Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 4, 2020 12:50:16 GMT
How about:
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 4, 2020 13:32:49 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'm having trouble with the ibb lark. Here is the link: i.ibb.co/WPdszL0/Screenshot-2020-08-03-Plan-Builder-2020.pngHopefully, if you click on it, you'll get the map? (I should say that I think that apart from the Central Devon issue I think islington nailed Devon.) |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,852
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 4, 2020 14:14:31 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.? As far as I am aware of the opinion of ordinary voters, they are concerned about being on the register and having a vote; and that that vote should be pretty equal in electoral value to any other vote made in the nation. Next concerns are the convenience of the designated polling station for them and the hours of opening. Next we have their concept of a sensible name that is short and pithy and accurate and locally historic. I have never had any voter raise issues of a communitarian nature, wondering about connectivity, concerned about interal routes, the convenience of getting to all other parts of the constituency or being one side or another of railway lines, rivers and motorways. These latter issues have no place at all with 98% of all voters. It is only party ground workers and psephologists who witter on endlessly about these matters which are frankly of zero concern to anyone except them. The talk of pitchforks and anger is always from the usual suspects who tend to be a vanishingly small proportion of any electorate. Most people want to casually identify with their patch and to know the value of their vote is much the same as those of other voters. That is all. Yes, I know that parts of Scotland have animosity between RC and Prot areas, and some contiguous towns may hate each others guts (Worksop and Retford in Bassetlaw) but in general the public just don't have any of the these imputed concerns at all and we are foolish to agonise over them. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 4, 2020 16:45:08 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.
I posted an 8 seat Lincolnshire and Rutland on 16 July and had no difficulty in a north-south Sleaford-Grantham split. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 4, 2020 17:28:51 GMT
Whether East Midlands qualifies for 47 or 48 seats,Lincolnshire and Rutland are good for 8. 1 Gainsborough 73789 2 Louth 71677 3 Lincoln 74773 4 Sleaford 74734 5 Boston 72872 6 Grantham 71429 7 Spalding 73424 8 Rutland & Stamford 69336 So you did. Here it is.
Now I see your plan, I can't think why I struggled with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 4, 2020 21:22:44 GMT
And now for something completely different.  1 South West Hertfordshire 70755 Yes 2 Watford 70304 Yes 3 South Hertfordshire 71281 Yes 4 Hemel Hempstead 69766 Yes 5 North West Hertfordshire 70987 Yes 6 St Albans 70399 Yes 7 Welwyn Hatfield 70847 Yes 8 Hitchin 71708 Yes 9 Stevenage 73529 Yes 10 Cheshunt 74619 Yes 11 Hertford 74412 Yes 12 Stortford and Dunmow 74208 Yes 13 Saffron Walden 73635 Yes 14 Braintree 71813 Yes 15 Colchester 75584 Yes 16 Maldon 74326 Yes 17 Harwich and North Essex 75225 Yes 18 Clacton 70872 Yes 19 Chelmsford North 75326 Yes 20 Chelmsford South and Billericay 72818 Yes 21 Rayleigh 69890 Yes 22 Harlow 72617 Yes 23 Epping Forest 74752 Yes 24 Brentwood and Ongar 70049 Yes 25 Basildon and Wickford 74083 Yes 26 Rochford and Southend North 72081 Yes 27 Southend South 69251 Yes 28 Castle Point 69579 Yes 29 Basildon South and Thurrock East 74426 Yes 30 Thurrock 70874 Yes Although it sorts out a lot of the issues with Essex constituencies under a 62 seat plan for the East of England, pairing Hertfordshire with Essex creates too many problems with constituencies in Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire has too many electors to stand on its own); any remotely viable constituencies in western Cambridgeshire will be too large to accommodate surplus voters from Bedfordshire. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 4, 2020 22:00:15 GMT
I had wondered about putting Linslade in a Buckinghamshire seat but I don't think it removed enough electors from Bedfordshire* and will be precluded anyway by the adherence to the boundaries of the fake regions. * Perhaps if you also put Caddington et al in the West Herts seat but that might create further problems along the line re: 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️'s plan I think it's pretty sound on its own (ie notwithstanding the problems created for Bedfordshire). Hertford to Royston instinctively feels like a bit of a weird pairing, even though the A10 is obviously a thing. The only major change I'd advocate to it is that I'd go for a doughnut arrangement in the Chelmsford/Billericay seats, but that's really only a matter of personal taste |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 4, 2020 22:04:59 GMT
I'd like to add that Neath West's Maldon is particularly good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 4, 2020 22:08:02 GMT
I'd like to add that Neath West's Maldon is particularly good. It's the old Colchester South & Maldon without the urban bits of Colchester. That was a ridiculous seat, but only because of those bits |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
|
Post by Khunanup on Aug 4, 2020 22:12:57 GMT
I agree with Adrian about Lincs and Rutland, viz:
Geographically, an east/west Sleaford/Grantham split makes a lot of sense as Lincoln Edge is a natural boundary. 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.
