|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jul 9, 2020 14:09:31 GMT
BTW there were 10 split wards in the second zombie review's final recommendations (see the paper on split wards on the Commission website): Barnet: OakleighSouth Tyneside: Bede Brighton & Hove: Queen's Park Tewkesbury: Coombe Hill Sandwell: Greets Green & Lyng, St Pauls Dudley: Brierley Hill Sheffield: Burngreave, Central, Crookes I thought it was very odd that they didn't split wards in Birmingham but then did so in Sandwell to try to deal with the knock on effects of their Birmingham proposals. Also I think they could have achieved their aims in Sheffield with only two splits. That Barnet entry is... interesting. Because, while the split wards paper does say that the split ward in the final recommendations is Oakleigh, changed from Brunswick Park in the revised proposals, the actual final recommendations as presented still gave Brunswick Park as the split ward. As the 2018 zombie review never went through, this is just a curiosity. However, if the review had gone through on the presented final recommendations and I had just seen that paper, I'd currently be livid. Because, on the revised proposals (and presented final recommendations), while the split in Brunswick Park ward was reasonable (it moved three polling districts into Finchley and Enfield Southgate (areas 1 and 4 on the attached map) and left one with Chipping Barnet (areas 2 and 3) - the four polling districts together make a fairly natural whole, but the three moved polling districts all have some connections with the immediately neighbouring parts of Southgate, while the one left in Chipping Barnet connects far more strongly with East Barnet, and its boundaries with the other three polling districts are fairly obvious), the boundary elsewhere moved parts of Finchley with very little connection to Chipping Barnet into Chipping Barnet while putting other parts of Finchley with better connections with Chipping Barnet into Finchley and Enfield Southgate, in the process bisecting the North Finchley community (admittedly, too large for a single ward) along a very awkward line straight through the town centre. However, the recommendation apparently envisaged in the split wards paper (as I have reconstructed it) is far better, if still not perfect - a rather more compact Enfield Southgate and East Barnet constituency (areas 1 and 3 on the attached map), together with a slightly awkward Chipping Barnet and Finchley constituency (areas 2 and 4). Enfield Southgate and East Barnet (surely better called just Southgate and East Barnet?) actually contains the bulk of each of the pre-1964 Southgate Municipal Borough, East Barnet Urban District and Friern Barnet Urban District, with the split in Oakleigh ward almost exactly following the northern boundary of Friern Barnet (and the Middlesex-Hertfordshire border). And the Chipping Barnet and Finchley seat does a similar job of combining the pre-1964 Finchley Municipal Borough and Barnet Urban District (together with some fragments of East Barnet and Friern Barnet Urban Districts) - the one minor problem is that while the communications links between the two halves of the constituency are good, the green belt area around Totteridge comes close to entirely separating the inhabited areas of the two halves from one another. Despite all that, though, it would have been a far better proposal for the Barnet/Finchley area not only than anything else proposed during the 2018 zombie review, but any of the suggestions I have seen so far based on the December 2019 electorates (certainly any that try to avoid splitting wards).
