|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2020 9:21:21 GMT
Quite pleased with this arrangement in Berkshire:  Slough 70,091 Windsor 70,782 Maidenhead 71,058 Bracknell 71,104 Wokingham 69,496 Reading South East 68,983 Reading Central 71,902 Reading West 69,859 Newbury 72,229 The numbers are very tight (Reading SE is exactly at the minimum limit), which definitely limits your room for manouevre. You could get away with taking another ward out of the Newbury seat, but there's then no way to pass that along beyond Reading West so you have to get creative. In an ideal world Windsor would have cut into Langley rather than Cippenham and Maidenhead would take Hurst rather than Sonning, but for the most part I think this balances the trade-offs reasonably well. The orphan Wokingham ward in Bracknell keeps the village of Crowthorne together and avoids a split of Sandhurst and only the Windsor seat contains parts of 3 local authorities (and that's a) not new and b) pretty difficult to avoid anyway without mucking up Maidenhead). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 16, 2020 11:26:49 GMT
Several of the posters comment on the political effect of different redistributions. That would put the Commission off from considering the contents of these threads. Indeed, but most postings about political implications are made as matters of fact or calculated guesswork befitting the academic nature of the exercise rather than any particular desired consequence. This may very well be true, but if you made a submission to the BCE and added, purely out of academic interest, that, "by the way, I note that the change I'm suggesting for strictly bona fide reasons will have the effect of making this traditionally safe seat much more marginal", then you'd guarantee that your proposal would be ignored whatever its intrinsic merits.
Even the political parties feel obliged to present their proposals in apparently objective terms of community links, &c. They would never avow a political motive, even when it is obvious.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2020 3:48:09 GMT
East Midlands including South Humberside, based on 51 seats
Derbyshire 11
Lincs & Notts 19
Nottingham 3
Leicester 3
Northampton 2
Leics-Northants-Rutland 13
Cross-border seats: Gainsborough (with Axholme); Newark & Grantham; Rutland, Melton & Oundle.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 18, 2020 4:09:48 GMT
North West, based on 74 seats @ 72,755
Sefton 3
Liverpool-Knowsley-St Helens 8
Wirral-Cheshire-Halton-Warrington-Trafford 17
Stockport 3
Rochdale-Oldham-Tameside 7
Manchester 5
Bury 2
The rest 29
New cross-border seats: East Wirral (Ellesmere Port & Bromborough); Tatton; Farnworth (incl. Walkden & Tyldesley); Chorley & Westhoughton; Morecambe. Plus two or three around Oldham somewhere! Split wards in Wirral, Wigan, Bolton and Manchester districts.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 18, 2020 23:36:23 GMT
Indeed, but most postings about political implications are made as matters of fact or calculated guesswork befitting the academic nature of the exercise rather than any particular desired consequence. This may very well be true, but if you made a submission to the BCE and added, purely out of academic interest, that, "by the way, I note that the change I'm suggesting for strictly bona fide reasons will have the effect of making this traditionally safe seat much more marginal", then you'd guarantee that your proposal would be ignored whatever its intrinsic merits.
Even the political parties feel obliged to present their proposals in apparently objective terms of community links, &c. They would never avow a political motive, even when it is obvious.
I don’t think anyone on here is going to submit a representation to the BCE mentioning implications of marginality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 10:35:41 GMT
Although you could argue that marginality should be considered as having more marginal and fewer safe seats is objectively more democratic under a FPTP system.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 19, 2020 12:18:27 GMT
Yes, but doesn't this create a tension with the idea of representing communities?
Inhabitants of a recognizable community, such as a town, will tend to have a similar social background and, all else being equal, are likely to be relatively uniform in their voting behaviour; and the same applies for communities of a different nature such as, say, the villages in the rural areas surrounding the town.
It's a gross oversimplification but let's say the town is solidly Labour and the villages vote Tory.
If the area as a whole receives two seats and you respect community boundaries, you'll end up with two safe seats - good for communities but not very exciting on election night. But if you split the town down the middle and link each half with part of the rural hinterland, you might end up with two nail-biting marginals.
