Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2020 21:42:26 GMT
This is my Wirral plan, that for unsplit wards is as good as you're going to get with these numbers:  Wallasey 69,103 Birkenhead 74,300 West Wirral 71,303 South Wirral 71,243 This splits no settlements other than the big ones of Wallasey & Birkenhead in the Met Borough (which are essentially unavoidable in both cases with any sensible plan) and hives off the Suttons and Overpool/Netherpool from Ellesmere Port, but they have a separate identity anyway being more suburban communities like Eastham, Bromborough and Bebington rather than an industrial town like Ellesmere Port. All four seats are entirely on the Wirral, are coherant (apart from South Wirral which if non-split warding is unavoidable) and if you were up for some ward splitting, the far eastern polling district of Willaston & Thornton would keep everything in quota and tidy things up nicely. "Wirral Deeside" 😁 |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 21:58:35 GMT
Hampshire, paired with Surrey:  Portsmouth South 70098 Portsmouth North 70213 Havant 71486 Gosport 74104 New Forest West 75043 New Forest East 73712 Southampton Test 71701 Eastleigh & Romsey 70766 Southampton Itchen 75358 Hedge End & Hamble 75515 Winchester 75630 Farnborough & Fleet 70808 Petersfield & Waterloo 73846 Fareham 71867 Alton 73939 North Hampshire 73349 Basingstoke 71270 Andover 74385 Aldershot 70782 (cross border seat) For some reason what I've done to Southampton doesn't both me (and it has to lose two wards somewhere as it is...).  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 21:59:35 GMT
This is my Wirral plan, that for unsplit wards is as good as you're going to get with these numbers: Wallasey 69,103 Birkenhead 74,300 West Wirral 71,303 South Wirral 71,243 This splits no settlements other than the big ones of Wallasey & Birkenhead in the Met Borough (which are essentially unavoidable in both cases with any sensible plan) and hives off the Suttons and Overpool/Netherpool from Ellesmere Port, but they have a separate identity anyway being more suburban communities like Eastham, Bromborough and Bebington rather than an industrial town like Ellesmere Port. All four seats are entirely on the Wirral, are coherant (apart from South Wirral which if non-split warding is unavoidable) and if you were up for some ward splitting, the far eastern polling district of Willaston & Thornton would keep everything in quota and tidy things up nicely. "Wirral Deeside" 😁 Entirely reasonable name, and the constituents would love it! |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 26, 2020 22:19:51 GMT
Surrey (Paired with Hampshire, see above post) and East & West Sussex (paired together):  Hastings & Rye 75852 Bexhill & Battle 74523 Wealden 74411 Eastbourne 73614 Lewes 75911 Brighton Kemptown 71785 Brighton Pavilion 72157 Hove 74755 Shoreham-by-Sea 72486 Crawley 74712 Haywards Heath & Burgess Hill 74746 Worthing 72943 Mid Sussex 74615 Littlehampton 74064 Bognor Regis 72871 Chichester 74584 Horsham 72069 Surrey East 71003 Redhill 75412 Dorking & Leatherhead 71729 Epsom & Ewell 72173 Guildford 73051 Esher & Walton 71595 Spelthorne 71197 Runnymede & Weybridge 71178 Woking 74260 Surrey Heath 70708 South West Surrey 72328 Surrey's a bit of a stab in the dark as I don't know the central or eastern parts at all really. Happy with Sussex as a whole though bearing in mind that there has to be an amorphous mass of a seat due to the ruralness in the central and western inland parts of the old kingdom (as is shown of course by the current horrorshow that is Arundel & South Downs) so I'm afraid that East Grinstead has drawn the short straw (with of course some of the ward shapes in central Sussex being a real pain to find your way around for coherant seats). |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jul 27, 2020 0:04:10 GMT