I posted an 8 seat Lincolnshire and Rutland on 16 July and had no difficulty in a north-south Sleaford-Grantham split. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 5, 2020 7:45:45 GMT
And now for something completely different. 1 South West Hertfordshire 70755 Yes 2 Watford 70304 Yes 3 South Hertfordshire 71281 Yes 4 Hemel Hempstead 69766 Yes 5 North West Hertfordshire 70987 Yes 6 St Albans 70399 Yes 7 Welwyn Hatfield 70847 Yes 8 Hitchin 71708 Yes 9 Stevenage 73529 Yes 10 Cheshunt 74619 Yes 11 Hertford 74412 Yes 12 Stortford and Dunmow 74208 Yes 13 Saffron Walden 73635 Yes 14 Braintree 71813 Yes 15 Colchester 75584 Yes 16 Maldon 74326 Yes 17 Harwich and North Essex 75225 Yes 18 Clacton 70872 Yes 19 Chelmsford North 75326 Yes 20 Chelmsford South and Billericay 72818 Yes 21 Rayleigh 69890 Yes 22 Harlow 72617 Yes 23 Epping Forest 74752 Yes 24 Brentwood and Ongar 70049 Yes 25 Basildon and Wickford 74083 Yes 26 Rochford and Southend North 72081 Yes 27 Southend South 69251 Yes 28 Castle Point 69579 Yes 29 Basildon South and Thurrock East 74426 Yes 30 Thurrock 70874 Yes Although it sorts out a lot of the issues with Essex constituencies under a 62 seat plan for the East of England, pairing Hertfordshire with Essex creates too many problems with constituencies in Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire has too many electors to stand on its own); any remotely viable constituencies in western Cambridgeshire will be too large to accommodate surplus voters from Bedfordshire. Thanks for rescuing my slightly mischievous post from passing unnoticed and for almost spotting the subtext (which I actually posted in more detail further up this thread – this is about using ad-hoc groups of counties (for the purposes of lieutenancy) and metropolitan/London boroughs as regions, rather than the defunct Euro-constituencies). Of course, pairing Bedfordshire east with Cambridgeshire or west with Buckinghamshire is not particularly helpful. Pairing it north with Northamptonshire is, however, interesting:  1 Luton South 72728 Yes 2 Luton North 70452 Yes 3 South West Bedfordshire 69113 Yes 4 Mid Bedfordshire 69472 Yes 5 East Bedfordshire 69017 Yes 6 Bedford 69557 Yes 7 North Bedfordshire and Rushden 72840 Yes 8 Corby 69269 Yes 9 Kettering 72839 Yes 10 Wellingborough 72769 Yes 11 Daventry 71578 Yes 12 South Northamptonshire 72660 Yes 13 Northampton South 69910 Yes 14 Northampton North 69210 Yes re: 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 's plan I think it's pretty sound on its own (ie notwithstanding the problems created for Bedfordshire). Hertford to Royston instinctively feels like a bit of a weird pairing, even though the A10 is obviously a thing. The only major change I'd advocate to it is that I'd go for a doughnut arrangement in the Chelmsford/Billericay seats, but that's really only a matter of personal taste Thanks, Pete. Part of the motivation behind this was a dislike for the ever-tightening dumbbell that is Hertford and Stortford – and with where Bishop's Stortford is in Hertfordshire, alternatives are difficult to come by. So, yes, Hertford-and-keep-going-up-the-A10 is a bit novel! I actually started by drawing Billericay doughnutting Chelmsford, but thought it was just too weird having the villages north of Chelmsford in a constituency called Billericay, and went for the sandwich. I'd like to add that Neath West's Maldon is particularly good. Thanks. That's definitely one of the happier bits, even though I'm not sure I like the resulting Braintree, to be quite honest! The bit I had expected someone to comment on was the way I have Plymouthed Southend. Obviously that's a miniature experiment in its own little box that doesn't affect anything else, but I thought it was an interesting alternative there. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 5, 2020 9:02:50 GMT