I'm not saying there's a right or wrong approach to this issue, but the tension is real.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 19, 2020 19:06:17 GMT
Yes, but doesn't this create a tension with the idea of representing communities? Inhabitants of a recognizable community, such as a town, will tend to have a similar social background and, all else being equal, are likely to be relatively uniform in their voting behaviour; and the same applies for communities of a different nature such as, say, the villages in the rural areas surrounding the town. It's a gross oversimplification but let's say the town is solidly Labour and the villages vote Tory. If the area as a whole receives two seats and you respect community boundaries, you'll end up with two safe seats - good for communities but not very exciting on election night. But if you split the town down the middle and link each half with part of the rural hinterland, you might end up with two nail-biting marginals. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong approach to this issue, but the tension is real. And the historical answer to sandwich vs doughnut is sandwich. Labour worked very hard to get several doughnuts into the Fourth Review, but these are the anomalies from an historical standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 19, 2020 21:18:29 GMT
Yes, but doesn't this create a tension with the idea of representing communities? Inhabitants of a recognizable community, such as a town, will tend to have a similar social background and, all else being equal, are likely to be relatively uniform in their voting behaviour; and the same applies for communities of a different nature such as, say, the villages in the rural areas surrounding the town. It's a gross oversimplification but let's say the town is solidly Labour and the villages vote Tory. If the area as a whole receives two seats and you respect community boundaries, you'll end up with two safe seats - good for communities but not very exciting on election night. But if you split the town down the middle and link each half with part of the rural hinterland, you might end up with two nail-biting marginals. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong approach to this issue, but the tension is real. And the historical answer to sandwich vs doughnut is sandwich. Labour worked very hard to get several doughnuts into the Fourth Review, but these are the anomalies from an historical standpoint. They are the norm for large German towns in terms of single member constituencies (X-Stadt and X-Land, along the lines of York Central and York Outer). |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,297
|
Post by maxque on Jul 19, 2020 23:46:30 GMT
Yes, but doesn't this create a tension with the idea of representing communities? Inhabitants of a recognizable community, such as a town, will tend to have a similar social background and, all else being equal, are likely to be relatively uniform in their voting behaviour; and the same applies for communities of a different nature such as, say, the villages in the rural areas surrounding the town. It's a gross oversimplification but let's say the town is solidly Labour and the villages vote Tory. If the area as a whole receives two seats and you respect community boundaries, you'll end up with two safe seats - good for communities but not very exciting on election night. But if you split the town down the middle and link each half with part of the rural hinterland, you might end up with two nail-biting marginals. I'm not saying there's a right or wrong approach to this issue, but the tension is real. And the historical answer to sandwich vs doughnut is sandwich. Labour worked very hard to get several doughnuts into the Fourth Review, but these are the anomalies from an historical standpoint. Not true at all. The existance of borough constituencies originally were very much doughnut. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 20, 2020 7:11:27 GMT
South West, based on 58 seats @ 72,301
Cornwall 6
Gloucester, incl. S Gloucs & Bristol 14
Somerset incl. N Somerset & BANES 10
Wiltshire-Dorset-Devon incl. Plymouth 26
Swindon 2
cross-border seats: Bristol N, Cranborne Chase, Wessex Coast
No split wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 20, 2020 11:26:00 GMT
There have been maps on Tyne & Wear without a Tyne Bridge seat, and there have been maps without a Durham-Tyne & Wear crossing, but I don't think any map has done both. It turns out it's not that hard:  Berwick & Morpeth 75,001 Ashington & Blyth 74,238 Cramlington & Longbenton 75,018 North Tyneside 75,923 Newcastle East & Wallsend 70,008 Newcastle North 70,019 Newcastle West 72,417 Hexham 74,853 Blaydon 74,889 Gateshead 76,079 South Shields & Jarrow 75,752 Sunderland North 76,108 Washington & Sunderland West 75,897 Houghton & Sunderland South 76,044 North Tyneside is unchanged. Two cross-county seats between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, but both are reasonably neat - the 5 North Tyneside wards with Cramlington form a coherent whole, and the two western wards from Gateshead have decent enough links to areas further up the Tyne. I'm pleased I managed to keep Gosforth together, although if the numbers allowed it I'd probably put Jesmond in with the city centre. Gateshead is ugly, which is entirely a function of what ward combinations work. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 20, 2020 11:46:57 GMT