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 9, 2020 15:44:18 GMT
If I have correctly read this Boundary Commission for England submission in connection with the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, it is effectively a declaration that, unless local authorities are legally mandated to provide the BCE and its contractors with full polling district information and the BCE is given the extra resources it reckons it would need to use this information, the BCE intends to effectively completely rule out splitting any ward whatever in the forthcoming review - the only legal circumstance that, so far as I can make out, would force it to do so would be if it were otherwise mathematically impossible to create a full set of English constituencies without breaking the 5% rule (and note that the principles against creating constituencies with wards that are non-contiguous, or even - not that this would be needed - in totally different regions have only the force of guidance, not of mandate). I note that the submission explicitly rules out taking any notice, for instance, of census output areas on the grounds that output area boundaries do not agree with ward boundaries and of parish boundaries on the grounds that parishes do not exist throughout England. An interesting point about these exclusions is that if, as is the apparent intention, new ward boundaries that have been fully approved but are not as yet in use should be taken account of when determining new constituency boundaries, then this will also rule out using polling district boundaries - the old polling district boundaries will not in general agree with the new ward boundaries, and London boroughs, for example, are highly unlikely under current circumstances (unless legally forced) to treat the determination of new polling districts as any kind of priority before autumn 2021, seeing that the first elections using them will be in May 2022 (and are even less likely to prioritise the calculation of the electorate data that would have applied to them had they been in use in March 2020). Thus in practice, like parishes, polling districts for the new wards will not (yet) exist throughout England at the time that the BCE will require them for its work (particularly given the foreshortened timetable for this review). You have to read it in the context in which it was made, which was that the parliamentary committee wanted to know how much the PD data costs. The BCE's policy is well known, but it did provide PD data at the last review in order to facilitate proposals that split wards, and now that precedent has been set it seems unlikely that it will be changed.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 9, 2020 16:01:03 GMT
I think they will be prepared to split the odd ward, but probably only in areas which are otherwise very difficult, i.e. more or less the same policy as in the second zombie review. I've now looked at most of England using the electorates currently on Boundary Assistant. My feeling is that on those numbers there is no very strong case for split wards in the South West, the South East, the East, the East Midlands or the North East, and that somewhat surprisingly the only strong case in the West Midlands is in Wolverhampton, where I ended up with an ugly map with a double crossing of the Walsall border. (There may be places in those regions where I haven't spotted a major issue.) That leaves London, the North West and Yorkshire. I don't tend to say much about London, because I don't think I have a good feel for how the suburbs fit together, but my experiments (posted yesterday) did get into trouble with ward sizes in some boroughs, most obviously in the Barnet/Brent area. In the NW, it would clearly make it easier to respect the borough boundaries in Greater Manchester if the odd ward were split, and splitting a ward on the Wirral might help with things there and allow at least a possibility of not splitting Ellesmere Port. The strongest case IMO is in Leeds, where it seems otherwise impossible not to have constituencies stretching from the city proper out into the North Yorkshire countryside, and there is also a case elsewhere in West Yorkshire, in Sheffield (though things are easier here than they were for 600 seats) and perhaps in the East Riding. The details will probably change a little with the actual electorate figures, but I wouldn't expect the broad picture of how widespread I think the problem is to change. It's possible the wards (the former county divisions) for the new Buckinghamshire unitary will cause problems. BTW there were 10 split wards in the second zombie review's final recommendations (see the paper on split wards on the Commission website): Barnet: Oakleigh South Tyneside: Bede Brighton & Hove: Queen's Park Tewkesbury: Coombe Hill Sandwell: Greets Green & Lyng, St Pauls Dudley: Brierley Hill Sheffield: Burngreave, Central, Crookes I thought it was very odd that they didn't split wards in Birmingham but then did so in Sandwell to try to deal with the knock on effects of their Birmingham proposals. Also I think they could have achieved their aims in Sheffield with only two splits. What happened to Sandwell was a direct result of their peevishness - if they'd made the sensible splits in Birmingham then Sandwell wouldn't have been hacked about so much. ukelect.