|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 24, 2020 15:49:58 GMT
Can we get the boundaries sorted before we worry about the names? That makes me wonder what boundary reviews would look like if we started with the names, and then had to draw the seats to match them. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,748 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 24, 2020 15:59:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 16:03:57 GMT
Can we get the boundaries sorted before we worry about the names? That makes me wonder what boundary reviews would look like if we started with the names, and then had to draw the seats to match them. That's a damn good challenge! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 24, 2020 16:06:33 GMT
I kind of do that
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 16:09:46 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. . Something at which my plan failed spectacularly. Of course the price is the continued split of Runcorn and also of Northwich/Winsford (when seen as one anomalous but continued urban area - not getting that sorted should not be a dealbreaker.) |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 24, 2020 16:14:44 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. You would be splitting Meirionydd with the other seat. Brecon & Aberdare pales by comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2020 16:36:16 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. Thanks, pr1berske. That's pretty much how I arrived at this point.
Wirral's entitlement is 3.37 so with 22 wards, averaging 0.15 entitlement, you are probably looking at removing either two or three wards and awarding three seats to the rest. If you want a non-split solution, this means one seat with six wards and two with seven.
I started at the northern end and took Wallasey and Birkenhead seats as 'fixed points', to use your terminology. Wallasey, currently a 6-ward seat but too small, could be brought within range by swapping in Grange ward and switching Seacombe to Birkenhead - not ideal, but at the same time not all that bad, and it allowed a 7-ward Birkenhead. But after that, things got tricky: there was no altogether satisfactory solution for the rest of Wirral, and I ended up throwing in three southeastern wards with Ellesmere Port (and had to hive a ward off the latter town to make it fit), which left the rest of Wirral short on numbers so I had to cross the boundary again to take in part of (not even the whole of) Neston.
Well, it was all legal and contiguous so I posted it.
Two thoughts prompted me to look at it again. First, what would happen if instead of taking Birkenhead and Wallasey as fixed points and working south, I took EP and Neston as fixed points and worked north? And second, closely connected with this, why am I exercising myself to assemble a 6-ward seat in the north of the peninsula when the main concentration of largish wards is actually in the middle?
So I found that actually it was fairly easy to create a 6-ward seat in the middle - in fact, several configurations are possible - and if Ellesmere Port is kept together it forms a seat within range with two Wirral wards, an arrangement that has the very welcome byproduct of keeping Neston together with no need for a second crossing of the borough boundary. The problem then, of course, is that one is left with an arc of fourteen wards totalling 151908 electors, very near the top of what is feasible for two seats. Well, it can be done; but as the map shows, it's not pretty.
So it's fair to say that this scheme, let's call it Plan B, although quite good in the south, involves collateral damage in the north; whereas in the original version I posted weeks ago (Plan A), B'head and Wallasey weren't too bad but EP and Neston took the hit. On the whole, I think I prefer Plan B; but you pays your money ...
All of this, of course, assumes no ward splits. I still think there's a decent case for Kevin Larkin's plan splitting Grange ward as posted yesterday. But that case is less strong if non-split Plan B is the comparator because, at least in my view, Plan B's treatment of B'head and Wallasey is less objectionable that what Plan A did to EP and Neston.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 24, 2020 17:48:06 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. . Something at which my plan failed spectacularly. Of course the price is the continued split of Runcorn and also of Northwich/Winsford (when seen as one anomalous but continued urban area - not getting that sorted should not be a dealbreaker.) Not much can be done about Runcorn. It'd be nice to put the boundary in the Mersey but it has knock-on effects, and the current situation, messy as it is, is one that people have got used to. The seat is in quota and it's likely to emerge from this review unscathed. The Commission's attitude to Northwich is less excusable - they had a chance in the zombie review to reunite all of the town in one seat but didn't take it. With 650 seats we're struggling again to forge a proper Northwich seat, but I'll be happy if all the town itself is in one seat. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,725
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 24, 2020 20:02:15 GMT
Plenty of them in north Wales. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 25, 2020 3:54:58 GMT