Although you could argue that marginality should be considered as having more marginal and fewer safe seats is objectively more democratic under a FPTP system. Considered by Parliament perhaps when writing the statute. It would be entirely inappropriate for the BCE to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 20, 2020 20:49:00 GMT
Quite pleased with this arrangement in Berkshire: Slough 70,091 Windsor 70,782 Maidenhead 71,058 Bracknell 71,104 Wokingham 69,496 Reading South East 68,983 Reading Central 71,902 Reading West 69,859 Newbury 72,229 The numbers are very tight (Reading SE is exactly at the minimum limit), which definitely limits your room for manouevre. You could get away with taking another ward out of the Newbury seat, but there's then no way to pass that along beyond Reading West so you have to get creative. In an ideal world Windsor would have cut into Langley rather than Cippenham and Maidenhead would take Hurst rather than Sonning, but for the most part I think this balances the trade-offs reasonably well. The orphan Wokingham ward in Bracknell keeps the village of Crowthorne together and avoids a split of Sandhurst and only the Windsor seat contains parts of 3 local authorities (and that's a) not new and b) pretty difficult to avoid anyway without mucking up Maidenhead). That Reading South East is very interesting, it looks quite similar to a Reading East I prepared for a regional Assembly. Which wards does it contain? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 20, 2020 21:26:31 GMT
From Reading proper, just Church and Whitley.
From Wokingham: Shinfield North; Shinfield South; Hillside; Hawkedon; Maiden Erlegh; South Lake; Loddon; Bulmershe & Whitegates; Coronation.
Just over 30k electors from the present Wokingham seat, 25k from Reading East; 8.5k from Reading West and 4.5k from Maidenhead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 20, 2020 22:37:44 GMT
From Reading proper, just Church and Whitley. From Wokingham: Shinfield North; Shinfield South; Hillside; Hawkedon; Maiden Erlegh; South Lake; Loddon; Bulmershe & Whitegates; Coronation. Just over 30k electors from the present Wokingham seat, 25k from Reading East; 8.5k from Reading West and 4.5k from Maidenhead. Personally, I'd swap Shinfield South to keep the seat north of the M4 and within the urban sprawl of Reading. And perhaps add Charvil or Sonning from Maidenhead to the seat to push towards the median seat size. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 21, 2020 7:41:45 GMT
I don't think the numbers work for that, unless you're willing to have Maidenhead reach into either Wokingham town or the northern parts of Bracknell.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 21, 2020 8:23:13 GMT
I don't think the numbers work for that, unless you're willing to have Maidenhead reach into either Wokingham town or the northern parts of Bracknell. You can move both Shinfield wards into Wokingham, Hurst into Maidenhead, and add Sonning and Winnersh to Reading SE. I'm not sure that that's really better -- Shinfield North really looks like it belongs in Reading SE in that model -- but it does put all of Woodley parish together. Or you can just swap Shinfield South and Winnersh. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Jul 21, 2020 8:28:48 GMT
Although you could argue that marginality should be considered as having more marginal and fewer safe seats is objectively more democratic under a FPTP system. Aiming for lots of marginal seats in an FPTP system would tend to give big landslides, potentially on quite modest vote share leads. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm generally against taking likely results into account: not just outright partisan gerrymandering, but also incumbent protection or the sort of thing they sometimes do in the US where a Representative's home needs to be included in the district that's being drawn for them, and also attempts to make seats marginal (which is the opposite of incumbent protection, I suppose). Which is one reason why I hope kevinlarkin doesn't ever add notionals to Boundary Assistant. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 21, 2020 9:37:54 GMT
I don't think the numbers work for that, unless you're willing to have Maidenhead reach into either Wokingham town or the northern parts of Bracknell. You can move both Shinfield wards into Wokingham, Hurst into Maidenhead, and add Sonning and Winnersh to Reading SE. I'm not sure that that's really better -- Shinfield North really looks like it belongs in Reading SE in that model -- but it does put all of Woodley parish together. Or you can just swap Shinfield South and Winnersh. Swapping Shinfield South for Winnersh is a decent shout. I'm not sure Shinfield North for Sonning is really an improvement - all of the former is within the M4 and clearly a core part of the Reading urban area, whereas the bits of Sonning ward in the Sonning parish have a much clearer separation. |
|