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/2018-review-birmingham-black-country-full-submission/ If I remember correctly, the Dudley and Barnet splits both came from Conservative counter-proposals (which immediately makes me suspicious) and neither of them was good. ukelect.wordpress.com/2017/12/11/2018-review-north-london-versions-2-1-and-2-2/
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2020 16:39:49 GMT
East London plan (Waltham Forest, Islington, Hackney, and Tower Hamlets): Chingford 73,012 (succeeds Chingford & Woodford Green; marginal Labour seat) Leyton 70,723 (succeeds Leyton & Wanstead; ultra-safe Labour seat) Hackney East & Lea Bridge 69,349 (succeeds Hackney South & Shoreditch; ultra-safe Labour seat) Islington North 70,766 (unchanged; ultra-safe Labour seat) Islington South & Finsbury 72,390 (ultra-safe Labour seat; adds De Beauvoir ward from Hackney to meet quota requirements) Hackney West & Stoke Newington (succeeds Hackney North & Stoke Newington; ultra-safe Labour seat) Bethnal Green & Shoreditch (succeeds Bethnal Green & Bow in practice; ultra-safe Labour seat) Bow & Poplar (new seat; ultra-safe Labour seat) Stepney & Isle of Dogs (succeeds Poplar & Limehouse; ultra-safe Labour seat) Walthamstow disappears as a constituency here.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 9, 2020 17:18:18 GMT
And finally, North East London/Old South Essex plan (Newham, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham, and Havering): West Ham 69,323 (ultra-safe Labour seat) East Ham 75,126 (ultra-safe Labour seat) Ilford & Manor Park 73,114 (succeeds Ilford South; ultra-safe Labour seat) Wanstead & Woodford ~76,000 (new seat; marginal Labour seat) Hainault ~74,100 (succeeds Ilford North; safe Labour seat) Hornchurch 72,634 (succeeds Dagenham & Rainham; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Barking & Dagenham 74,942 (succeeds Barking; very safe Labour seat) Romford & Chadwell Heath ~75,500 (succeeds Romford; very safe Conservative seat) Upminster ~75,000 (succeeds Hornchurch & Upminster; ultra-safe Conservative seat; takes in part of Pettits ward). Note that the constituency entitled "Barking & Dagenham" is not of course coterminous with the borough; I just could not find a better name. So overall from my London plans: Abolished: Walthamstow, Hayes & Harlington, Greenwich & Woolwich (-3 Lab) New seats: Wanstead & Woodford, Bow & Poplar, Wembley & Harrow South, Croydon North & Penge, Brixton (+5 Lab) Seats whose successors flip from Conservative to Labour: Chingford & Woodford Green [Chingford], Chipping Barnet (-2 Con, +2 Lab) Seats whose successors flip from Labour to Conservative: Dagenham & Rainham [Hornchurch] (-1 Lab, +1 Con) Seats whose successors flip from Conservative to Liberal Democrat: Wimbledon [Wimbledon & New Malden] (-1 Con, +1 LD) Unchanged seats: Harrow East, Islington North, Battersea, Carshalton & Wallington, Sutton & Cheam (5/73) Notional seat totals on these plans: Labour 52, Conservative 19, Liberal Democrats 4.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 10, 2020 10:16:24 GMT
Looking at the north-east, I think we can be reasonably certain of the groupings at least: - Hartlepool to stand alone for one constituency
- Northumberland and Tyne & Wear to have 14 constituencies
- Durham and Teesside to have 11 constituencies
Hartlepool being slightly under the quota does make the quota tighter elsewhere, but given that it doesn't require any changes and has the same boundaries as the LA, I can't see the BCE choosing to alter it. You could make the quota slightly easier for Northumberland and Tyne & Wear by shifting some wards from there to the Durham group, but I'm not sure that's either necessary or helpful - the Houghton-le-Spring area is too large to help; so are the five western wards in County Durham; Birtley and Lamesley work but they unnecessarily disrupt North Durham (and I'm not sure they help in Gateshead). So I'm assuming these are going to be the BCE's basic groupings. I haven't got a plan for Northumberland and Tyne & Wear I'm totally happy with yet, but here are a couple of options for the Durham group: Option 1Middlesbrough S & E Cleveland 71,228 Redcar 69,572 Middlesbrough N & Thornaby 71,505 Stockton S 76,105 Stockton N & Aycliffe 75,818 