It's frightening, looking at the North West plans that people have posted in the last month or so, just how much awful "amorphous blobbism" there is. For instance, take the way that people seem to be happy to butcher Manchester. I'm inclined to say to most of the amorphous blobbists: don't bother. If you're going to make a plan without splitting wards, look at how Islington does it. Any road up, the inescapable fact about Manchester is that it's entitled to 5 seats and so it should get 5 seats. This is hardly difficult to achieve on the long-standing principle of minimum change. Wythenshawe 75150* Withington 73780* includes 4DWF Gorton 71432 Central 69602* Blackley 69399* includes 2MNC 2PYC 2PYE Bury and Stockport are straightforward, the remaining three boroughs less so. They're entitled to 7 seats at 70591, which is a tad on the small side, but if possible it's best not to drag Rossendale wards into the equation. (To be honest, I'm not entirely against adding the two Whitworth wards, in the same way that the Commission added Barnt Green to Birmingham Northfield, but it's not clear where the Rossendale seat could gain those 6000 voters back from. Chorley NE ward?!) Stalybridge & Hyde 73129 - no change Ashton & Denton 70756 - this combination is just the right size for a seat - if you want you can move the boundary to Cemetery Road (I don't think this would move any voters) so that the parts are better connected. Oldham South & Droylsden 70444* - includes AL1 AL5 AL6 (East Hathershaw) Oldham North 70543* Littleborough & Saddleworth 69210* - dividing Crompton and Shaw, but it may be possible to find a configuration that keeps them both in the same seat. Rochdale 69347* - includes TC1, TD1 (Wardle) and HA1 (Brimrod) Heywood & Middleton 70709* Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 25, 2020 8:03:20 GMT
It's frightening, looking at the North West plans that people have posted in the last month or so, just how much awful "amorphous blobbism" there is. For instance, take the way that people seem to be happy to butcher Manchester. I'm inclined to say to most of the amorphous blobbists: don't bother. If you're going to make a plan without splitting wards, look at how Islington does it. Any road up, the inescapable fact about Manchester is that it's entitled to 5 seats and so it should get 5 seats. This is hardly difficult to achieve on the long-standing principle of minimum change. Wythenshawe 75150* Withington 73780* includes 4DWF Gorton 71432 Central 69602* Blackley 69399* includes 2MNC 2PYC 2PYE Bury and Stockport are straightforward, the remaining three boroughs less so. They're entitled to 7 seats at 70591, which is a tad on the small side, but if possible it's best not to drag Rossendale wards into the equation. (To be honest, I'm not entirely against adding the two Whitworth wards, in the same way that the Commission added Barnt Green to Birmingham Northfield, but it's not clear where the Rossendale seat could gain those 6000 voters back from. Chorley NE ward?!) Stalybridge & Hyde 73129 - no change Ashton & Denton 70756 - this combination is just the right size for a seat - if you want you can move the boundary to Cemetery Road (I don't think this would move any voters) so that the parts are better connected. Oldham South & Droylsden 70444* - includes AL1 AL5 AL6 (East Hathershaw) Oldham North 70543* Littleborough & Saddleworth 69210* - dividing Crompton and Shaw, but it may be possible to find a configuration that keeps them both in the same seat. Rochdale 69347* - includes TC1, TD1 (Wardle) and HA1 (Brimrod) Heywood & Middleton 70709* Also the two wards of Rossendale that are currently in the Hyndburn constituency, which can then shift eastwards into the outer reaches of Burnley (not the town itself). |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 25, 2020 8:15:07 GMT
Something at which my plan failed spectacularly. Of course the price is the continued split of Runcorn and also of Northwich/Winsford (when seen as one anomalous but continued urban area - not getting that sorted should not be a dealbreaker.) Not much can be done about Runcorn. It'd be nice to put the boundary in the Mersey but it has knock-on effects, and the current situation, messy as it is, is one that people have got used to. The seat is in quota and it's likely to emerge from this review unscathed. The Commission's attitude to Northwich is less excusable - they had a chance in the zombie review to reunite all of the town in one seat but didn't take it. With 650 seats we're struggling again to forge a proper Northwich seat, but I'll be happy if all the town itself is in one seat. If, instead of pairing Cheshire with Trafford, it is paired with Wigan, it is easy to put a boundary in the Mersey and have a coherent Northwich. 1 Wigan 75661 Yes 2 Makerfield 74400 Yes 3 Leigh 69245 Yes 4 Warrington Golborne 76018 Yes 5 Warrington South 76179 Yes 6 Widnes 72082 Yes 7 Runcorn 69613 Yes 8 Ellesmere Port & Bromborough 71022 Yes 9 Knutsford 75518 Yes 10 Macclesfield 73146 Yes 11 Northwich 70472 Yes 12 Chester 71041 Yes 13 Neston 73205 Yes 14 Congleton 72626 Yes 15 Crewe 69559 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 25, 2020 11:22:08 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. Well, I don't know whether I'd describe ward-shuffling as fun but it's certainly dangerously addictive.
