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 23, 2020 7:18:08 GMT
The Middlesbrough arrangement is a great downside though-there is no way the BCE will allow "Middlesbrough South, Yarm and Eston". Better than crossing the mouth of the Tees! But that Middlesbrough arrangement isn't necessary to avoid a Tees mouth crossing; here's the relevant part of my NE plan (posted in full way back):  1. Redcar 74608 2. Middlesbrough South & Yarm 72453 3. Middlesbrough North & Eston 73738 4. Stockton & Thornaby 75984 5. Hartlepool 70235 6. Darlington 74098 7. Sedgefield & Billingham 73762 ... Stockton & Thornaby is the only one to cross the Tees in this area. (Of course Bishop Auckland does so further west.) islington will dislike this map for having a three UA seat which isn't Windsor. It isn't too hard to get rid of that if it's really felt to be a problem, but the easy fix leaves Eaglescliffe out on a limb and introduces another border crossing with Bishop Auckland, so I'm inclined to add to the list of exceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 23, 2020 7:26:39 GMT
Alternatively, you can just add the three Thornaby wards to Middlesbrough and R&C, which is fine for 3 whole seats. It pushes up the average size of the remaining seats slightly, but not enough to cause serious problems.
|
|
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 23, 2020 7:27:26 GMT
That works for Maidenhead, but then where does the Windsor seat get its extra electors from? Slough plus the wards covering Windsor proper is 125k, so you need another 15k electors and unless you're crossing a county boundary Ascot is the only feasible option. There's also the issue that if you want to put the entirety of Ascot in with Maidenhead, you have to leave Hurley & Walthams ward out to stay within the quota, which would create an orphan ward. Another thought I had, you could add Burnham Lent Rise and Farnham Commpn & Cliveden from Bucks. Would that make Slough and Windsor proper enough for 2 seats? These are a much better demographic fit for Windsor anyway. The thing is that Slough is too big and needs to lose something, and Windsor is the obvious place for that something to go unless you cross the Bucks border (which isn't really necessary either in the approach with crosses the Berks/Hants border or the one which doesn't). The obvious approach of transferring the Langley area in the east fails because it leaves Slough too small, though there is the very tempting option of bringing Slough back up to size by transferring the Eton & Castle ward the other way  I'd suggest you play a bit with Boundary Assistant yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 23, 2020 7:33:17 GMT
Alternatively, you can just add the three Thornaby wards to Middlesbrough and R&C, which is fine for 3 whole seats. It pushes up the average size of the remaining seats slightly, but not enough to cause serious problems. I still calculate the North East at 27 seats which is a lot easier: 1 Berwick 71608 Yes 2 Hexham 71730 Yes 3 Blyth 70781 Yes 4 Cramlington & Longbenton 71126 Yes 5 Tynemouth 75923 Yes 6 N-u-T Wallsend 72388 Yes 7 N-u-T North 69938 Yes 8 N-u-T South 70118 Yes 9 Blaydon 74088 Yes 10 Gateshead 70616 Yes 11 South Shields 69369 Yes 12 Washington & Hebburn 75989 Yes 13 Sunderland North 69435 Yes 14 Sunderland South 71279 Yes 15 H-le-S & C-le-S 70126 Yes 16 Consett 70172 Yes 17 Bishop Auckland 70730 Yes 18 Durham 69614 Yes 19 Easington 74884 Yes 20 Spennymoor 70288 Yes 21 Hartlepool 70235 Yes 22 Stockton Sedgefield 69482 Yes 23 Stockton Sadberge 70133 Yes 24 Darlington 69642 Yes 25 Middlesbrough Thornaby 71505 Yes 26 Redcar 69572 Yes 27 Middlesbrough Guisborough 71228 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 23, 2020 7:34:02 GMT
Alternatively, you can just add the three Thornaby wards to Middlesbrough and R&C, which is fine for 3 whole seats. It pushes up the average size of the remaining seats slightly, but not enough to cause serious problems. I still calculate the North East at 27 seats which is a lot easier: 1 Berwick 71608 Yes 2 Hexham 71730 Yes 3 Blyth 70781 Yes 4 Cramlington & Longbenton 71126 Yes 5 Tynemouth 75923 Yes 6 N-u-T Wallsend 72388 Yes 7 N-u-T North 69938 Yes 8 N-u-T South 70118 Yes 9 Blaydon 74088 Yes 10 Gateshead 70616 Yes 11 South Shields 69369 Yes 12 Washington & Hebburn 75989 Yes 13 Sunderland North 69435 Yes 14 Sunderland South 71279 Yes 15 H-le-S & C-le-S 70126 Yes 16 Consett 70172 Yes 17 Bishop Auckland 70730 Yes 18 Durham 69614 Yes 19 Easington 74884 Yes 20 Spennymoor 70288 Yes 21 Hartlepool 70235 Yes 22 Stockton Sedgefield 69482 Yes 23 Stockton Sadberge 70133 Yes 24 Darlington 69642 Yes 25 Middlesbrough Thornaby 71505 Yes 26 Redcar 69572 Yes 27 Middlesbrough Guisborough 71228 Yes View Attachment |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Jul 23, 2020 9:25:33 GMT