Hartlepool 70,235 Easington 74,884 City of Durham 76,030 N Durham 73,521 W Durham 74,655 Bishop Auckland 72,202 Darlington 74,098 The obvious places to start are the groupings on the edge. Middlesbrough and Redcar & Cleveland can no longer support three seats. If you add Thornaby, you can make three small seats. If you then add Ingleby Bardwick, you're over quota. Crossing the Tees to take in Stockton Town Centre is just pitchfork bait. Conceivably you could connect Billingham to Middlesborough over the Transporter Bridge, but that's only a good idea if you like constituencies with 'Banks' in the title. So that means Thornaby is clearly your best option, which then means that the seats in the rest of the group need to be towards the upper end of the quota. How you draw the seats is then a matter of personal taste. Here I've gone for a least change option. If you're staying out of Hartlepool and Sunderland, then Easington draws itself, and as a bonus it draws itself at the upper end of the range. Having lost Thornaby, Stockton South then needs to gain more of Stockton proper, which means Stockton North needs to reach into County Durham, which means Sedgefield is the seat getting abolished. The challenge then is to readjust the other seats so they're all in quota and you don't split too many natural communities. This plan aims to keep Durham in the same seat as its western suburbs (the bulk of the population in those two western wards is at the eastern extremity in both cases) and just to add a single ward to North Durham. That then means the present NW Durham either needs to either grab areas south-west of Bishop Auckland or south-west of Durham. Neither is a good option, but the former at least keeps Spennymoor united. and is at least connected by A roads. Option 2Redcar & Cleveland 71,224 Middlesbrough E 71,041 Middlesbrough N & Thornaby 70,040 Stockton S 71,038 Stockton N & Sedgefield 75,110 Hartlepool 70,235 Easington 74,884 City of Durham 76,000 N Durham 74,686 NW Durham 76,111 Bishop Auckland 75,386 Darlington 74,098 Here I've rearranged seats in Teesside so that the entirety of the Middlesbrough urban area is contained within 2 seats, rather than 3 as at present. However, Middlesbrough E includes Dormanstown, which is a definite black mark and not one I've been able to eliminate without creating orphan wards or splitting Guisborough. This time I sent Stockton N to take Ferryhill, meaning Bishop Auckland has to take Ferryhill and City of Durham has to take Spennymoor. That then means NW Durham has to take Durham's western suburbs, which means it needs to swap wards with N Durham to stay in quota. Overall I much prefer option 1, but I'm open to the possibility that the W Durham seat in that plan is so bad that it requires a complete redraw. Any opinions?
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2020 11:51:20 GMT
This is Notts; not very different to what others have had.
Worksop - 70782 It can't really be called Bassetlaw any more. N Notts is a possibility; or Sops of Work & War. Newark and Retford - 74322 I'm far from happy with this but it's the only viable solution I can see. Mansfield - 69759 Once you remove Warsop, as you must, Mansfield itself is slightly too small. I bolstered it with Sutton Jcn ward from Ashfield, which is a rotten choice because it's clearly part of Sutton-in-Ashfield; but the same is true of the only possible alternative, Skegby, which would mean shifting far more electors. Moreover, Ashfield needs to be lose a ward and it's hard to see which to take, if not one of these. Ashfield - 75830 Unchanged except for the loss of Sutton Jcn.
Southwell & Hucknall - 72809 Based on Sherwood, but I'm taking the opportunity of boundary changes to give it a more satisfactory name. Mid Notts is another possibility. Broxtowe - 73585 Another unsatisfactory name but the seat is unchanged so I've left it. Gedling - 70463
Rushcliffe - 71177 I'd prefer to call it W Bridgford or S Notts.
Remaining wards are treated with Leics.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 12:19:52 GMT
This is Notts; not very different to what others have had.
Worksop - 70782 It can't really be called Bassetlaw any more. N Notts is a possibility; or Sops of Work & War. Newark and Retford - 74322 I'm far from happy with this but it's the only viable solution I can see. Mansfield - 69759 Once you remove Warsop, as you must, Mansfield itself is slightly too small. I bolstered it with Sutton Jcn ward from Ashfield, which is a rotten choice because it's clearly part of Sutton-in-Ashfield; but the same is true of the only possible alternative, Skegby, which would mean shifting far more electors. Moreover, Ashfield needs to be lose a ward and it's hard to see which to take, if not one of these. Ashfield - 75830 Unchanged except for the loss of Sutton Jcn.
