|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 10:08:41 GMT
if he thinks the butchering of Ellesmere is inevitable, then that would imply without splits. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jul 24, 2020 10:09:44 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? It is a new feature that will be included in a future release. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 10:18:40 GMT
And there's always this -
Birkenhead 75801 Wallasey 76107 Bebington 69420
There are clearly further non-split options available. For instance, in the above you can swap Wallasey and Claughton wards, and once you've done that you can swap Claughton again, this time with Greasby. Also, Oxton and Prenton are adjoining wards with very similar electorates so they lend themselves to being swapped if it helps with plans elsewhere. Plus, doubtless there are other combinations I haven't thought of.
So I suggest we make sure we've exhausted the non-split possibilities before we resort to a split.
Edited to add: Or, compared with the above: Bebington gains Heswall and loses Prenton (69321); Birkenhead gains Prenton and Wallasey, loses Oxton and Claughton (76093); Everything else (can't think what to call it) (75914).
I still think I prefer the posted map above but it suggests there are unexplored possibilities awaiting us.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,004
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 24, 2020 10:41:19 GMT
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,004
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 24, 2020 10:42:23 GMT
if he thinks the butchering of Ellesmere is inevitable, then that would imply without splits. It's Ellesmere Port. Ellesmere is in Shropshire... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 11:04:59 GMT
if he thinks the butchering of Ellesmere is inevitable, then that would imply without splits. It's Ellesmere Port. Ellesmere is in Shropshire... meh, tired of spelling it out every time. There must be some local nickname? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 11:09:14 GMT
And there's always this -
Birkenhead 75801 Wallasey 76107 Bebington I don't see any seats that could reasonably bear these names? Wallasey W, Birkenhead W and Wirral Mersey Bank or something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 11:31:22 GMT
And there's always this -
Birkenhead 75801 Wallasey 76107 Bebington 69420
There are clearly further non-split options available. For instance, in the above you can swap Wallasey and Claughton wards, and once you've done that you can swap Claughton again, this time with Greasby. Also, Oxton and Prenton are adjoining wards with very similar electorates so they lend themselves to being swapped if it helps with plans elsewhere. Plus, doubtless there are other combinations I haven't thought of.
So I suggest we make sure we've exhausted the non-split possibilities before we resort to a split.
Edited to add: Or, compared with the above: Bebington gains Heswall and loses Prenton (69321); Birkenhead gains Prenton and Wallasey, loses Oxton and Claughton (76093); Everything else (can't think what to call it) (75914).
I still think I prefer the posted map above but it suggests there are unexplored possibilities awaiting us.
Your Wallasey doesn't include Liscard or New Brighton. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 11:36:41 GMT
Can we get the boundaries sorted before we worry about the names?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 11:37:30 GMT
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,004
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 24, 2020 11:48:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 11:53:50 GMT
Can we get the boundaries sorted before we worry about the names? If the name is either a longwinded monstrosity or a baldfaced lie, it goes to show the constituency is a monstrosity as well. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 12:18:06 GMT
Well, all right then, if you insist...
Referring back to the map I posted an hour ago: Bebington has been used before and seems a reasonable name for the seat containing the eponymous ward; the seat containing the central part of Birkenhead could be called Birkenhead & New Brighton if it makes you happier; the remaining seat contains Wallasey ward, which in turn contains the original town or village of Wallasey, so I don't think my suggested name was totally unreasonable but you could call it Wirral or Wallasey & Heswall if you prefer.
I'm not claiming these seats are ideal, far from it, but the plan at least avoids dividing either Ellesmere Port or Neston and it involves only one seat straddling the Wirral borough boundary. So it eliminates three of the four reasons I gave last night for being persuaded of the case for a ward split (although arguably it generates other reasons for favouring such a split).
