tatton)
Warrington North East (ultra-marginal Labour, renamed but unchanged Warrington North)
Warrington South West (ultra-marginal Labour, succeeds Warrington South)

With thanks to greenhert for producing a plan without any crossings of the Cheshire/Greater Manchester boundary, here's 28 whole seats in Greater Manchester:

View Attachment

Ward splits in Crumpsall (Salford/Manchester North & Failsworth), Tyldesley (small part in Leigh), Worsley Mesnes (Makerfield/Wigan) and Smithills (Bolton W/Bolton NE).

The Clifford ward of Trafford is in the orange Manchester Central (Moss Side?) seat.

How would you split Smithills?

[Deleted]

Jun 29, 2020 12:03:32 GMT greenhert said:

Jun 28, 2020 23:26:00 GMT lancastrian said:

And then Lancashire and Cumbria (20.48 quotas) have to squeeze in to 20 seats:



Not sure what you'd call the constituency which is not Preston. Alternatively you could have Preston North and South, with a 50-50 split of the urban Preston wards, so either Ribbleton or Ashton seems to go in North with all the rural bits, which isn't ideal.

Bamber Bridge would be a good name for it.

It appears to cover rural Preston, Bowland, and the lower Ribble Valley and eastern South Ribble. One place title doesn't really suit.

[Merseymike]

Jun 29, 2020 14:20:41 GMT @pr1berske said:

Jun 29, 2020 12:03:32 GMT greenhert said:

Bamber Bridge would be a good name for it.

It appears to cover rural Preston, Bowland, and the lower Ribble Valley and eastern South Ribble. One place title doesn't really suit.

Preston Outer? Mid-Lancashire?

[Deleted]

Jun 29, 2020 14:23:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Jun 29, 2020 14:20:41 GMT @pr1berske said:

It appears to cover rural Preston, Bowland, and the lower Ribble Valley and eastern South Ribble. One place title doesn't really suit.

Preston Outer? Mid-Lancashire?

I was going to say, Outer Preston might fit. Rural Preston would work at a pinch.

[bsjmcr]

Jun 29, 2020 14:23:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Jun 29, 2020 14:20:41 GMT @pr1berske said:

It appears to cover rural Preston, Bowland, and the lower Ribble Valley and eastern South Ribble. One place title doesn't really suit.

Preston Outer? Mid-Lancashire?

Looks very Mid Lancashire to me. The shape (not size!) is almost reminiscent of Mid Derbyshire, with bits coming out! Or Central Lancashire, but I think UCLan would still be in Preston proper? Then again, Sheffield Hallam University isn't in Sheffield Hallam constituency, is it?

[warofdreams]

Jun 29, 2020 15:01:24 GMT bsjmcr said:

Jun 29, 2020 14:23:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Preston Outer? Mid-Lancashire?

Looks very Mid Lancashire to me. The shape (not size!) is almost reminiscent of Mid Derbyshire, with bits coming out! Or Central Lancashire, but I think UCLan would still be in Preston proper? Then again, Sheffield Hallam University isn't in Sheffield Hallam constituency, is it?

It's not, though until the latest boundary changes, it had campuses in Sheffield Hallam.  The uni is named for Hallamshire, rather than the Sheffield Hallam constituency, though.

[pepperminttea]

Jun 28, 2020 15:43:00 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jun 28, 2020 15:35:38 GMT pepperminttea said:

But Harpenden and Berko is even worse IMHO. I did see much of Matt's plan (and much of it I liked) but I wasn't sure about shoving part of Bushey into Watford and replacing it with Northaw when Hertsmere (or South Herts, if you prefer) doesn't need to be touched. 

I've always liked the idea of linking the Northern parts of Dacorum and St Albans, although the direct road links between the two parts aren't great I think it hangs together really well demographically and looks coherent (its more or less the pre-1974 Hemel seat without Hemel itself).
As for the Bushey situation it isn't wholly ideal but then nothing ever is. It's true that Hertsmere can be left alone but it isn't an especially coherent unit anyway so I wouldn't worry too much about maintaining its integrity. The way the new Bushey North ward is drawn makes it an ideal fit for Watford - its all physically detached from most of Bushey and very close to the centre of Watford. I wouldn't have said so for the old ward boundaries but this is a very neat fit. The Northaw link isn't so ideal and if we had the old ward boundaries I'd have suggested Welham Green instead but now that brings part of Hatfield with it. As I say nothing is ideal

Yeah especially with this tight a quota often it's looking for the least worst option...

Tbh I wish they allocated a set number of seats per county as opposed to by region (though I do accept this will lead to significantly varying constituency sizes).