Southwell & Hucknall - 72809 Based on Sherwood, but I'm taking the opportunity of boundary changes to give it a more satisfactory name. Mid Notts is another possibility. Broxtowe - 73585 Another unsatisfactory name but the seat is unchanged so I've left it. Gedling - 70463
Rushcliffe - 71177 I'd prefer to call it W Bridgford or S Notts.
Remaining wards are treated with Leics.
Presumably the cross-county seat is Melton & Bingham. Thank you for posting this; I spent days trying to get to grips with a solution for Nottinghamshire on these electoral figures which avoided any crossing with Lincolnshire.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 10, 2020 12:54:38 GMT
This is Notts; not very different to what others have had. Worksop - 70782 It can't really be called Bassetlaw any more. N Notts is a possibility; or Sops of Work & War. Newark and Retford - 74322 I'm far from happy with this but it's the only viable solution I can see. Mansfield - 69759 Once you remove Warsop, as you must, Mansfield itself is slightly too small. I bolstered it with Sutton Jcn ward from Ashfield, which is a rotten choice because it's clearly part of Sutton-in-Ashfield; but the same is true of the only possible alternative, Skegby, which would mean shifting far more electors. Moreover, Ashfield needs to be lose a ward and it's hard to see which to take, if not one of these. Ashfield - 75830 Unchanged except for the loss of Sutton Jcn.
Southwell & Hucknall - 72809 Based on Sherwood, but I'm taking the opportunity of boundary changes to give it a more satisfactory name. Mid Notts is another possibility. Broxtowe - 73585 Another unsatisfactory name but the seat is unchanged so I've left it. Gedling - 70463
Rushcliffe - 71177 I'd prefer to call it W Bridgford or S Notts. Remaining wards are treated with Leics.
Why not? The boundaries are almost identical to those of the Bassetlaw seat as it existed between 1983 and 2010. If the thinking is that it doesn't include the whole district, that is already the case now and also applies to Gedling which is far more of a crap name
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2020 13:07:22 GMT
Leicestershire: a new seat has to be accommodated here so significant surgery is needed.
Melton & Bingham - 71807 The cross-border seat with Notts, and a most tricky one. Basically, I didn't want to cross the Trent: although there is a bridge (at Gunthorpe), it's too big a psychological barrier for a Melton-based seat. But sticking to the right bank of the Trent means going very close to Newark at the northern end. Mid Leics - 72351 Based on Charnwood, but I've taken the opportunity to change the name. Loughborough - 73442 NW Leics - 74562 The current seat is brought within range by the removal of the two wards constituting Ibstock. Bosworth - 74134 Hinckley is removed from the current seat, which frees up capacity to hoover up the western environs of Leicester. Hinckley - 71934 The new seat, and a very compact one, comprising Hinckley and Earl Shilton, and assorted villages to the east of them. Oadby and Blaby - 75284 A radically altered successor to S Leics - essentially, the southern environs of Leicester. Harborough - 71331 Extends into the new N Nhants UA to take in Desborough and Rothwell.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 13:53:56 GMT
With these changes in the city of Leicester (to slightly shrink Leicester East and put Leicester West in quota), Leicester East can be renamed Leicester North East and Leicester South can be renamed Leicester South East.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 10, 2020 15:00:16 GMT
Leicestershire: a new seat has to be accommodated here so significant surgery is needed.
Melton & Bingham - 71807 The cross-border seat with Notts, and a most tricky one. Basically, I didn't want to cross the Trent: although there is a bridge (at Gunthorpe), it's too big a psychological barrier for a Melton-based seat. But sticking to the right bank of the Trent means going very close to Newark at the northern end. Mid Leics - 72351 Based on Charnwood, but I've taken the opportunity to change the name. Loughborough - 73442 NW Leics - 74562 The current seat is brought within range by the removal of the two wards constituting Ibstock. Bosworth - 74134 Hinckley is removed from the current seat, which frees up capacity to hoover up the western environs of Leicester. Hinckley - 71934 The new seat, and a very compact one, comprising Hinckley and Earl Shilton, and assorted villages to the east of them. Oadby and Blaby - 75284 A radically altered successor to S Leics - essentially, the southern environs of Leicester. Harborough - 71331 Extends into the new N Nhants UA to take in Desborough and Rothwell. Which wards are in the proposed Oadby and Blaby? Amazing that Hinckley is now entitled to its own seat!
