|
|
Post by islington on Aug 3, 2020 14:33:38 GMT
And Dorset -
 N Dorset - 69474 E Dorset - 71977 S Dorset - 70341 Weymouth & Dorchester - 71523
I'm not 100% sold on this last seat, to be honest, but I don't think anyone else has suggested it so I thought I'd try it for size. It certainly helps with a logical division of the rest of the county, although obviously it's not great that Chickerell is separated from Weymouth.
The new Bournemouth &c UA is as I posted a long way upthread somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 3, 2020 14:46:21 GMT
I would try, compared with islington 's plan Tiverton: as is less Taw Vale. 69566 NW Devon: all of Torridge district, plus the two Okehampton wards, South Tawton, Exbourne and Hatherleigh, Taw and Taw Vale from Mid Devon. 69548 Tavistock & Dartmoor (or whatever you want to call it, but it's not really "Central"): rest of Mid Devon and West Devon, plus the Teignbridge component of his C Devon. 71191 Or you could keep NW Devon out of Mid Devon district by adding Bridestow and putting Taw and Taw Vale in the other seat. Other permutations are available. Which is what I did in my plan, albeit I called it Torrington (it is very similar to the pre-1974 Torrington constituency) instead of North West Devon. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 3, 2020 15:24:00 GMT
I would try, compared with islington 's plan Tiverton: as is less Taw Vale. 69566 NW Devon: all of Torridge district, plus the two Okehampton wards, South Tawton, Exbourne and Hatherleigh, Taw and Taw Vale from Mid Devon. 69548 Tavistock & Dartmoor (or whatever you want to call it, but it's not really "Central"): rest of Mid Devon and West Devon, plus the Teignbridge component of his C Devon. 71191 Or you could keep NW Devon out of Mid Devon district by adding Bridestow and putting Taw and Taw Vale in the other seat. Other permutations are available. Which is what I did in my plan, albeit I called it Torrington (it is very similar to the pre-1974 Torrington constituency) instead of North West Devon. Hmm ...
The NW Devon seat is cromulent; but I'm uncomfortable with the southern seat, with Dartmoor sitting right in the middle separating Tavistock in the west from the main part of the seat around Crediton, Ashburton, &c.
I think my proposals better follow the lie of the land and the natural lines of communication.
(H-t to Adrian for 'cromulent')
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 3, 2020 22:32:18 GMT
Surrey (12 seats)
Lots of permutations!
This one is:
Spelthorne 71197
Runnymede 69576
Esher & Walton 71014
Woking 69879
Surrey Heath 71026
Guildford 71396
Farnham 69887
Epsom 69703
Leatherhead 70317
South Surrey 69999
Reigate 69516* (includes Hooley and Netherne)
East Surrey 69102*
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Aug 3, 2020 22:36:17 GMT
Surrey (12 seats) Lots of permutations! This one is: Spelthorne 71197 Runnymede 69576 Esher & Walton 71014 Woking 69879 Surrey Heath 71026 Guildford 71396 Farnham 69887 Epsom 69703 Leatherhead 70317 South Surrey 69999 Reigate 69516* (includes Hooley and Netherne) East Surrey 69102* Are there any options that destroy that South Surrey seat, because that's not great,to put it lightly! |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 3, 2020 22:57:18 GMT
Now I like the north-west of the county. Those five seats are good. And there's something to be that Farnham arrangement.
But I do have to warn you they make some sharp pitchforks in Surrey.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 3, 2020 23:08:12 GMT
Are there any options that destroy that South Surrey seat, because that's not great,to put it lightly! Godalming and Dorking aren't really that far apart - it looks a bit worse than it is because I've kept the Tillingbourne ward in the Guildford seat. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 3, 2020 23:09:34 GMT
But I do have to warn you they make some sharp pitchforks in Surrey. And it has lots of garden centres. There's a particularly good one on the edge of Ewell that might want to highlight the proposed name change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 23:09:55 GMT
Surrey (12 seats) Lots of permutations! This one is: Spelthorne 71197 Runnymede 69576 Esher & Walton 71014 Woking 69879 Surrey Heath 71026 Guildford 71396 Farnham 69887 Epsom 69703 Leatherhead 70317 South Surrey 69999 Reigate 69516* (includes Hooley and Netherne) East Surrey 69102* Are there any options that destroy that South Surrey seat, because that's not great,to put it lightly! That one's fine, it's the Leatherhead seat that's the bigger problem |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Aug 3, 2020 23:11:06 GMT
Are there any options that destroy that South Surrey seat, because that's not great,to put it lightly! Godalming and Dorking aren't really that far apart - it looks a bit worse than it is because I've kept the Tillingbourne ward in the Guildford seat. I know, but Cranleigh won't be happy in a seat with Dorking. Is it possible to put Godalming/Milford/Cranleigh in a Guildford seat without messing too much up? |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Aug 3, 2020 23:20:46 GMT
Are there any options that destroy that South Surrey seat, because that's not great,to put it lightly! That one's fine, it's the Leatherhead seat that's the bigger problem Not really,it looks worse than it actually is. Leatherhead is the local centre for a lot of the communities in that seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 4, 2020 4:44:00 GMT
I've had a few stabs at Surrey and as Adrian says there are various permutations but I don't think there are any that don't involve there being a geographically large constituency in the South of the kind that is envisaged here (and it's only large by Surrey standards - it's less sprawling than some of the neighbouring seats in Sussex for example). The need to draw compact seats around Reigate, Guildford etc make it inevitable. Likewise some kind of Leatherhead/Banstead link up if you want to avoid splitting Epsom
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 4, 2020 7:52:22 GMT
Since the subject has come up, here's my take on Devon.