My Greater Manchester plan. Initially I planned to put Chorlton in with Wythenshawe but as there is no road or other transport connection between these two parts of the city of Manchester, Wythenshawe must instead include Didsbury. 1. Manchester Blackley ~69,200 (succeeds Blackley & Broughton; ultra-safe Labour seat) 2. Manchester Central ~69,700 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 3. Manchester Gorton 72,688 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 4. Manchester Withington ~71,600 (ultra-safe Labour seat) 5. Manchester Wythenshawe ~76,000 (succeeds Wythenshawe & Sale East; very safe Labour seat; note that Didsbury was in the 1950-1974 version of Manchester Wythenshawe) 6. Altrincham & Sale South (succeeds Altrincham & Sale West; semi-marginal Conservative seat) 7. Stretford & Sale North (succeeds Stretford & Urmston; very safe Labour seat) 8. Davyhulme & Eccles 75,008 (new seat; safe Labour seat) 9. Salford ~69,200 (succeeds Salford & Eccles; ultra-safe Labour seat) 10. Worsley ~70,100 (succeeds Worsley & Eccles South; safe Labour seat) 11. Leigh 69,496 (marginal Conservative seat) 12. Makerfield 73,744 (semi-marginal Labour seat) 13. Wigan 75,299 (semi-marginal Labour seat) 14. Bolton West ~71,400 (semi-marginal Conservative seat) 15. Bolton North East ~69,200 (marginal Conservative seat; gains part of Smithills ward) 16. Bolton South East 69,585 (safe Labour seat; unchanged) 17. Hazel Grove 74,280 (marginal Conservative seat) 18. Cheadle 75,763 (marginal Conservative seat) 19. Stockport 76,014 (very safe Labour seat) 20. Denton & Ashton 70,756 (succeeds Denton & Reddish; very safe Labour seat) 21. Stalybridge & Hyde 73,129 (marginal Labour seat; unchanged) 22. Oldham West & Droylsden ~69,100 (succeeds Ashton-under-Lyne; very safe Labour seat) 23. Oldham Central & Royton ~71,900 (succeeds Oldham West & Royton; safe Labour seat) 24. Littleborough & Saddleworth 72,886 (succeeds Oldham East & Saddleworth; marginal Conservative seat) 25. Heywood & Middleton 73,002 (marginal Conservative seat) 26. Rochdale & Whitworth 69,211 (succeeds Rochdale; adds Whitworth wards in Rossendale; safe Labour seat) 27. Bury North 69,332 (ultra-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged) 28. Bury South 75,637 (ultra-marginal Conservative seat; unchanged). New: Davyhulme & Eccles (+1 Lab) Changed from Lab to Con: Oldham East & Saddleworth [Littleborough & Saddleworth] Totals: Lab 18, Con 10. Probably one of the if not best plans for GM I've seen so far, mainly because the names are so sensible, no unnecessary changes, and we get maximum 'Manchester...' seats out of it! Perhaps the name of one of them should reflect the stark difference between the two places though - 'Manchester Didsbury and Wythenshawe', or simply Manchester South. However whenever I try to put Didsbury into Wythenshawe on the current numbers it always ends up massively oversized, so do you plan to split wards, e.g. bits of Didsbury West to go with Chorlton in Withington, which does make sense on the ground. Not a fan of the Davyhulme name (surely Urmston is better known and has more recent history of use in a constituency name), alternatively I've always felt it's high time to get the long overdue Trafford name on the map - Eccles and Trafford Park/Old Trafford/Trafford North? |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 27, 2020 5:14:51 GMT
Cities like Manchester have to be split. Well, they have to be divided into several constituencies. But there don't have to be cross-border seats. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jul 27, 2020 5:23:56 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 View AttachmentOne of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 7:21:14 GMT
Finally, in the East Midlands, we come to Derbyshire. Some of the existing constituencies are among the worst in the land. "Mid Derbyshire" is the worst of all. made from the bits left over from the rest. Unfortunately, we won't see much change. If the region qualifies for 48 seats, Derbyshire keeps its 11 seats with very few electors moving: 1 Buxton 74265 Yes 2 Dronfield 72063 Yes 3 Chesterfield 70681 Yes 4 Bolsover 75035 Yes 5 Matlock 71492 Yes 6 Heanor 70501 Yes 7 Derby Belper 70511 Yes 8 Derby Central 72192 Yes 9 Ilkeston 71526 Yes 10 Derby South 72698 Yes 11 Swadlincote 70673 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 7:29:29 GMT