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 15:04:24 GMT
Finally came up with a workable plan for Lancashire and Cumbria: Carlisle 75,361 (safe Conservative seat) Penrith & Cockermouth 73,307 (succeeds Penrith & The Border; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Westmorland 74,942 (succeeds Westmorland & Lonsdale; marginal Conservative seat) Morecambe & Lonsdale 73,755 (succeeds Morecambe & Lunesdale; very safe Conservative seat) Barrow-in-Furness 74,296 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) Whitehaven & Workington 69,866 (succeeds Copeland; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Lancaster 73,721 (succeeds Lancaster & Fleetwood; marginal Conservative seat) Vale of Preston 75,629 (succeeds Ribble Valley; very safe Conservative seat) West Lancashire 73,678 (semi-marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Leyland 76,011 (succeeds South Ribble; safe Conservative seat) Clitheroe & Colne 76,035 (succeeds Pendle; safe Conservative seat) Burnley & Nelson 75,237 (succeeds Burnley; marginal Conservative seat) Accrington 75,583 (succeeds Hyndburn; marginal Conservative seat) Chorley 75,133 (Speaker seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged) Blackburn 74,925 (ultra-safe Labour seat) Rossendale & Darwen 71,149 (safe Conservative seat) Preston & Fulwood 70,869 (succeeds Preston; very safe Labour seat) Lytham & Poulton 74,807 (succeeds Fylde; very safe Conservative seat) Blackpool South 71,428 (marginal Conservative seat) Blackpool North & Fleetwood 75,929 (succeeds Blackpool North & Cleveleys; semi-marginal Conservative seat). Abolished: Workington, Wyre & Preston North (-2 Con) Changed from Con to Lab: Copeland [Whitehaven & Workington] Changed from Lab to Con: Lancaster & Fleetwood [Lancaster] Changed from LD to Con: Westmorland & Lonsdale [Westmorland]. Total: 15 Con, 4 Lab, 1 Spkr.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 10, 2020 15:34:14 GMT
Here I've rearranged seats in Teesside so that the entirety of the Middlesbrough urban area is contained within 2 seats, rather than 3 as at present. However, Middlesbrough E includes Dormanstown, which is a definite black mark and not one I've been able to eliminate without creating orphan wards or splitting Guisborough. Both maps emphasise that Redcar District is really badly drawn, resulting in some ridiculous ward boundaries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 15:42:51 GMT
Finally came up with a workable plan for Lancashire and Cumbria: Carlisle 75,361 (safe Conservative seat) Penrith & Cockermouth 73,307 (succeeds Penrith & The Border; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Westmorland 74,942 (succeeds Westmorland & Lonsdale; marginal Conservative seat) Morecambe & Lonsdale 73,755 (succeeds Morecambe & Lunesdale; very safe Conservative seat) Barrow-in-Furness 74,296 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) Whitehaven & Workington 69,866 (succeeds Copeland; ultra-marginal Labour seat) Lancaster 73,721 (succeeds Lancaster & Fleetwood; marginal Conservative seat) Vale of Preston 75,629 (succeeds Ribble Valley; very safe Conservative seat) West Lancashire 73,678 (semi-marginal Labour seat; unchanged) Leyland 76,011 (succeeds South Ribble; safe Conservative seat) Clitheroe & Colne 76,035 (succeeds Pendle; safe Conservative seat) Burnley & Nelson 75,237 (succeeds Burnley; marginal Conservative seat) Accrington 75,583 (succeeds Hyndburn; marginal Conservative seat) Chorley 75,133 (Speaker seat; adjusted for new ward boundaries but otherwise unchanged) Blackburn 74,925 (ultra-safe Labour seat) Rossendale & Darwen 71,149 (safe Conservative seat) Preston & Fulwood 70,869 (succeeds Preston; very safe Labour seat) Lytham & Poulton 74,807 (succeeds Fylde; very safe Conservative seat) Blackpool South 71,428 (marginal Conservative seat) Blackpool North & Fleetwood 75,929 (succeeds Blackpool North & Cleveleys; semi-marginal Conservative seat). Abolished: Workington, Wyre & Preston North (-2 Con) Changed from Con to Lab: Copeland [Whitehaven & Workington] Changed from Lab to Con: Lancaster & Fleetwood [Lancaster] Changed from LD to Con: Westmorland & Lonsdale [Westmorland]. Total: 15 Con, 4 Lab, 1 Spkr. "Vale of Preston" doesn't mean anything, that is not a term used here.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 10, 2020 16:05:25 GMT