Another thought I had, you could add Burnham Lent Rise and Farnham Commpn & Cliveden from Bucks. Would that make Slough and Windsor proper enough for 2 seats? These are a much better demographic fit for Windsor anyway. The thing is that Slough is too big and needs to lose something, and Windsor is the obvious place for that something to go unless you cross the Bucks border (which isn't really necessary either in the approach with crosses the Berks/Hants border or the one which doesn't). The obvious approach of transferring the Langley area in the east fails because it leaves Slough too small, though there is the very tempting option of bringing Slough back up to size by transferring the Eton & Castle ward the other way I'd suggest you play a bit with Boundary Assistant yourself. I'll have a go in a bit. And yes, Eton and Castle being added to Slough sounds amazing. Slough,Windsor and Eton Central 😂! |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Jul 23, 2020 11:00:53 GMT
The thing is that Slough is too big and needs to lose something, and Windsor is the obvious place for that something to go unless you cross the Bucks border (which isn't really necessary either in the approach with crosses the Berks/Hants border or the one which doesn't). The obvious approach of transferring the Langley area in the east fails because it leaves Slough too small, though there is the very tempting option of bringing Slough back up to size by transferring the Eton & Castle ward the other way I'd suggest you play a bit with Boundary Assistant yourself. I'll have a go in a bit. And yes, Eton and Castle being added to Slough sounds amazing. Slough,Windsor and Eton Central 😂! You'd definitely have to revive the Eton and Slough name for that! |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2020 16:47:40 GMT
And finally, the remainder of NW. (Sorry, the screenshot didn't come out quite as planned but between this map and the ones in earlier posts, I think everything is covered.
Birkenhead - 74300 Wallasey - 69103 Wirral - 70206 (unfortunately making a mess of Neston) Ellesmere Port and Bebington - 75258 (Ellesmere Port mostly kept together, with only one ward hived off on the western side of the town) Chester - 71041 (not 'City of'; just Chester) W Cheshire - 75091 Mid Cheshire - 70859 (or Northwich; preferably not Weaver Vale) Halton (unchanged) - 72332 (unchanged, so I've kept the current name; but Widnes & Runcorn would be better) Warrington N (unchanged) - 71592 Warrington S - 71452 Knutsford - 69738 Macclesfield - 72870 Congleton - 70262 Crewe & Nantwich - 69559 S Cheshire - 69059 (the only seat to cross the boundary between the Cheshire UAs - I'm quite pleased with this one)
Tinkering further with boundaries in the Wirral, it works slightly better, and definitely makes less of a mess of Neston, if Parkgate ward is switched from W Cheshire to the Wirral seat. The ward is small enough that this can be done without taking either seat out of range. Revised electorates: Wirral 74336; W Cheshire 70961. Also, I am reminded that Bebington & Ellesmere Port existed as a constituency 1974-83, so I feel slightly less guilty about what is admittedly not a pretty seat and I think I'd recycle the old name for it. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2020 18:20:05 GMT
Not that I'm advocating it for one moment, but here's a non-split plan for the Wirral that keeps the three Neston wards together, keeps Ellesmere Port together, and has only one seat crossing the Wirral/Cheshire boundary.
But that's where the good news ends ....
W Cheshire - 71608 Ellesmere Port - 71022 Birkenhead W - 70029 Birkenhead E & Wallasey - 75174 Wirral - 76125
(I think I'll stick to my previous plan, subject to the small modification I posted an hour ago.)