Finally, in the East Midlands, we come to Derbyshire. Some of the existing constituencies are among the worst in the land. "Mid Derbyshire" is the worst of all. made from the bits left over from the rest. Unfortunately, we won't see much change. If the region qualifies for 48 seats, Derbyshire keeps its 11 seats with very few electors moving: 1 Buxton 74265 Yes 2 Dronfield 72063 Yes 3 Chesterfield 70681 Yes 4 Bolsover 75035 Yes 5 Matlock 71492 Yes 6 Heanor 70501 Yes 7 Derby Belper 70511 Yes 8 Derby Central 72192 Yes 9 Ilkeston 71526 Yes 10 Derby South 72698 Yes 11 Swadlincote 70673 Yes View AttachmentIf, however, the East Midlands is down to 47 seats, there would be more change, though not as much as if we were starting with a blank canvas: 1 Buxton 74265 Yes 2 Dronfield 73836 Yes 3 Chesterfield 74979 Yes 4 Bolsover 75035 Yes 5 Matlock 75156 Yes 6 Heanor 70501 Yes 7 Derby Belper 74874 Yes 8 Derby Central 72192 Yes 9 Ilkeston 71526 Yes 10 Derby South 72698 Yes 11 Ashby & Swadlincote 74450 Yes  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Jul 27, 2020 7:52:54 GMT
One of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. You could follow islington and cross the Knowsley/Liverpool border in the north, not the south. Here's a predictably hideous non-split plan:  1. St Helens North 76090 2. St Helens South 69591 3. Huyton 70123 4. Kirkby & Fazakerley 75980 5. Liverpool West Derby 76085 6. Liverpool Walton 75730 7. Liverpool Not Wavertree 75128 8. Liverpool Riverside 71689 You could tidy that up with a ward split or two in Liverpool and you might also want to split Prescot North ward in Knowsley so that the Prescot bit goes into St Helens South. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 8:16:06 GMT
One of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. You could follow islington and cross the Knowsley/Liverpool border in the north, not the south. Here's a predictably hideous non-split plan: View Attachment1. St Helens North 76090 2. St Helens South 69591 3. Huyton 70123 4. Kirkby & Fazakerley 75980 5. Liverpool West Derby 76085 6. Liverpool Walton 75730 7. Liverpool Not Wavertree 75128 8. Liverpool Riverside 71689 You could tidy that up with a ward split or two in Liverpool and you might also want to split Prescot North ward in Knowsley so that the Prescot bit goes into St Helens South. You can cross the Liverpool/Knowsley boundary once less hideously. It only works if the North West qualifies for 74 seats, not 73. It does create problems elsewhere: 1 Anfield & Kirkby 74081 Yes 2 St Helens East 69118 Yes 3 West Derby 75906 Yes 4 St Helens West 69136 Yes 5 Huyton 69120 Yes 6 Riverside 71504 Yes 7 Wavertree 75886 Yes 8 Garston 69061 Yes 9 Widnes & Halewood 73040 Yes  |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 9:17:51 GMT
One of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. [/quote] I don't see that your principle is a principle because it cannot work in all cases. Rother has to suffer because Hastings doesn't have enough electors to be within quota. My preference is that settlements smaller than quota should not be split. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 10:33:32 GMT
One of the principles I go by is that LA 2 shouldn't suffer because of LA 1's problems. It is difficult to make seats in Knowsley and Sefton because of their shapes and the way the settlements are distributed. But Liverpool shouldn't be made to suffer as a consequence. If you can keep Huyton together whilst having a single seat that crosses the border, then fine. But I don't think mashups are acceptable. You could follow islington and cross the Knowsley/Liverpool border in the north, not the south. Here's a predictably hideous non-split plan: 1. St Helens North 76090 2. St Helens South 69591 3. Huyton 70123 4. Kirkby & Fazakerley 75980 5. Liverpool West Derby 76085 6. Liverpool Walton 75730 7. Liverpool Not Wavertree 75128 8. Liverpool Riverside 71689 You could tidy that up with a ward split or two in Liverpool and you might also want to split Prescot North ward in Knowsley so that the Prescot bit goes into St Helens South. Congrats to YL on this. I agree that keeping Prescot N in with Kirkby allows a much better solution for Huyton and St Helens S. It's not a disaster to split the two Prescot wards; the town centre is wholly in Prescot N ward and the railway is a clear boundary.