And now for something completely different. 1 South West Hertfordshire 70755 Yes 2 Watford 70304 Yes 3 South Hertfordshire 71281 Yes 4 Hemel Hempstead 69766 Yes 5 North West Hertfordshire 70987 Yes 6 St Albans 70399 Yes 7 Welwyn Hatfield 70847 Yes 8 Hitchin 71708 Yes 9 Stevenage 73529 Yes 10 Cheshunt 74619 Yes 11 Hertford 74412 Yes 12 Stortford and Dunmow 74208 Yes 13 Saffron Walden 73635 Yes 14 Braintree 71813 Yes 15 Colchester 75584 Yes 16 Maldon 74326 Yes 17 Harwich and North Essex 75225 Yes 18 Clacton 70872 Yes 19 Chelmsford North 75326 Yes 20 Chelmsford South and Billericay 72818 Yes 21 Rayleigh 69890 Yes 22 Harlow 72617 Yes 23 Epping Forest 74752 Yes 24 Brentwood and Ongar 70049 Yes 25 Basildon and Wickford 74083 Yes 26 Rochford and Southend North 72081 Yes 27 Southend South 69251 Yes 28 Castle Point 69579 Yes 29 Basildon South and Thurrock East 74426 Yes 30 Thurrock 70874 Yes Not a fan of that Colchester seat. Greenstead and St Johns have a much better case to be in the seat than West Bergholt et al. do. Unfortunately, the fact that both seats are at the upper end of the tolerance means that I can't find a suitable swap to fix that. Shifting Great Bentley into the Clacton seat gets you closer, but all the viable options I can see still leave you a few hundred electors over. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 5, 2020 9:23:26 GMT
Although it sorts out a lot of the issues with Essex constituencies under a 62 seat plan for the East of England, pairing Hertfordshire with Essex creates too many problems with constituencies in Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire has too many electors to stand on its own); any remotely viable constituencies in western Cambridgeshire will be too large to accommodate surplus voters from Bedfordshire. Thanks for rescuing my slightly mischievous post from passing unnoticed and for almost spotting the subtext (which I actually posted in more detail further up this thread – this is about using ad-hoc groups of counties (for the purposes of lieutenancy) and metropolitan/London boroughs as regions, rather than the defunct Euro-constituencies). Of course, pairing Bedfordshire east with Cambridgeshire or west with Buckinghamshire is not particularly helpful. Pairing it north with Northamptonshire is, however, interesting: 1 Luton South 72728 Yes 2 Luton North 70452 Yes 3 South West Bedfordshire 69113 Yes 4 Mid Bedfordshire 69472 Yes 5 East Bedfordshire 69017 Yes 6 Bedford 69557 Yes 7 North Bedfordshire and Rushden 72840 Yes 8 Corby 69269 Yes 9 Kettering 72839 Yes 10 Wellingborough 72769 Yes 11 Daventry 71578 Yes 12 South Northamptonshire 72660 Yes 13 Northampton South 69910 Yes 14 Northampton North 69210 Yes re: 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 's plan I think it's pretty sound on its own (ie notwithstanding the problems created for Bedfordshire). Hertford to Royston instinctively feels like a bit of a weird pairing, even though the A10 is obviously a thing. The only major change I'd advocate to it is that I'd go for a doughnut arrangement in the Chelmsford/Billericay seats, but that's really only a matter of personal taste Thanks, Pete. Part of the motivation behind this was a dislike for the ever-tightening dumbbell that is Hertford and Stortford – and with where Bishop's Stortford is in Hertfordshire, alternatives are difficult to come by. So, yes, Hertford-and-keep-going-up-the-A10 is a bit novel! I actually started by drawing Billericay doughnutting Chelmsford, but thought it was just too weird having the villages north of Chelmsford in a constituency called Billericay, and went for the sandwich. I'd like to add that Neath West's Maldon is particularly good. Thanks. That's definitely one of the happier bits, even though I'm not sure I like the resulting Braintree, to be quite honest! The bit I had expected someone to comment on was the way I have Plymouthed Southend. Obviously that's a miniature experiment in its own little box that doesn't affect anything else, but I thought it was an interesting alternative there. I don't think the Commission will entertain crossing regional boundaries. It would open up too many variables for them. 30 seats in Essex & Herts is perfectly viable in a 62 seat Eastern Region. You then need a 24 seat Beds/Cambs/Norfolk and an 8 seat Suffolk. A 61 seat scenario works best with a 36 seat Beds/Essex/Herts, a 17 seat Norfolk/Suffolk and an 8 seat Cambridgeshire. