|
Post by islington on Jul 10, 2020 18:00:08 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! The whole of Oadby & Wigston District plus Countesthorpe, Blaby S, Saxondale, N Whetstone, Cosby, Narborough, Pastures.
Hinckley was always the largest component in the Bosworth seat.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,380
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 10, 2020 19:20:15 GMT
Which wards are in the proposed Oadby and Blaby? Amazing that Hinckley is now entitled to its own seat! The whole of Oadby & Wigston District plus Countesthorpe, Blaby S, Saxondale, N Whetstone, Narborough, Pastures.
Hinckley was always the largest component in the Bosworth seat. Without going too off topic here, that must surely go down as one of the most pointless districts in the country? Way too small, and for no reason. A victory of NIMBYs not wanting to be in Leicester? Why is it not part of Blaby? As Councils have been merged across the country over the years, e.g. Cheshire, Durham, BCP, I'm surprised this one hasn't yet - perhaps a new South Leicestershire district combining it with Blaby and Harborough should be on the cards?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 10, 2020 20:26:39 GMT
My plans for Sussex combined (it is not possible under the current electoral figures to treat East Sussex and West Sussex separately with the 5% quota in place): Hove 74,767 (unchanged; safe Labour seat) Brighton Pavilion ~69,100 (safe Green seat; takes in part of Queen's Park ward but loses Hanover & Elm Grove ward) Brighton Kemptown ~70,600 (very safe Labour seat; no longer contains Peacehaven) Lewes 70,403 (marginal Conservative seat; now without any non-Lewes wards) Eastbourne 70,814 (marginal Conservative seat; now coterminous with Eastbourne) Hastings & Rye 75,852 (marginal Conservative seat) Bexhill & Pevensey 72,922 (succeeds Bexhill & Battle; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Hailsham & Uckfield 74,774 (succeeds Wealden; ultra-safe Conservative seat) East Grinstead & Crowborough 74,532 (cross-county seat; new seat; very safe Conservative seat) Haywards Heath & Burgess Hill 75,919 (succeeds Mid Sussex; very safe Conservative seat) Crawley 74,712 (unchanged; semi-marginal Conservative seat) Shoreham 75,503 (succeeds Worthing East & Shoreham; safe Conservative seat) Worthing 74,916 (succeeds Worthing West; semi-marginal Conservative seat; contains all of the borough of Worthing except for Offington ward) Littlehampton 75,481 (new seat; very safe Conservative seat) Horsham 75,536 (very safe Conservative seat; now contains no non-Horsham wards) Bognor Regis 74,229 (succeeds Bognor Regis & Littlehampton; ultra-safe Conservative seat) Chichester 75,902 (ultra-safe Conservative seat). Abolished: Arundel & South Downs. New: East Grinstead & Crowborough, Littlehampton.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 8:35:49 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 Pete, thanks for pointing this out. Bassetlaw it is then. As for the other seat, Retford wasn't added to the name when it was included prior to 2010, so we can stick to Newark tout court.
Gedling's a poor name but it's a real place so I've left it.
On the subject of real places in Notts - Sherwood is a former hamlet in the parish of Basford, just outside the ancient boundary of Nottingham. It's long since been absorbed by the city but it still exists as a Nottingham suburb and a ward is named after it. It is nowhere near the Sherwood constituency.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 8:54:49 GMT
Nhants
Northampton N - 69161 Northampton S - 69959 S Nhants - 72660 Daventry - 71578
The four above constitute the new W Nhants UA.
Wellingborough - 75049 Kettering - 75889 Corby - 75247
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 12:28:36 GMT
Yes I commented about the BCE evidence on the bill thread. However this is a statement of intent and a bid for resources rather than a fixed statement of what will actually happen. It is in my view unlikely that ward splits will be ruled out entirely, as you suggest, but they will be few and far between, as they were last time (5 I think, 2 in the Black Country), and will need strong justification. However there will be pressure and not just from us - I also pointed to the Conservative party evidence, which was explicit on this point (and they are the government after all). The Boundary Commissions are bound by legislation, and take account of proceedings in parliament as to its intent. There is nothing in legislation requiring it to do anything other than have regard to local authority boundaries, and the breaking of existing ties, except for the statement that within this framework they should seek to preserve communities. A number of people on this board have therefore expressed the hope that there will be clear statements in parliament that a close attention to existing legislation will require ward splits where necessary. The BCE will then just have to lump it. 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. Hmm...