N Devon (unchanged) - 74112 W Devon - 69763
Plymouth Devonport - 71128 (reverting to the traditional split of Plymouth) Plymouth Sutton - 75748 SW Devon - 71906 (changed only to align with new wards) Totnes - 69567 (ditto) Newton Abbot - 70608 (ditto)
Torquay - 75910 (ditto, and name changed because Torbay is a body of water and doesn't need a seat in Parliament) C Devon - 69590 (still sprawled across four districts)
Exeter - 72019 (either you split it along the Exe or you continue to hive wards off the eastern and southern rim; I attach myself to the latter school of thought) Exmouth - 69645 (the successor to E Devon; including Ottery rather than Sidmouth helps with the following two seats) Tiverton - 70952 Honiton & Bridport - 69516 (the cross-border seat with Dorset)
Here's my take on dealing with the Central Devon problem: 1 Torrington 73551 Yes 2 P Devonport 71128 Yes 3 P Sutton 75748 Yes 4 Plympton 71906 Yes 5 Barnstaple 74112 Yes 6 Tavistock 75270 Yes 7 Totnes 69567 Yes 8 Newton Abbot 70608 Yes 9 Torquay 75910 Yes 10 Exeter 71792 Yes 11 Tiverton 70917 Yes 12 Exmouth 70133 Yes 13 Honiton & Sherborne 70961 Yes  |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,904
|
Post by YL on Aug 4, 2020 9:40:47 GMT
Here's my take on dealing with the Central Devon problem: 1 Torrington 73551 Yes 2 P Devonport 71128 Yes 3 P Sutton 75748 Yes 4 Plympton 71906 Yes 5 Barnstaple 74112 Yes 6 Tavistock 75270 Yes 7 Totnes 69567 Yes 8 Newton Abbot 70608 Yes 9 Torquay 75910 Yes 10 Exeter 71792 Yes 11 Tiverton 70917 Yes 12 Exmouth 70133 Yes 13 Honiton & Sherborne 70961 Yes I'm getting a 404 on the link to your larger map. As far as Exeter itself is concerned, I like the split along the Exe. OTOH, I feel that three wards of Exeter go better in a relatively urban and compact Exmouth seat than they do with a swathe of rural Devon, possibly stretching as far as Tavistock, so I'm minded to stick with the south-eastern bite out of the city. I understand (and to some extent share) islington's concerns about stretching a seat across Dartmoor to Tavistock. But on balance I think that approach (and having a nice NW Devon seat which keeps Torridge district whole) is better than keeping Tavistock with Bideford (not a strong connection either, in spite of the current pattern of seats) while removing Great Torrington from the Torridge seat and placing it with places far to the south-east. And of course I will feel free to ignore any future criticism he may make of seats containing parts of four districts  (I should say that I think that apart from the Central Devon issue I think islington nailed Devon.) |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Aug 4, 2020 10:30:51 GMT
Here's my take on dealing with the Central Devon problem: 1 Torrington 73551 Yes 2 P Devonport 71128 Yes 3 P Sutton 75748 Yes 4 Plympton 71906 Yes 5 Barnstaple 74112 Yes 6 Tavistock 75270 Yes 7 Totnes 69567 Yes 8 Newton Abbot 70608 Yes 9 Torquay 75910 Yes 10 Exeter 71792 Yes 11 Tiverton 70917 Yes 12 Exmouth 70133 Yes 13 Honiton & Sherborne 70961 Yes I'm getting a 404 on the link to your larger map. As far as Exeter itself is concerned, I like the split along the Exe. OTOH, I feel that three wards of Exeter go better in a relatively urban and compact Exmouth seat than they do with a swathe of rural Devon, possibly stretching as far as Tavistock, so I'm minded to stick with the south-eastern bite out of the city. I understand (and to some extent share) islington 's concerns about stretching a seat across Dartmoor to Tavistock. But on balance I think that approach (and having a nice NW Devon seat which keeps Torridge district whole) is better than keeping Tavistock with Bideford (not a strong connection either, in spite of the current pattern of seats) while removing Great Torrington from the Torridge seat and placing it with places far to the south-east. And of course I will feel free to ignore any future criticism he may make of seats containing parts of four districts (I should say that I think that apart from the Central Devon issue I think islington nailed Devon.) I think it’s better to lop off the East of Exeter rather than the West. The east can be in a more compact seat, the east contains lots of industrial estates and office parks where people from East Devon work and Topsham is East Devon rather than Exeter Anyway really. I prefer the Tavistock and Dartmoor arrangement than the Tavistock and Bideford arrangement. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 4, 2020 10:50:57 GMT
Notts and Lincs (16 seats)
(Doing this I was struck by the somewhat surprising fact that Lincs is over 3x larger than Notts.)
