|
Post by islington on Jul 14, 2020 9:44:08 GMT
However, I suggest that the answer to Khananup's question is yes. This is because, once you assume that Bucks (incl MK) is fine for 8 seats, you're then left with Oxon, whose entitlement of 6.67 means it needs to be partnered with Berks. The entitlement of the Berks UAs, taken together, is 8.75, which taken by itself is possible for 9 smallish seats; but add in Oxon and you have a distinctly unpromising 15.42. Adding in Hants (with So'ton but without Portsmouth) gives an altogether more satisfactory 31.88. As I said upthread, both Berks and Bucks/Oxon can be done on their own. So the SE can be done with only two (ceremonial) county border crossings, Bucks/Oxon and the two Sussexes. YL is of course correct, but Bucks (incl MK), with an entitlement of 8.06, has a strong claim to be treated on its own. If you combine it with Oxon, then treat Berks and Hants (incl So'ton) by themselves, you have respective entitlements of 14.73, 8.75 and 16.46 (or 18.39 if you throw in Portsmouth as well). I've no doubt that all of these are possible, but they're ugly numbers. It's a judgment, of course, and views will differ, but for my money it all works better in Hants is treated with Berks and Oxon for 31.88.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 9:53:17 GMT
I've found that if you pair Hampshire and Surrey for 30 seats, you can get a good cross-county seat out of Aldershot and Farnham which lets you keep towns intact. The Surrey seats then match up fairly well to LA boundaries and in Hampshire you can get away with fairly limited changes and some improvements to a few of the uglier current arrangements (as well as a few made slightly more ugly, but that's inevitable.)
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 9:59:46 GMT
I've found that if you pair Hampshire and Surrey for 30 seats, you can get a good cross-county seat out of Aldershot and Farnham which lets you keep towns intact. The Surrey seats then match up fairly well to LA boundaries and in Hampshire you can get away with fairly limited changes and some improvements to a few of the uglier current arrangements (as well as a few made slightly more ugly, but that's inevitable.) Which additional areas are you including as those two towns alone have 57,575 voters. The three Ash wards work well (though this brings in a third LA, not a big deal AFAIC and the alternative is to head all the way down to Hindhead and Haslemere) - the question I guess is roughly what proportions of the cross-county seat need to come from each county, but it looks like taking additional voters from the Hampshire side would involve splitting either Farnborough or Fleet
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 10:11:11 GMT
I'll post the map at some point (though it may take a few days, as I'm quite busy this week), but the additional electors are provided by Ash, plus the Frensham ward from Waverley. No extra electors from Hampshire. The third LA isn't a plus point, but without it I found it was hard to fit SW Surrey round Guildford, whereas with them Guildford can stay entirely within the eponymous LA and SW Surrey fits neatly round it.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 14, 2020 10:35:28 GMT
I think we all try to avoid three upper-tier or single-tier authorities in the same seat (unless it's Windsor), but there are plenty of seats that extend into three different second-tier authorities: so, although obviously undesirable, it isn't a fatal flaw. The current Arundel and C Devon seats extend into four, however, which is a bit much.
The Arundel problem should be easily resolved in a 17-seat Sussex plan, but C Devon is a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 10:46:21 GMT
I think we all try to avoid three upper-tier or single-tier authorities in the same seat (unless it's Windsor), but there are plenty of seats that extend into three different second-tier authorities: so, although obviously undesirable, it isn't a fatal flaw. The current Arundel and C Devon seats extend into four, however, which is a bit much. The Arundel problem should be easily resolved in a 17-seat Sussex plan, but C Devon is a lost cause. The additional issue here is that by combining parts of what are both two-tier counties, you have not only the three district councils but two county councils so it means that there are five councils an MP would be required to deal with (The same applies to the other two cases you mention because of Devon and West Sussex county councils). Not being one who views MPs primarily as glorified social workers I'm not too bothered about this but it is worth bearing in mind maybe for those that do. All that said, this Aldershot & Farnham scheme is very good and I've just had a quick play around and had no difficulty making the rest of the seats in both counties fit (with zero change needed to the Portsmouth and Southampton seats).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 11:19:27 GMT
Big hello to the Boundary Commissioners lurking on this thread over the past few pages, taking notes.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 14, 2020 12:25:30 GMT
Big hello to the Boundary Commissioners lurking on this thread over the past few pages, taking notes. If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 12:34:11 GMT
As I said upthread, both Berks and Bucks/Oxon can be done on their own. So the SE can be done with only two (ceremonial) county border crossings, Bucks/Oxon and the two Sussexes. YL is of course correct, but Bucks (incl MK), with an entitlement of 8.06, has a strong claim to be treated on its own. If you combine it with Oxon, then treat Berks and Hants (incl So'ton) by themselves, you have respective entitlements of 14.73, 8.75 and 16.46 (or 18.39 if you throw in Portsmouth as well). I've no doubt that all of these are possible, but they're ugly numbers. It's a judgment, of course, and views will differ, but for my money it all works better in Hants is treated with Berks and Oxon for 31.88. It is possible to treat Bucks on its own and Berks and Oxon together. Some of this is not very pretty, but the numbers will work
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 14, 2020 12:38:03 GMT
Big hello to the Boundary Commissioners lurking on this thread over the past few pages, taking notes. If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,602