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 5, 2020 10:25:31 GMT
Although it sorts out a lot of the issues with Essex constituencies under a 62 seat plan for the East of England, pairing Hertfordshire with Essex creates too many problems with constituencies in Bedfordshire (Bedfordshire has too many electors to stand on its own); any remotely viable constituencies in western Cambridgeshire will be too large to accommodate surplus voters from Bedfordshire. Thanks for rescuing my slightly mischievous post from passing unnoticed and for almost spotting the subtext (which I actually posted in more detail further up this thread – this is about using ad-hoc groups of counties (for the purposes of lieutenancy) and metropolitan/London boroughs as regions, rather than the defunct Euro-constituencies). Of course, pairing Bedfordshire east with Cambridgeshire or west with Buckinghamshire is not particularly helpful. Pairing it north with Northamptonshire is, however, interesting: 1 Luton South 72728 Yes 2 Luton North 70452 Yes 3 South West Bedfordshire 69113 Yes 4 Mid Bedfordshire 69472 Yes 5 East Bedfordshire 69017 Yes 6 Bedford 69557 Yes 7 North Bedfordshire and Rushden 72840 Yes 8 Corby 69269 Yes 9 Kettering 72839 Yes 10 Wellingborough 72769 Yes 11 Daventry 71578 Yes 12 South Northamptonshire 72660 Yes 13 Northampton South 69910 Yes 14 Northampton North 69210 Yes re: 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 's plan I think it's pretty sound on its own (ie notwithstanding the problems created for Bedfordshire). Hertford to Royston instinctively feels like a bit of a weird pairing, even though the A10 is obviously a thing. The only major change I'd advocate to it is that I'd go for a doughnut arrangement in the Chelmsford/Billericay seats, but that's really only a matter of personal taste Thanks, Pete. Part of the motivation behind this was a dislike for the ever-tightening dumbbell that is Hertford and Stortford – and with where Bishop's Stortford is in Hertfordshire, alternatives are difficult to come by. So, yes, Hertford-and-keep-going-up-the-A10 is a bit novel! I actually started by drawing Billericay doughnutting Chelmsford, but thought it was just too weird having the villages north of Chelmsford in a constituency called Billericay, and went for the sandwich. I'd like to add that Neath West's Maldon is particularly good. Thanks. That's definitely one of the happier bits, even though I'm not sure I like the resulting Braintree, to be quite honest! The bit I had expected someone to comment on was the way I have Plymouthed Southend. Obviously that's a miniature experiment in its own little box that doesn't affect anything else, but I thought it was an interesting alternative there. One of the joys of this forum is the unpredictability of what other members will pick up on. I thought when I posted a Sussex plan a couple of pages ago that I'd be roasted alive for my treatment of Brighton, but it passed without a murmur.
Re your Southend: It's novel. I can see some merit in it, so far as Southend itself is concerned, but it's part of a plan that has other problems in this part of Essex, for instance splitting Rochford in half and putting SWF in with Rayleigh when there's no bridge across the Crouch. Reuniting Rochford, in particular, might well have knock-on implications for Southend.