The issue with Leeds is at least as much about numbers as about whether you split wards.
N Yorks is 467346 = 6.43 so it needs to be paired. The obvious partner is York but this gives 609693 = 8.39: clearly not practical for 8 seats so a further pairing is needed. You could link with E Riding and Hull, but the entitlement that this would generate, 14.41, is not very helpful. Moreover, even if you could make it work, you then have the issue of what to do with N Lincs + NE Lincs = 3.25, given that their only possible remaining partner (unless you cross regions) is Doncaster, whose entitlement of 2.98 suggests that it ought to be treated separately.
Now, you can add Axholme (0.24) to N Yorks + York + E Riding + Hull, giving 14.65, and I'm sure that can be done for 15 seats. And N Lincs (less Axholme) + NE Lincs (3.01) is good for 3. But with Doncaster 3, Sheffield + Rotherham 8, and Bradford 5, that leaves (I'm sure you can see whither this tale is tending) the rest of Y&H (Leeds/Wakefield/Calderdale/Kirkless/Barnsley) with a collective entitlement of 19.79 but with only 19 seats available.
This might well be a very good arrangement if, as is quite possible, Y&H gets 54 seats when we see the March 2020 numbers.
But with 53 seats available, purely on the numbers and before giving any consideration at all to ward splits, my conclusion is that N Yorks (whether or not you add in York) is going to have to be treated with some part of W Yorks - which, given Bradford's entitlement of 5.00, presumably means either Leeds or Wakefield.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 13:56:07 GMT
Hmm... The issue with Leeds is at least as much about numbers as about whether you split wards. N Yorks is 467346 = 6.43 so it needs to be paired. The obvious partner is York but this gives 609693 = 8.39: clearly not practical for 8 seats so a further pairing is needed. You could link with E Riding and Hull, but the entitlement that this would generate, 14.41, is not very helpful. Moreover, even if you could make it work, you then have the issue of what to do with N Lincs + NE Lincs = 3.25, given that their only possible remaining partner (unless you cross regions) is Doncaster, whose entitlement of 2.98 suggests that it ought to be treated separately. Now, you can add Axholme (0.24) to N Yorks + York + E Riding + Hull, giving 14.65, and I'm sure that can be done for 15 seats. And N Lincs (less Axholme) + NE Lincs (3.01) is good for 3. But with Doncaster 3, Sheffield + Rotherham 8, and Bradford 5, that leaves (I'm sure you can see whither this tale is tending) the rest of Y&H (Leeds/Wakefield/Calderdale/Kirkless/Barnsley) with a collective entitlement of 19.79 but with only 19 seats available. This might well be a very good arrangement if, as is quite possible, Y&H gets 54 seats when we see the March 2020 numbers.
But with 53 seats available, purely on the numbers and before giving any consideration at all to ward splits, my conclusion is that N Yorks (whether or not you add in York) is going to have to be treated with some part of W Yorks - which, given Bradford's entitlement of 5.00, presumably means either Leeds or Wakefield. Crossing the Leeds/NY border (e.g. with Wetherby and Harewood going into a North Yorkshire seat, where they'd probably be quite happy) may well be necessary, but crossing it multiple times with bacon strips which go into the core urban area is not; I genuinely do not get how you see such seats as acceptable. On another point, I think you should note that Hull and the East Riding unitary have an entitlement of 6.02 between them. So on the numbers there is no more reason to treat Doncaster on its own than that pair, and IMO Axholme really does work better with Doncaster.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 14:54:44 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what?
And it's not a case of adding a couple of Leeds wards to a mainly N Yorks seat; it's the other way round. With an entitlement of 24.79 for W Yorks + Barnsley (or 17.75 if you treat Bradford and Calderdale separately), then it's almost certain that the boundary-crossing seat will lie mainly in W Yorks with only a minority of its electors imported from N Yorks.
I'm not saying that crossing including bits of N Yorks in a mainly Leeds-based seat is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical alternative that still ends up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 15:03:47 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what? I'm not saying that crossing the Leeds / N Yorks boundary is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical way of avoiding it and still ending up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. Please read what I wrote again.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 15:06:58 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what? I'm not saying that crossing the Leeds / N Yorks boundary is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical way of avoiding it and still ending up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. Please read what I wrote again. My apologies: I realized that my post didn't do justice to what you'd written and I was in the process of editing it when our posts crossed.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 11, 2020 15:09:17 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what?