Since most recent plans involve a seat consisting of Ellesmere Port plus Eastham and Bromborough, I assume we have a consensus on this point. That leaves 20 Wirral wards to get 3 seats. One would think that, with such large wards and given the severe geographical constraints of an area tightly bound by the Dee, the Mersey and the Irish Sea, there might be only one or two ways of achieving this without a ward split. So I am amazed at the number of legal combinations achievable in this area.
I've probably posted enough Wirral maps so I'll simply describe this plan in terms of existing constituencies.
Birkenhead: Gains Bebington and Seacombe; loses Prenton - 75184 Wallasey: Gains Upton and Greasby; loses Seacombe and Moreton W - 69936 Wirral: Everything else except the two wards required for the Ellesmere Port seat - 76208
Now, I know what you're going to say. (1) Seacombe really belongs in Wallasey rather than Birkenhead: true, but this is a feature of many other plans, the communications are reasonable, and as a matter of historical interest I note there was a plan to do this put forward as long ago as 1868 (but not adopted). (2) Prenton is an integral part of Birkenhead: true. (3) There's a boundary right through the middle of Moreton: also true, but this is not an uncommon fate for relatively small settlements in heavily urbanized areas and such an arrangement has never been regarded as a dealbreaker. (4) Greasby sticks out like a sore thumb as part of Wallasey: true, looking at the map; but there are decent links to Upton, which people seem content to add to the Wallasey seat.
On the other hand, though, all these points conceded, the plan preserves Birkenhead and Wallasey seats easily recognizable as such so it meets Minion's challenge of 'splitting Birkenhead' (by hiving off only one ward) whilst 'keeping Wallasey intact' (except for Seacombe, but this is a feature of many other plans, and Wallasey, New Brighton and Liscard wards are all together).
I'd also point out that if dividing Moreton really bothers you, you can resolve it by a rotation of Leasowe, Bidston and Prenton wards; but I don't advocate this because of the straggling configuration of the Wallasey seat. (Birkenhead 76103, Wallasey 69100, Wirral 76125).
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 25, 2020 15:48:09 GMT
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. Well, I don't know whether I'd describe ward-shuffling as fun but it's certainly dangerously addictive.
sounds like a metaphor for something or other.  |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jul 25, 2020 17:31:02 GMT
It's frightening, looking at the North West plans that people have posted in the last month or so, just how much awful "amorphous blobbism" there is. For instance, take the way that people seem to be happy to butcher Manchester. I'm inclined to say to most of the amorphous blobbists: don't bother. If you're going to make a plan without splitting wards, look at how Islington does it. Any road up, the inescapable fact about Manchester is that it's entitled to 5 seats and so it should get 5 seats. This is hardly difficult to achieve on the long-standing principle of minimum change. Wythenshawe 75150* Withington 73780* includes 4DWF Gorton 71432 Central 69602* Blackley 69399* includes 2MNC 2PYC 2PYE Bury and Stockport are straightforward, the remaining three boroughs less so. They're entitled to 7 seats at 70591, which is a tad on the small side, but if possible it's best not to drag Rossendale wards into the equation. (To be honest, I'm not entirely against adding the two Whitworth wards, in the same way that the Commission added Barnt Green to Birmingham Northfield, but it's not clear where the Rossendale seat could gain those 6000 voters back from. Chorley NE ward?!) Stalybridge & Hyde 73129 - no change Ashton & Denton 70756 - this combination is just the right size for a seat - if you want you can move the boundary to Cemetery Road (I don't think this would move any voters) so that the parts are better connected. Oldham South & Droylsden 70444* - includes AL1 AL5 AL6 (East Hathershaw) Oldham North 70543* Littleborough & Saddleworth 69210* - dividing Crompton and Shaw, but it may be possible to find a configuration that keeps them both in the same seat. Rochdale 69347* - includes TC1, TD1 (Wardle) and HA1 (Brimrod) Heywood & Middleton 70709* Oldham and Tameside aren't ideal, but we really need to get some MPs to do this exercise, to see what we could have if the commission would accept splitting wards (or better still, without the 5% quota). Also the two wards of Rossendale that are currently in the Hyndburn constituency, which can then shift eastwards into the outer reaches of Burnley (not the town itself). And then Nelson almost inevitably gets chopped in half, so you've just shuffled the problem somewhere else. (This is avoidable if you do Burnley and Nelson without Brierfield, but that looks and is weird) |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Jul 25, 2020 18:25:54 GMT
I was looking at the committee debate for the boundary review bill and found this little gem from Bim Afolami:
"I have no doubt that the boundary commission will make mistakes, but I trust the ingenuity of those people who will be able to challenge it: not just Members, but political parties, members of the public and random geeks who do this sort of thing for fun. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2020 20:01:32 GMT
I was looking at the committee debate for the boundary review bill and found this little gem from Bim Afolami: "I have no doubt that the boundary commission will make mistakes, but I trust the ingenuity of those people who will be able to challenge it: not just Members, but political parties, members of the public and random geeks who do this sort of thing for fun. " We're the last line of defence. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 26, 2020 2:06:32 GMT
Not much can be done about Runcorn. It'd be nice to put the boundary in the Mersey but it has knock-on effects, and the current situation, messy as it is, is one that people have got used to. The seat is in quota and it's likely to emerge from this review unscathed. The Commission's attitude to Northwich is less excusable - they had a chance in the zombie review to reunite all of the town in one seat but didn't take it. With 650 seats we're struggling again to forge a proper Northwich seat, but I'll be happy if all the town itself is in one seat. If, instead of pairing Cheshire with Trafford, it is paired with Wigan, it is easy to put a boundary in the Mersey and have a coherent Northwich. 1 Wigan 75661 Yes 2 Makerfield 74400 Yes 3 Leigh 69245 Yes 4 Warrington Golborne 76018 Yes 5 Warrington South 76179 Yes 6 Widnes 72082 Yes 7 Runcorn 69613 Yes 8 Ellesmere Port & Bromborough 71022 Yes 9 Knutsford 75518 Yes 10 Macclesfield 73146 Yes 11 Northwich 70472 Yes 12 Chester 71041 Yes 13 Neston 73205 Yes 14 Congleton 72626 Yes 15 Crewe 69559 Yes I like the way this sorts Wigan out, but there will be concerns that pairing Cheshire with Wigan is unlikely to be a long-term solution, ie. it's an arrangement that people will be looking to undo at the following Review. Also, it splits Warrington in three, and there's the strange Wilmslow-Middlewich seat that also includes an orphan ward. And Neston-Wybunbury is a bit of a stretch. And won't you need a Trafford-Salford cross-border seat? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 26, 2020 5:08:52 GMT
Merseyside 11 seats Southport 71299 Sefton Central 70239 Bootle 75258 St Helens North 76090 all unchanged St Helens South 69726 Knowsley North 71737 Woolton & Knowsley South 73654 Riverside 71302 Wavertree 75648* - includes KAE West Derby 75944* Walton 76115 It's possible to arrange the Liverpool wards so that there are no split wards, but haven't yet found a satisfactory way of doing so. Switching KAE will unite most of Broadgreen in the Wavertree seat. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 26, 2020 6:51:49 GMT
Merseyside 11 seats Southport 71299 Sefton Central 70239 Bootle 75258 St Helens North 76090 all unchanged St Helens South 69726 Knowsley North 71737 Woolton & Knowsley South 73654 Riverside 71302 Wavertree 75648* - includes KAE West Derby 75944* Walton 76115 It's possible to arrange the Liverpool wards so that there are no split wards, but haven't yet found a satisfactory way of doing so. Switching KAE will unite most of Broadgreen in the Wavertree seat. Why is it satisfactory to split Huyton? You could try: 1 Anfield & Kirkby 74081 Yes 2 West Derby 75906 Yes 3 Huyton & Knotty Ash 72186 Yes 4 Riverside 71504 Yes 5 Wavertree 76200 Yes 6 Garston & Halewood 74723 Yes  |
|