[pepperminttea]

I had a go at the South West. I'm pretty happy with it though others may have found better:

Cornwall (6 seats) - Minimal change:



1)St. Ives (Yellow) - 73,203
2)Camborne and Redruth (Grey) - 71,122
3)Truro and Falmouth (Red) - 72,539
4)St. Austell and Newquay (Blue) - 73,818
5)South East Cornwall (Orange) - 73,880
6)North Cornwall (Green) -74,188

Devon (12 seats + 1 shared with Dorset) - The electorate numbers in Plymouth force an East-West split instead of North-South. Rest of South Devon unchanged. Minimal changes to North/West Devon. Significant changes in East Devon/Exeter area to accommodate a new seat (which is technically Mid Devon as Honiton and Bridport is the successor to Tiverton and Honiton):



7)Plymouth Devonport (Pink) - 71,128
8)Plymouth Moor View (Purple) - 75,748
9)South West Devon (Teal) - 71,906
10)Totnes (Yellow) - 69,567
11)Torbay (Grey) - 75,910
12)West Devon (Red) - 69,763
13)Okehampton and Exeter West (Blue) - 69,661
14)Newton Abbot (Orange) - 70,608
15)Exeter (Green) - 71,792
16)Mid Devon (Pink) - 70,416
17)North Devon (Purple) - 74,112
18)Exmouth (Teal) - 69,717
19)Honiton and Bridport (Yellow) - 70,136 (Cross with Dorset)


Dorset (8 seats + the one listed above that crosses with Devon) - Very significant changes to accommodate the cross country seat with Devon and to allow the new Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area to be allocated 4 seats to itself:



20)Weymouth (Grey) - 71,539 (Could call it South West Dorset if you prefer)
21)South Dorset (Red) - 70,325 
22)North Dorset (Blue) - 69,474
23)East Dorset (Orange) - 71,977
24)Poole (Green) - 72,401
25)Poole North and Kinson (Pink) - 70,341 (Could possibly have a better name)
26)Bournemouth Central (Purple) - 72,839
27)Christchurch (Teal) - 75,834

Somerset (10 seats including NS + B&NES) - Gains a 10th seat so there are significant changes to accommodate this particularly to the current seats of Wells and Somerton & Frome (technically Wells and Frome is the new seat as Burnham is technically the successor to Wells due to it containing a plurality of Wells's electorate):



28)Bridgwater and West Somerset (Yellow) - 72,791
29)Taunton (Grey) - 75,489
30)Burnham-on-Sea (Red) - 69,442
31)Weston-super-Mare (Blue) - 70,701
32)North Somerset (Orange) - 70,296 (Probably should be renamed 'Portishead and Clevedon' but I doubt the Commission would)
33)Yeovil (Green) - 72,442 
34)Glastonbury (Pink) - 73,448
35)Wells and Frome (Purple) - 69,243
36)Bath (Teal) - 71,730 (Irritating ward shapes essentially force Newbridge out of the seat)
37)North East Somerset (Yellow) - 72,012 (Probably could do with a rename, though again I'd be surprised if the Commission did)

Bristol and South Gloucestershire (7 seats, excluding northern part of South Gloucestershire district) - Bristol has about 3 spare wards which are paired with Kingswood. The rest shift around that.



38)Bristol South (Grey) - 71,996
39)Bristol Central (Red) - 69,711 (Should never have been called 'West' in the first place)
40)Bristol North West (Blue) - 72,231 
41)Bristol South East (Orange) - 72,495
42)Bristol North East and Kingswood - 69,053
43)Yate (Pink) - 71,854
44)Filton and Bradley Stoke (Purple) - 73,645

Gloucestershire (7 seats) - Gains a 7th seat which crosses into the South Gloucestershire district.



45)Thornbury and Tetbury (Teal) - 71,914 (the new seat)
46)Stroud (Yellow) - 69,666
47)Gloucester (Grey) - 72,511
48)Forest of Dean (Red) - 71,879
49)Tewkesbury (Blue) - 74,443
50)Cheltenham (Orange) - 72,821
51)The Cotswolds (Green) - 71,868 (Unfortunately has to contain Cricklade from Wiltshire as that county is just slightly too big for 7 seats)

Wiltshire (7 seats) - Not a great deal of change other than Cricklade being forced into a Gloucestershire seat (though you could probably keep it in Wiltshire with some clever ward splits) as well as the Swindon seats being rearranged to get them to within the quota.



52)Swindon North (Pink) - 75,246
53)Swindon South (Purple) - 75,843
54)Devizes (Teal) - 73,564
55)Salisbury (Yellow) - 75,570
56)South West Wiltshire (Grey) - 75,053
57)Chippenham (Red) - 75,017
58)North Wiltshire (Blue) - 75,616