As for Liverpool itself, with Prescot N included as well as Kirkby it's 374612 electors, which is awfully big for five seats. I struggled in vain yesterday to find a legal arrangement. But YL has triumphed where I failed. As for Not-Wavertree, we already have Liverpool Walton so why not Liverpool Woolton?
Seriously, inspired by YL's success, I've been tinkering further and I suggest that it's probably an improvement if you swap Riverside, St Michael's and Mossley Hill into his Not-Wavertree seat, with Childwall, Woolton and Belle Vale going the other way; and everything else staying as per YL.
Liverpool Garston (as it now would be) - 70946 Liverpool Toxteth (?) - 75871
I'll happily leave it to those more familiar with the city to say whether Toxteth can be used for a seat that doesn't include Princes Park. If not, even leaving aside Riverside which is clearly not suitable, there are plenty of other names within the boundaries that have been used before: Edge Hill, Fairfield, Mossley Hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 11:14:41 GMT
Cities like Manchester have to be split. Well, they have to be divided into several constituencies. But there don't have to be cross-border seats. If you treat the external boundary of Manchester as sacrosanct, you end up dividing communities like Didsbury or Chorlton. I would rather have constituencies crossing the MBC boundary than have such neighbourhoods split. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 11:20:07 GMT
This is my Wirral plan, that for unsplit wards is as good as you're going to get with these numbers: Wallasey 69,103 Birkenhead 74,300 West Wirral 71,303 South Wirral 71,243 This splits no settlements other than the big ones of Wallasey & Birkenhead in the Met Borough (which are essentially unavoidable in both cases with any sensible plan) and hives off the Suttons and Overpool/Netherpool from Ellesmere Port, but they have a separate identity anyway being more suburban communities like Eastham, Bromborough and Bebington rather than an industrial town like Ellesmere Port. All four seats are entirely on the Wirral, are coherant (apart from South Wirral which if non-split warding is unavoidable) and if you were up for some ward splitting, the far eastern polling district of Willaston & Thornton would keep everything in quota and tidy things up nicely. Thanks to Khunanup for this. I think I'm going to sing my palinode here and say that this is, after all, the best arrangement for Birkenhead and Wallasey.
However, I'm uneasy about the treatment of Ellesmere Port and I don't see why it isn't entitled to the same consideration as the other major towns on the peninsula. I recall from discussions about the 2018 review that Khunanup is strongly of the view that Clatterbridge ward should be in the same seat as Eastham and Brombororough; I entirely respect that and I'm sure from the point of view of keeping communities together he's quite right. But is a boundary along the railway line really worse than the treatment meted out to Ellesmere Port in order to avoid such a boundary?
If Khananup says it is, then fair enough. But if we put Clatterbridge in the Wirral seat (whatever we call it), then we can form a Bebington & Ellesmere Port seat (as existed 1974-83) that hives only one ward (Ledsham) off the latter town. Ledsham then joins Saughall, Willaston and Lt Neston in the W Cheshire seat, with Neston and Parkgate in the Wirral seat (splitting Neston I know, but at least Lt Neston was historically a separate community and parish).
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 11:34:07 GMT
Well, they have to be divided into several constituencies. But there don't have to be cross-border seats. If you treat the external boundary of Manchester as sacrosanct, you end up dividing communities like Didsbury or Chorlton. Not necessarily. Some way upthread I posted a plan with Chorlton and Chorlton Park both in the Withington seat, the Didsburys both in a seat named after them, and the whole Manchester boundary respected except for one ward swapped out (Brooklands) and one swapped in (Hale Barns), both in the south of the city. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,003
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 27, 2020 11:48:49 GMT
This is my Wirral plan, that for unsplit wards is as good as you're going to get with these numbers: Wallasey 69,103 Birkenhead 74,300 West Wirral 71,303 South Wirral 71,243 This splits no settlements other than the big ones of Wallasey & Birkenhead in the Met Borough (which are essentially unavoidable in both cases with any sensible plan) and hives off the Suttons and Overpool/Netherpool from Ellesmere Port, but they have a separate identity anyway being more suburban communities like Eastham, Bromborough and Bebington rather than an industrial town like Ellesmere Port. All four seats are entirely on the Wirral, are coherant (apart from South Wirral which if non-split warding is unavoidable) and if you were up for some ward splitting, the far eastern polling district of Willaston & Thornton would keep everything in quota and tidy things up nicely. Thanks to Khunanup for this. I think I'm going to sing my palinode here and say that this is, after all, the best arrangement for Birkenhead and Wallasey. However, I'm uneasy about the treatment of Ellesmere Port and I don't see why it isn't entitled to the same consideration as the other major towns on the peninsula. I recall from discussions about the 2018 review that Khunanup is strongly of the view that Clatterbridge ward should be in the same seat as Eastham and Brombororough; I entirely respect that and I'm sure from the point of view of keeping communities together he's quite right. But is a boundary along the railway line really worse than the treatment meted out to Ellesmere Port in order to avoid such a boundary?