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 23, 2020 19:59:03 GMT
Greasby aside, that's actually not that terrible. None of the seats you've got are lovely, but they all have a degree of internal logic to them. If the electorate numbers were slightly different and it were possible to swap Clatterbridge for Greasby, I think it would actually be a reasonably effective solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jul 23, 2020 20:52:32 GMT
Is this where a split ward could be justified?  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 23, 2020 21:09:02 GMT
I think a further split is justified. You can't travel from Eastham ward in Wirral to Netherpool ward in Cheshire West & Chester unless you go by ship.  You need to add the easternmost polling district in the Willaston & Thornton ward to make "Ellesmere Port & Bromborough" internally accessible. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 23, 2020 21:10:03 GMT
I think a further split is justified. You can't travel from Eastham ward in Wirral to Netherpool ward in Cheshire West & Chester unless you go by ship. View AttachmentYou need to add the easternmost polling district in the Willaston & Thornton ward to make "Ellesmere Port & Bromborough" internally accessible.  |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Jul 23, 2020 21:15:52 GMT
Is this where a split ward could be justified? I think a further split is justified. You can't travel from Eastham ward in Wirral to Netherpool ward in Cheshire West & Chester unless you go by ship. You need to add the easternmost polling district in the Willaston & Thornton ward to make "Ellesmere Port & Bromborough" internally accessible. It's not exactly Mersey Banks... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 23, 2020 21:40:51 GMT
I think a further split is justified. You can't travel from Eastham ward in Wirral to Netherpool ward in Cheshire West & Chester unless you go by ship. You need to add the easternmost polling district in the Willaston & Thornton ward to make "Ellesmere Port & Bromborough" internally accessible. It's not exactly Mersey Banks... there'll be roadblocks preventing the MP from travelling through another constituency for a couple of minutes. Argue rather that Bebington/Bromborough has community links to the wards to the west broken by being lumped with Ellesmere. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2020 21:42:56 GMT
Well, from looking at an online street map, I think you probably can get from Netherpool to Eastham without leaving the seat (along North Rd and Bankfields Dr). But even if you couldn't, driving along the M53 or B5132 you would pass out of the proposed seat only for a short distance and I don't think the concept of internal connectivity should be interpreted quite so literally (if it were, you'd have to split a lot more wards than this). I'd argue that what matters more is that different parts of the seat should be easily accessible to each other; the fact that the journey might take you briefly outside the boundary shouldn't be a dealbreaker.
But with regard to Kevin Larkin's original suggestion of splitting Upton ward, I can see a strong case for it. And this is because of the process that has been gone through: first of all, developing the best plan we can without a split; then showing how a split can improve it.
In this case, for my money the best non-split plan is the one I posted back on 6 Jul, slightly modified by putting Parkgate in Wirral as I suggested earlier today. So the question is whether dividing Upton ward delivers a sufficient improvement to justify the drawback of splitting a ward. Well, it allows you to:
- keep Seacombe ward in Wallasey where it clearly belongs;
- keep all three Neston wards together;
- keep Ellesmere Port together; and
- have only one constituency, rather than two, crossing the Wirral boundary.
So, as I say, I think the argument for a ward split here is very persuasive, subject obviously to the consideration that this is only a dry run and it may look different when we see the proper numbers.
When we do this exercise for real, I suggest that this is the sort of process we need to go through if we want to argue for splitting a ward.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 23, 2020 21:52:05 GMT
Is this where a split ward could be justified? I think a further split is justified. You can't travel from Eastham ward in Wirral to Netherpool ward in Cheshire West & Chester unless you go by ship. What tosh. It takes about 2 minutes by car. It's ridiculous to make decisions based on the position of the boundary line, rather than on how easy it is to get from one part to another. And in answer to Kevin, I would say that making a Wallasey seat that doesn't include part of Birkenhead is exactly the kind of situation where a split ward is justified. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,004
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 24, 2020 0:40:12 GMT
Not that I'm advocating it for one moment, but here's a non-split plan for the Wirral that keeps the three Neston wards together, keeps Ellesmere Port together, and has only one seat crossing the Wirral/Cheshire boundary. But that's where the good news ends .... W Cheshire - 71608 Ellesmere Port - 71022 Birkenhead W - 70029 Birkenhead E & Wallasey - 75174 Wirral - 76125 (I think I'll stick to my previous plan, subject to the small modification I posted an hour ago.)
That's not a bad plan. I've got a better one though that I'll post at some point that completely works community wise (and most importantly, has minimal amounts of bits of The Wirral with bits not on The Wirral, other than the votive offering of Ellesmere Port proper which is unavoidable). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 6:39:11 GMT
With or without splits?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 24, 2020 7:25:53 GMT
How did you get the polling districts to show for one ward only? Is that a facility available to all or merely a trick of photoshop? |
|