Edited to add: Oh, and in response to emidsanorak's comment, I agree about not crossing regional boundaries but my suggested division for 62 seats would be -
Herts/Beds = 1291897 = 17.79 = 18 Cambs = 590024 = 8.12 = 8 Norfolk/Suffolk = 1244794 = 17.14 = 17 Essex = 1341119 = 18.47 = 19
With 18.47 the last of these should be really tricky but actually it seems to divide into 19 reasonably well. If the region ends up with 61 then presumably Essex would drop to 18; I have a plan for this but it's actually less satisfactory overall, despite being numerically closer, than the 19-seat version. On the plus side, having bigger seats does allow the very nice Maldon you suggested.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 5, 2020 10:51:24 GMT
🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ I like your Southend plan. The question that arises in these situations is whether minor boundary adjustments should take place to reduce disruption, or whether radical change should take place simply in order to avoid splitting a ward. It'll be interesting to see what the Commission does in the cities where they have this option - the mood seems to have shifted slightly. I'm not keen at all on pairing Essex. The big counties don't usually need to be paired, unless they are entitled to exactly x-and-a-half seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 5, 2020 12:46:32 GMT
In response to YL's scheme, here's Kent -
Dartford - 76166 Gravesend (unchanged, apart from the name) - 72423 Sevenoaks - 75864 Rochester - 73321
Chatham & Aylesford - 71944 (and let me acknowledge that I stole this from YL, so many thanks to him) Gillingham (unchanged but name shortened) - 71644 Tonbridge - 70752 (not '& Malling' because E Malling is no longer included) Tunbridge Wells - 75075 Maidstone - 75968 S Kent - 75850 Sittingbourne & Sheppey - 75171
Faversham - 72629 Ashford - 72420 Canterbury - 70360 W Thanet & Herne Bay - 69052 E Thanet - 71470 Dover - 73986
Folkestone & Hythe - 70345
The main differences with YL's plan are in the eastern half. As with his plan, there's a new seat in the south of the county; but instead of extending it to the coast I've kept my version inland and taken the southern part of Maidstone district. This has allowed Faversham to be much more of a north Kent seat, taking in Whitstable; in turn allowing a better division of Thanet than the current arrangement (which YL has preserved). Ashford now stays within the eponymous district; and although Canterbury now awkwardly takes two wards apiece from Shepway and Dover, there are no orphans anywhere in the county.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,852
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 5, 2020 13:17:20 GMT
In response to YL's scheme, here's Kent -
Dartford - 76166 Gravesend (unchanged, apart from the name) - 72423 Sevenoaks - 75864 Rochester - 73321
Chatham & Aylesford - 71944 (and let me acknowledge that I stole this from YL, so many thanks to him) Gillingham (unchanged but name shortened) - 71644 Tonbridge - 70752 (not '& Malling' because E Malling is no longer included) Tunbridge Wells - 75075 Maidstone - 75968 S Kent - 75850 Sittingbourne & Sheppey - 75171
Faversham - 72629 Ashford - 72420 Canterbury - 70360 W Thanet & Herne Bay - 69052 E Thanet - 71470 Dover - 73986
Folkestone & Hythe - 70345
The main differences with YL's plan are in the eastern half. As with his plan, there's a new seat in the south of the county; but instead of extending it to the coast I've kept my version inland and taken the southern part of Maidstone district. This has allowed Faversham to be much more of a north Kent seat, taking in Whitstable; in turn allowing a better division of Thanet than the current arrangement (which YL has preserved). Ashford now stays within the eponymous district; and although Canterbury now awkwardly takes two wards apiece from Shepway and Dover, there are no orphans anywhere in the county.