If Khananup says it is, then fair enough. But if we put Clatterbridge in the Wirral seat (whatever we call it), then we can form a Bebington & Ellesmere Port seat (as existed 1974-83) that hives only one ward (Ledsham) off the latter town. Ledsham then joins Saughall, Willaston and Lt Neston in the W Cheshire seat, with Neston and Parkgate in the Wirral seat (splitting Neston I know, but at least Lt Neston was historically a separate community and parish).
You have to work from your corners when doing maps like this, you can only go south from the Wirral so that needs sorting first. As with Runcorn, Ellesmere Port is unfortunate that it lies on the edge of such a corner so is effectively collateral damage, though, as I say, the Suttons et al do regard themselves as different from Ellesmere Port despite the fact they're a seamless community. This is very different from Clatterbridge that is a bits & pieces ward made up of integral bits of Eastham, Bromborough & Bebington. The West Cheshire seat going from Neston, around Chester and sprawling for absolute miles is an utter abomination and frankly doesn't need to happen if you recognise what the Wirral communities are and act accordingly. And these are Wirral communities, no matter if they're in the met borough or in the unitary, they belong with each other a much as possible, and where not (as with Ellesmere Port proper) they're 'greater Merseyside' communities (so my plan connects Ellesmere Port to the bits of Runcorn currently in Weaver Vale). |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 27, 2020 12:46:41 GMT
My Greater Manchester plan. Initially I planned to put Chorlton in with Wythenshawe but as there is no road or other transport connection between these two parts of the city of Manchester, Wythenshawe must instead include Didsbury. 25. Heywood & Middleton 73,002 (marginal Conservative seat) I'm reasonably sure Heywood and Middleton would have voted Labour on those boundaries in December. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Jul 27, 2020 14:55:36 GMT
If you treat the external boundary of Manchester as sacrosanct, you end up dividing communities like Didsbury or Chorlton. Not necessarily. Some way upthread I posted a plan with Chorlton and Chorlton Park both in the Withington seat, the Didsburys both in a seat named after them, and the whole Manchester boundary respected except for one ward swapped out (Brooklands) and one swapped in (Hale Barns), both in the south of the city. But Adrian is arguing for no ward swapping across the border at all. This must involve ward-splitting and community-splitting. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 27, 2020 15:41:24 GMT
Not necessarily. Some way upthread I posted a plan with Chorlton and Chorlton Park both in the Withington seat, the Didsburys both in a seat named after them, and the whole Manchester boundary respected except for one ward swapped out (Brooklands) and one swapped in (Hale Barns), both in the south of the city. But Adrian is arguing for no ward swapping across the border at all. This must involve ward-splitting and community-splitting. Well, Adrian can speak for himself but my own view is that one should try to avoid LA boundary-crossings where this is possible having regard to other considerations such as the permitted electoral range, community ties, respect for existing seats and avoiding ward splits.
But it does strike me that if we're willing to indulge in a little extra boundary-crossing in south Manchester, so that it's now two wards in and two out, then the plan below becomes possible. I'm quite taken with it because (compared with my earlier plan) it maintains a Wythenshawe seat and the Stretford & Sale seat is much improved (and Sale 100% united for once).
Note that except in the far south the Manchester border is fully respected.
Worsley - 75198 Salford - 74821 Eccles & Urmston - 73063 Stretford & Sale - 73306 Altrincham - 69569 Manchester Wythenshawe - 72514
Remaining Manchester seats the same as in my previous plan, viz: Withington - 71408 Ardwick - 71275 Central - 69082 Gorton - 70076
(I don't like the configuration of the last two either.)
|
|