(I also had a go with proper (old-style) Lincs but I wasn't happy with the outcome, though I'm not happy with Humberside either!)
Main changes are the Newark-Grantham, Carlton-Bingham and Hucknall-Arnold seats.
The Lincs-Rutland option is certainly also worth considering.
|
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Aug 4, 2020 10:59:28 GMT
Looking at that Surrey map I would like to pose a few general questions. If you have a county with say 10 seats with a range of different size settlements Then it is highly likely that it is hard to come up with ideal arrangements everywhere and you quite often get 1-2 areas in the middle of the county that get the short straw e.g.in the current map of Surrey, Guildford Borough gets the short straw being split 4 ways. Based on the plans it looks like Guildford does better but Mole Valley now gets the short straw. My questions are:
1) Is it better to have say 8 great seats and 2 leftovers seats or to have 10 average seats all with a few issues.
2) If somewhere gets the short straw, how do we decide where? Is it fair that it always tends to be places in the middle of counties.?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 4, 2020 11:11:21 GMT
I agree with Adrian about Lincs and Rutland, viz:
 Lincs + Rutland = 8.01 entitlement: four for Lindsey + Holland and four for Lincoln/Kesteven/Rutland.
W Lindsey - 73789 E Lindsey - 73543 Boston & Skegness - 71006 Holland - 73424 Lincoln (unchanged) - 74773 W Kesteven - 72628 E Kesteven - 71542 S Kesteven & Rutland - 71329 (or Rutland & Stamford if you prefer)
The east-west split of Kesteven is a novelty, but I found that the more usual north-south split made it difficult to keep Grantham and Sleaford in separate seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Aug 4, 2020 11:16:20 GMT
Looking at that Surrey map I would like to pose a few general questions. If you have a county with say 10 seats with a range of different size settlements Then it is highly likely that it is hard to come up with ideal arrangements everywhere and you quite often get 1-2 areas in the middle of the county that get the short straw e.g.in the current map of Surrey, Guildford Borough gets the short straw being split 4 ways. Based on the plans it looks like Guildford does better but Mole Valley now gets the short straw. My questions are: 1) Is it better to have say 8 great seats and 2 leftovers seats or to have 10 average seats all with a few issues.2) If somewhere gets the short straw, how do we decide where? Is it fair that it always tends to be places in the middle of counties.? That’s usually the 64000 dollar question for those who play this game. I have a feeling that, if forced, the Boundary commission often go for the former. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 4, 2020 11:32:25 GMT
I don't think it's possible to generalize.
For me, it would depend on how bad the leftovers are. Sometimes the 'bits left over' contain areas that maybe are not a natural unit but that are not too far from each other, have decent comms, and present a reasonably compact appearance on the map. Or, on the other hand, they might be completely chalk and cheese in character, strewn across miles of countryside and connected only by country lanes.
The current map is also a consideration. For instance, in the recent discussion about Devon, I agree with YL and emidsanorak that the connection's not great between Bideford and Tavistock in my W Devon seat (although I maintain that the roads are a lot better than across Dartmoor, especially in winter); but I'd point out that the two towns already share a seat so that, at worst, I'm perpetuating an existing unsatisfactory arrangement and to my mind this is a more venial offence than creating a new one.
Incidentally, did we not, back in the sands of time, have a dedicated thread for discussing the general principles of boundary-drawing, as opposed to the (de)merits of any particular seat? Should we dredge it out?
|
|