Here I've rearranged seats in Teesside so that the entirety of the Middlesbrough urban area is contained within 2 seats, rather than 3 as at present. However, Middlesbrough E includes Dormanstown, which is a definite black mark and not one I've been able to eliminate without creating orphan wards or splitting Guisborough. Both maps emphasise that Redcar District is really badly drawn, resulting in some ridiculous ward boundaries. A significant part of it should clearly be part of Middlesbrough anyway, and the population in the remainder is too low to justify it continuing as an authority on its own. Sadly whilst there have been a lot of moves to convert two-tier areas to unitaries, there hasn't been a similar movement to fix some of the stupider unitaries created in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 10, 2020 17:06:54 GMT
This is Notts; not very different to what others have had. Worksop - 70782 It can't really be called Bassetlaw any more. N Notts is a possibility; or Sops of Work & War. Newark and Retford - 74322 I'm far from happy with this but it's the only viable solution I can see. Mansfield - 69759 Once you remove Warsop, as you must, Mansfield itself is slightly too small. I bolstered it with Sutton Jcn ward from Ashfield, which is a rotten choice because it's clearly part of Sutton-in-Ashfield; but the same is true of the only possible alternative, Skegby, which would mean shifting far more electors. Moreover, Ashfield needs to be lose a ward and it's hard to see which to take, if not one of these. Ashfield - 75830 Unchanged except for the loss of Sutton Jcn.
Southwell & Hucknall - 72809 Based on Sherwood, but I'm taking the opportunity of boundary changes to give it a more satisfactory name. Mid Notts is another possibility. Broxtowe - 73585 Another unsatisfactory name but the seat is unchanged so I've left it. Gedling - 70463
Rushcliffe - 71177 I'd prefer to call it W Bridgford or S Notts. Remaining wards are treated with Leics.
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats, there is no need for Nottinghamshire to have a cross-county seat. In a 47 seat scenario, Nottinghamshire can have 11 seats, Lincolnshire and Rutland 8, Northamptonshire 7, and Leicestershire with Derbyshire 21. If it qualifies for 48, Nottinghamshire can still have 11 seats, Lincolnshire and Rutland 8, Derbyshire 11, and Leicestershire and Northamptonshire 18.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 10, 2020 17:09:09 GMT
You only need to move 3 wards to get all the Derbyshire constituencies in quota. It would be ridiculous to pair it with any other county.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 10, 2020 17:13:02 GMT
This is Notts; not very different to what others have had.
Worksop - 70782 It can't really be called Bassetlaw any more. N Notts is a possibility; or Sops of Work & War. Newark and Retford - 74322 I'm far from happy with this but it's the only viable solution I can see. Mansfield - 69759 Once you remove Warsop, as you must, Mansfield itself is slightly too small. I bolstered it with Sutton Jcn ward from Ashfield, which is a rotten choice because it's clearly part of Sutton-in-Ashfield; but the same is true of the only possible alternative, Skegby, which would mean shifting far more electors. Moreover, Ashfield needs to be lose a ward and it's hard to see which to take, if not one of these.
Sounds almost elegaic, like something from Tennyson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 17:36:22 GMT
Nothing like an evening with Gerrymandering Assistant.
|
|