|
Post by YL on Jul 14, 2020 12:48:37 GMT
It is possible to treat Bucks on its own and Berks and Oxon together. Some of this is not very pretty, but the numbers will work That's 23 seats. The SE (without the Isle of Wight) is entitled to 89 on these numbers, so with Kent getting 18, Sussex 17, Surrey and Hampshire getting 30 between them you need 24 in those three counties.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,908
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 14, 2020 12:57:04 GMT
If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties. What is also annoying is that people like us - with the expertise and knowledge - are specifically excluded from being employed by the boundary commissions because of our backgrounds that have given us that expertise and knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 12:58:58 GMT
It is possible to treat Bucks on its own and Berks and Oxon together. Some of this is not very pretty, but the numbers will work That's 23 seats. The SE (without the Isle of Wight) is entitled to 89 on these numbers, so with Kent getting 18, Sussex 17, Surrey and Hampshire getting 30 between them you need 24 in those three counties. I just discovered that and am working on a 24 seat Thames Valley plan which I think will work better anyway
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 14, 2020 13:00:32 GMT
If only. Recent history tells us to be prepared for some shockeroos. It would actually be sensible for Boundary Commission staff to look at forums like this where there is a level of expertise. Certainly if I was employed by them I would do so. However there is very little evidence that they do. I fear this is due to a lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of expertise, and they also seem to have only very primitive tools to assist them. Given the importance of the Boundary Commission role in a first past the post system, this is disappointing. They ought to be way better than us at this, and at generating alternatives which can be assessed against their guidelines. Apart from anything else this would make them more resistant to special pleading from political parties. From experience everyone I met who worked for BCE (please note I met a dozen or so max) couldn't wait to leave for a better job. The disinterest they showed in their work would upset many on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 13:07:01 GMT
It is possible to treat Bucks on its own and Berks and Oxon together. Some of this is not very pretty, but the numbers will work That's 23 seats. The SE (without the Isle of Wight) is entitled to 89 on these numbers, so with Kent getting 18, Sussex 17, Surrey and Hampshire getting 30 between them you need 24 in those three counties. Much better all round. In particular it pretty well respects the historic Berks/Oxon boundary whereas that was a complete mess on the 23 seat plan It would require one split ward though (Fringford & Heyfords)
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 13:13:28 GMT
That Bicester and Headington seat is pretty horrible. Given that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire works pretty neatly for 16 seats with relatively minimal changes, I don't think the case for combining Oxfordshire and Berkshire is particularly strong.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 13:29:21 GMT
New Forest East 75,043 New Forest West 73,712 Winchester & Romsey 74,322 Eastleigh & Southampton North 73,448 Southampton Test 70,023 Southampton Itchen 72,152 Hedge End 75,209 Fareham 72,869 Gosport 74,104 Portsmouth South 70,098 Portsmouth North 70213 Havant 71,486 Meon Valley 76,070 East Hampshire 74,478 North West Hampshire 75,377 Basingstoke 70,530 North East Hampshire 71,255 Farnborough & Fleet 72,701 Farnham & Aldershot 70,782 South West Surrey 69,457 Guildford 71,396 Woking 69,879 Surrey Heath 76,222 Runnymede & Weybridge 71,707 Spelthorne 71,197 Esher & Walton 71,595 Mole Valley 75,533 Epsom & Ewell 71,272 Reigate & Banstead 75,373 East Surrey 71,003 No changes to Test, Itchen, Gosport, the Portsmouth seats, Havant or Spelthorne. Spelthorne and Woking are co-extensive with the eponymous districts. On the downside, New Forest West needs to take in a Test Valley ward to make the numbers work, otherwise the two New Forest seats could be unchanged. It's ugly round Fareham, but the wards and the road network make it difficult to avoid that. Including Box Hill in Epsom & Ewell looks a bit ugly, but it makes the rest of eastern Surrey much neater. I'm also really pleased with that Eastleigh seat, which I think works really nicely. Incidentally, if you're keener on minimising LA splits than minimum change, you can swap the Test Valley bits of Winchester for the Basingstoke bits of NW Hampshire.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 13:30:27 GMT
That Bicester and Headington seat is pretty horrible. Given that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire works pretty neatly for 16 seats with relatively minimal changes, I don't think the case for combining Oxfordshire and Berkshire is particularly strong. How are you getting 16 seats?
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 14, 2020 13:32:25 GMT
That Bicester and Headington seat is pretty horrible. Given that Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire works pretty neatly for 16 seats with relatively minimal changes, I don't think the case for combining Oxfordshire and Berkshire is particularly strong. How are you getting 16 seats? By complete innumeracy. Sorry, 15. Berkshire then stands alone for 9, Surrey and Hampshire get 30, Kent gets 18 and Sussex gets 17, which unless I've messed up my maths again fits with the regional quota.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2020 13:40:46 GMT
It's just that for me, given the fluidity of the boundaries between Berks/Oxon on the one hand and Berks/Bucks on the other, the one boundary you don't want to cross is the one between Bucks and Oxon - I know that's just my traditional county fetish and it isn't going to cut any ice with the BCE. I also can't see a really logical place to make that crossing - I suppose Henley and Marlow go pretty well together if thats the thinking
|
|