I can live with that and see some benefits. The South Kent would be a lovely seat to have and is a good name. Faversham is improved if still a bit awkward. The rest of East Kent sits well. Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge are improved. The bad one is still the ugly Chatham that is a poor fit but will do. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2020 13:37:56 GMT
In response to YL's scheme, here's Kent -
Dartford - 76166 Gravesend (unchanged, apart from the name) - 72423 Sevenoaks - 75864 Rochester - 73321
Chatham & Aylesford - 71944 (and let me acknowledge that I stole this from YL, so many thanks to him) Gillingham (unchanged but name shortened) - 71644 Tonbridge - 70752 (not '& Malling' because E Malling is no longer included) Tunbridge Wells - 75075 Maidstone - 75968 S Kent - 75850 Sittingbourne & Sheppey - 75171
Faversham - 72629 Ashford - 72420 Canterbury - 70360 W Thanet & Herne Bay - 69052 E Thanet - 71470 Dover - 73986
Folkestone & Hythe - 70345
The main differences with YL's plan are in the eastern half. As with his plan, there's a new seat in the south of the county; but instead of extending it to the coast I've kept my version inland and taken the southern part of Maidstone district. This has allowed Faversham to be much more of a north Kent seat, taking in Whitstable; in turn allowing a better division of Thanet than the current arrangement (which YL has preserved). Ashford now stays within the eponymous district; and although Canterbury now awkwardly takes two wards apiece from Shepway and Dover, there are no orphans anywhere in the county.
I like it! It's very similar to what I had been working on myself.Things I particularly like: 1)The Thanet constituencies, I too had come up with the same East Thanet and West Thanet &Herne Bay constituencies 2)The Ashford constituency confined within the borough boundaries (of course)Its also sensible that Ashford (and F&W ) are among the smaller constituencies as they are among those most likely to grow further in the near future, though I'm a bit worried that the same might be true of Dartford, which only sneaks under the line now. The one thing I don't like is the naming of the new bits and pieces constituency as South Kent. That would be very confusing as for many existing purposes South Kent means Ashford+Folkestone+ Dover ( I used to be a lecturer at South Kent College, with campuses in each of those 3 towns). I would not be surprised to see before long South Kent in that sense emerging as the new unitary authority. I think the boundaries are about right for that new constituency but the obvious regional name for that area is Kent Weald, or if one insists on naming constituencies after towns, I am a bit more reconciled to calling it Tenterden with those boundaries. I'm glad to say I would still be living in Ashford constituency on that basis, but the ward I used to represent, now called Weald North, would be in your South Kent/my Kent Weald or Tenterden. One of the features of the Kent Weald is that it has a number of fiercely independent small market towns/large villages, of which Tenterden is just about the biggest but certainly dominant over the whole area. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 5, 2020 14:37:48 GMT
 Here's my attempt at Devon. Paired with Dorset for 21 seats, as Wiltshire can stand alone. I haven't bothered showing the Dorset seats, as they're not that interesting. Plymouth is rearranged per islington's suggestion, and the four other South Devon seats plus North Devon are unchanged. I think this pairing of most of West Devon and the remainder of Teignbridge is probably the best balance of accessibility and respect for district boundaries that you can get, as pretty much all the Devon portions of the A30 are in the seat. Crediton sits more awkwardly in the Torridge seat, but there were always going to be trade-offs. The other big bit of ugliness is Pinhoe as an orphan ward in the Tiverton seat. This was a consequence of numbers, as my alternative plan of swapping Sidmouth for Ottery and Pinhoe then having Tiverton grab Dunkeswell & Otterhead ward leaves the Tiverton seat 33 electors short. However, I would argue that whilst bad it's somewhat defensible, since Pinhoe's primary links are westwards towards the centre anyway, not southward towards Exmouth. I did look at the Exeter West & option, but it doesn't appeal - aside from anything, St. David's ward extends both sides of the Exe, so it's not even that clear a boundary on the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 5, 2020 15:51:55 GMT
Fairly pleased with this arrangement for Avon and Gloucestershire, with two seats crossing the Bristol/S Gloucestershire boundary:   Weston-super-Mare - 70701 North Somerset - 70296 Midsomer Norton - 70810 Bath - 71681 Bristol South East - 74597 Bristol South - 72213 Kingswood - 72517 Bristol North East - 76177 Bristol West - 74611 Bristol North West - 75983 Bradley Stoke & Yate - 72595 Thornbury & Dursley - 70748 Stroud & Quedgeley - 69809 Cotswolds - 69945 Cheltenham - 69108 Tewkesbury - 73386 Gloucester - 72511 Forest of Dean - 71879 I'm not wild about dividing Patchway and Bradley Stoke between constituencies, but I'm quite pleased with how naturally doing that allows the Bristol seats to fall. |
|