And it's not a case of adding a couple of Leeds wards to a mainly N Yorks seat; it's the other way round. With an entitlement of 24.79 for W Yorks + Barnsley (or 17.75 if you treat Bradford and Calderdale separately), then it's almost certain that the boundary-crossing seat will lie mainly in W Yorks with only a minority of its electors imported from N Yorks.
I'm not saying that crossing including bits of N Yorks in a mainly Leeds-based seat is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical alternative that still ends up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. When I was working in Keighley it seemed more connected to Skipton in NorthYorks than to Bradford. Would that work as a WestYorks/NorthYorks boundary crossing, then add the Leeds-y bits of Bradford to Leeds, Ilkley and the like.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 15:16:37 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what? And it's not a case of adding a couple of Leeds wards to a mainly N Yorks seat; it's the other way round. With an entitlement of 24.79 for W Yorks + Barnsley (or 17.75 if you treat Bradford and Calderdale separately), then it's almost certain that the boundary-crossing seat will lie mainly in W Yorks with only a minority of its electors imported from N Yorks.
I'm not saying that crossing including bits of N Yorks in a mainly Leeds-based seat is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical alternative that still ends up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. They may be "a couple of Leeds wards", but they have over 30000 electors. Removing them leaves Leeds pretty much the right size for 7 seats. One possibility is to throw Norton & Askern ward of Doncaster in with North Yorkshire as well. That's not my favourite option, but at least it's a fairly rural ward which doesn't include part of Doncaster town, and allows for the Axholme crossing. I did work out a N Yorks + Wetherby/Harewood + Norton & Askern map, but I've lost it and will wait for the actual numbers (and hopefully 54 seats) now. I admit that leaves a challenging Barnsley/Kirklees/Wakefield grouping. But I think that's better than bacon strips.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 11, 2020 15:18:34 GMT
Without going too off topic here, that must surely go down as one of the most pointless districts in the country? Way too small, and for no reason. I think it's a pretty good reason not to have one's council tax set sky high by an inept urban authority with no idea of how to control expenditure, together with their awful councillors who get elected on the basis of promising free stuff to voters who do not pay the full rate of council tax. This is an example of getting things right, ringfencing towns from the contagion of their dysfunctional neighbours.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 8,984
|
Post by maxque on Jul 11, 2020 15:22:02 GMT
Without going too off topic here, that must surely go down as one of the most pointless districts in the country? Way too small, and for no reason. I think it's a pretty good reason not to have one's council tax set sky high by an inept urban authority with no idea of how to control expenditure, together with their awful councillors who get elected on the basis of promising free stuff to voters who do not pay the full rate of council tax. This is an example of getting things right, ringfencing towns from the contagion of their dysfunctional neighbours. Fine, but ban said electors from working, shopping or ever going into said urban authority. They use the urban area without contributing to it, like leeches.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,283
|
Post by YL on Jul 11, 2020 15:35:32 GMT
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. An 11 seat Nottinghamshire is certainly possible, but it's quite challenging. I presume someone will be able to do better than the map below, which crosses the Nottingham city border no fewer than four times, but you certainly need to cross it at least once. With Nottingham being a separate unitary authority which is in the right range for three seats and the County Council area being too big for 8 seats, I doubt the Commission would go for this approach, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 11, 2020 16:00:23 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what? And it's not a case of adding a couple of Leeds wards to a mainly N Yorks seat; it's the other way round. With an entitlement of 24.79 for W Yorks + Barnsley (or 17.75 if you treat Bradford and Calderdale separately), then it's almost certain that the boundary-crossing seat will lie mainly in W Yorks with only a minority of its electors imported from N Yorks.
I'm not saying that crossing including bits of N Yorks in a mainly Leeds-based seat is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical alternative that still ends up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. They may be "a couple of Leeds wards", but they have over 30000 electors. Removing them leaves Leeds pretty much the right size for 7 seats. One possibility is to throw Norton & Askern ward of Doncaster in with North Yorkshire as well. That's not my favourite option, but at least it's a fairly rural ward which doesn't include part of Doncaster town, and allows for the Axholme crossing. I did work out a N Yorks + Wetherby/Harewood + Norton & Askern map, but I've lost it and will wait for the actual numbers (and hopefully 54 seats) now. I admit that leaves a challenging Barnsley/Kirklees/Wakefield grouping. But I think that's better than bacon strips. Barnsley/Kirklees/Wakefield = 10.27. It's not out of the question, but I haven't tried it.