But this is what I mean when I say that you have to get the best possible non-split plan before you can decide whether the case for a split is made out.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 12:58:00 GMT
Well, all right then, if you insist... Referring back to the map I posted an hour ago: Bebington has been used before and seems a reasonable name for the seat containing the eponymous ward; the seat containing the central part of Birkenhead could be called Birkenhead & New Brighton if it makes you happier; the remaining seat contains Wallasey ward, which in turn contains the original town or village of Wallasey, so I don't think my suggested name was totally unreasonable but you could call it Wirral or Wallasey & Heswall if you prefer. I'm not claiming these seats are ideal, far from it, but the plan at least avoids dividing either Ellesmere Port or Neston and it involves only one seat straddling the Wirral borough boundary. So it eliminates three of the four reasons I gave last night for being persuaded of the case for a ward split (although arguably it generates other reasons for favouring such a split). But this is what I mean when I say that you have to get the best possible non-split plan before you can decide whether the case for a split is made out. nice understatement. I like. Yes, it's reasonable to doublecheck whether problems couldn't be solved by splitting Birkenhead even though Birkenhead didn't seem to be the problem. I did that too, actually. But once you realize that splitting Birkenhead doesn't allow you to keep Wallasey intact, you've proven the point. Further playing around with ward configurations can be fun but is quite unnecessary. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 24, 2020 14:08:14 GMT
But this is what I mean when I say that you have to get the best possible non-split plan before you can decide whether the case for a split is made out. ...in the bizarro world inhabited by your good self and Mr Bellringer et al. Taking the Wirral case as an example, the starting point should be how can we craft coherent seats - seats for 1. Wallasey, 2. Birkenhead, and 3. the best possible arrangement for the rest of the peninsular, allowing for the difficulties caused by the need to keep Neston and, further afield, Ellesmere Port and Chester whole. The wards are huge and in some cases they contain bits of different places, so making good seats will sometimes require breaking wards up. A good example is Hoylake & Moels ward - there's no advantage to keeping this ward whole, and unifying West Kirby in West Wirral allows the creation of a Wallasey seat that doesn't include Upton or any other part of Birkenhead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 14:27:11 GMT
To be fair to islington, I get what they're doing. Challenging us to create new configurations based on different aims and end-points; so not splitting EP/Neston is a fixed point, now see what you can do with the rest of Wirral. In that specific case, not splitting at one end of Wirral causes serious issues at the other end: Wallasey and Birkenhead are pretty much the fixed points here so any change will have consequences. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,004
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 24, 2020 14:44:45 GMT
But this is what I mean when I say that you have to get the best possible non-split plan before you can decide whether the case for a split is made out. ...in the bizarro world inhabited by your good self and Mr Bellringer et al. Taking the Wirral case as an example, the starting point should be how can we craft coherent seats - seats for 1. Wallasey, 2. Birkenhead, and 3. the best possible arrangement for the rest of the peninsular, allowing for the difficulties caused by the need to keep Neston and, further afield, Ellesmere Port and Chester whole. The wards are huge and in some cases they contain bits of different places, so making good seats will sometimes require breaking wards up. A good example is Hoylake & Moels ward - there's no advantage to keeping this ward whole, and unifying West Kirby in West Wirral allows the creation of a Wallasey seat that doesn't include Upton or any other part of Birkenhead. Hiving Upton off to Wallasey is fine, it's already in a different constituency (in Wirral West) & separated from the rest of Birkenhead by the M53 (and more smoothly connects to Saughall Massie than any part of Birkenhead). It's pretty much a law unto itself as a ward anyway (due to having The Woody in it). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 24, 2020 15:12:38 GMT