I don't see the non-split Leeds seats suggested upthread as 'bacon strips'; but overall, you're probably right to suggest that we should save our energies until we get the final numbers.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 11, 2020 16:03:47 GMT
I think it's a pretty good reason not to have one's council tax set sky high by an inept urban authority with no idea of how to control expenditure, together with their awful councillors who get elected on the basis of promising free stuff to voters who do not pay the full rate of council tax. This is an example of getting things right, ringfencing towns from the contagion of their dysfunctional neighbours. Fine, but ban said electors from working, shopping or ever going into said urban authority. They use the urban area without contributing to it, like leeches. All sorts of people go into all sorts of urban authorities. People commute daily from Bournemouth to the City of London – it would be absurd to have a London blob covering half of England. The Bournemouth commuter and the Oadby commuter have no interest in another town's social services, schools, refuse collection, etc; they should not expect to vote or pay for them.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 11, 2020 16:18:56 GMT
The whole of Oadby & Wigston District plus Countesthorpe, Blaby S, Saxondale, N Whetstone, Narborough, Pastures.
Hinckley was always the largest component in the Bosworth seat. Without going too off topic here, that must surely go down as one of the most pointless districts in the country? Way too small, and for no reason. A victory of NIMBYs not wanting to be in Leicester? Why is it not part of Blaby? As Councils have been merged across the country over the years, e.g. Cheshire, Durham, BCP, I'm surprised this one hasn't yet - perhaps a new South Leicestershire district combining it with Blaby and Harborough should be on the cards? It is Leicester City that has ridiculous boundaries, far too small to cover the whole built up area and leaving out suburbs all around it to different local authorities. Awful way to govern a conurbation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2020 16:41:13 GMT
Without going too off topic here, that must surely go down as one of the most pointless districts in the country? Way too small, and for no reason. A victory of NIMBYs not wanting to be in Leicester? Why is it not part of Blaby? As Councils have been merged across the country over the years, e.g. Cheshire, Durham, BCP, I'm surprised this one hasn't yet - perhaps a new South Leicestershire district combining it with Blaby and Harborough should be on the cards? It is Leicester City that has ridiculous boundaries, far too small to cover the whole built up area and leaving out suburbs all around it to different local authorities. Awful way to govern a conurbation. That's common around England. The boundaries of Blackpool are drawn exceptionally tight. Leeds, on the other hand, wrap around every suburb it can grab.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 11, 2020 17:39:06 GMT
OK, fair enough, but Axholme + Doncaster + what? And E Riding + Hull = 6.02, also fair enough, but then N Yorks (6.43) + what? And it's not a case of adding a couple of Leeds wards to a mainly N Yorks seat; it's the other way round. With an entitlement of 24.79 for W Yorks + Barnsley (or 17.75 if you treat Bradford and Calderdale separately), then it's almost certain that the boundary-crossing seat will lie mainly in W Yorks with only a minority of its electors imported from N Yorks.
I'm not saying that crossing including bits of N Yorks in a mainly Leeds-based seat is ideal, far from it, but I can't see a practical alternative that still ends up with 53 seats in Y&H as a whole. But if Y&H gets a 54th seat on the March 2020 numbers it changes the dynamic completely. They may be "a couple of Leeds wards", but they have over 30000 electors. Removing them leaves Leeds pretty much the right size for 7 seats. One possibility is to throw Norton & Askern ward of Doncaster in with North Yorkshire as well. That's not my favourite option, but at least it's a fairly rural ward which doesn't include part of Doncaster town, and allows for the Axholme crossing. I did work out a N Yorks + Wetherby/Harewood + Norton & Askern map, but I've lost it and will wait for the actual numbers (and hopefully 54 seats) now. I admit that leaves a challenging Barnsley/Kirklees/Wakefield grouping. But I think that's better than bacon strips. Having now had a good look at the Yorkshire region, my preference is to move South Humberside to the East Midlands region, and in advance of the review I'll be writing to the BCE to suggest it. On current numbers, that leaves 50 seats in the Yorkshire region, average 72,935. Hull & ERY 6 York 2 Doncaster 3 Sheffield & Rotherham 8 Barnsley & Wakefield 6 Calderdale 2 Bradford 5 Kirklees, Leeds & North Yorks 18 This probably means a Wetherby-Boroughbridge-Easingwold seat, with one York ward in the Selby seat.
|
|