I designed them carefully so that their electorates would be within the permissible range as defined by the December 2019 electorate (i.e. 68,983 to 76,243), not the December 2015 electorate, and I still ended up with 30 seats (excluding Ynys Mon). Hopefully the updated figures for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be available on Boundary Assistant soon, especially given the new wards in use in Scotland. We don't have the ward figures, but we do of course have the figures by constituency. Removing Ynys Môn's electorate and having only 645 seats slightly increases the quota, to 72647 based on the "1 December" numbers and 73399 based on the General Election ones. The electorates of Wales excluding Ynys Môn give 31.16 and 30.90 quotas respectively, so mainland Wales certainly should be expecting 31 seats. We can look at these figures by "preserved county", or at least we almost can, because Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney crosses a border. I've assumed the Gwent part (Rhymney) is 0.16 quotas, based on 2015 figures. That gives (first figure is "1 December", second General Election) Gwynedd minus Ynys Môn 1.20, 1.18 Clwyd 5.24, 5.18 Powys 1.43, 1.42 Dyfed 4.01, 3.99 West Glamorgan 3.89, 3.88 Mid Glamorgan 4.47, 4.46 South Glamorgan 4.94, 4.85 Gwent 5.97, 5.94 So Gwent should be fine for six seats and Dyfed for four. For the rest, a preserved county purist might note that only Gwynedd, Powys and Mid Glamorgan absolutely need pairing, so you could treat them as one big group and treat the other ones individually. That would be tight for Clwyd, especially on the first set of figures (on which I'd expect it to be essentially impossible) and might be somewhat challenging for South Glamorgan on the General Election figures, but a bigger issue is that I suspect any seat crossing the Powys/Mid Glamorgan border (Brecon & Aberdare?) is pitchfork bait even by the standards of Powys border crossing seats. Another option would be to group Gwynedd, Powys and Clwyd on the one hand, and the three Glamorgans on the other. The former group then brings back the old debate about whether to put parts of Montgomeryshire with Gwynedd or with Clwyd. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 15:16:50 GMT
...in the bizarro world inhabited by your good self and Mr Bellringer et al. Taking the Wirral case as an example, the starting point should be how can we craft coherent seats - seats for 1. Wallasey, 2. Birkenhead, and 3. the best possible arrangement for the rest of the peninsular, allowing for the difficulties caused by the need to keep Neston and, further afield, Ellesmere Port and Chester whole. The wards are huge and in some cases they contain bits of different places, so making good seats will sometimes require breaking wards up. A good example is Hoylake & Moels ward - there's no advantage to keeping this ward whole, and unifying West Kirby in West Wirral allows the creation of a Wallasey seat that doesn't include Upton or any other part of Birkenhead. Hiving Upton off to Wallasey is fine, it's already in a different constituency (in Wirral West) & separated from the rest of Birkenhead by the M53 (and more smoothly connects to Saughall Massie than any part of Birkenhead). It's pretty much a law unto itself as a ward anyway (due to having The Woody in it). Though in reality, this was part of the abolution of Wirral Rural District, with those parts that didn't fit anywhere continuing as an Urban District. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 24, 2020 15:22:52 GMT
Here's my most recent Cheshire plan. I did experiment with eg. putting Middlewich into the Winsford seat, but this version respects the contemptible border between the two Cheshires. There are two split wards: polling districts ND (Westbourne Road) and EA (Bedford Drive) are in the Wirral seat. There are two other recommended splits that aren't necessary for the numbers. Polling districts SA1 and SA2 (Kingsmead) are part of Northwich town so it'd be a good idea to transfer them from the Winsford seat. Also, it's a pity to have to remove the Gawsworth villages from the Macclesfield seat for the sake of a few hundred voters. A couple of parishes, eg. Eaton and Marton, could be transferred instead of the whole ward. (Edit: another optional split ward could put Hooton and Childer Thornton into the Ellesmere Port seat where they belong - and this change would also please those people who worry that otherwise you can't walk directly between one part of the seat and the other.)Other matters... In considering which part of the Congleton seat to remove, Alsager seems the best idea. Crewe and Alsager have close ties (and used to be in the same seat), and Nantwich is allowed to form a seat with its hinterland. The West Cheshire seat isn't ideal but it is good from the point of view of keeping the rural parts of CWC together in one seat. Birkenhead 74766* Wallasey 75679* Wirral 70903* Ellesmere Port 71022 Chester 71041 West Cheshire 75370 Halton 72332 Warrington North 71592 Warrington South 71722 Weaver Vale 72254 Winsford & Nantwich 73932 Congleton 74865 Macclesfield 73146 Bucklow 74119 Sale & Altrincham 75008 Stretford & Urmston 73086 Attachments:
|
|
