|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Aug 7, 2020 6:45:43 GMT
You mean you can’t access the new features? Look up how to clear the cache on your browser, it worked for me I get the polygon thing for splitting wards which I was just being inept in trying to operate but I was expecting to be able to split by polling district. I may have misunderstood and that is only if you load the London polling district map at the outset, but I got the impression this was going to be possible for individual wards with the new release. I don't think it's a browser issue You can only split by polling district in certain areas - London, most of the metropolitan boroughs, and the former Humberside area. If you tried to do it outside of this area (for example, in Wiltshire), it wouldn't work. The way to do it is to click on a ward (making it active), and then if it can be split by PD you should see scissors next to the name. Click on this and the ward will be broken down into polling districts. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 7, 2020 7:20:08 GMT
It only works for boroughs where (I think) more than 50% of wards are more than 150% of the electorate range. So there are some mets and London boroughs with smaller wards which don't allow a split. It also doesn't work for mets or London boroughs rewarded since 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 7, 2020 8:09:58 GMT
The East Yorkshire wards are large, but if you assign 6 seats to East Yorkshire and Hull and chuck the Isle of Axholme in with Doncaster instead then you can still get perfectly satisfactory seats out of them without ward splitting. Isle of Axholme should be in Yorkshire anyway, why on earth does the border stray randomly away from the Trent like that. Until about 1850 there was no way to cross to Lincolnshire without getting wet. Nonsense. The Isle of Axholme has been a part of the West Riding of the Kingdom of Lindsey for well over a thousand years. www.heritagelincolnshire.org/topic/land-divisions/attachment/layers-of-history-medieval-settlements-hundreds-wapentakes-lincolnshire |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 7, 2020 8:20:41 GMT
Here are some thoughts about Sheffield and Rotherham, and a couple of maps. I agree with others, that though a Sheffield-Barnsley crossing might work well, the numbers in the region as a whole point to a Sheffield-Rotherham crossing instead. (As I've said before, I think it's quite likely this will change for the actual numbers, but let's see where we are with the numbers we've got now.) On these numbers (again this may change) Sheffield is worth about five seats plus two wards. There are two plausible looking pairs of wards where the Sheffield-Rotherham border could be crossed: the two Ecclesfield wards in the north and Mosborough and Beighton in the south. I think the first is likely to go down better, as the second got proposed by the Commission in the second zombie review and got slated locally; IMO the Commission didn't help themselves by calling the seat "Rother Valley" (thought of as a Rotherham name) but it wasn't just about the name. Furthermore, the Ecclesfield wards are already not in one of the main Sheffield seats, so I'll start with the Ecclesfield option. This requires bringing Stocksbridge & Upper Don ward into one of the main Sheffield seats, and it basically has to join with Stannington. That might suggest adding it to Hallam, but then Hallam would need to lose territory further south, and the problem is that the correct answer to the question "which ward should I remove from Hallam" is "Stannington". So I am inclined to build a new Sheffield Hillsborough seat around S & UD, Stannington and Hillsborough. Then two more wards are needed, one of which should probably be Walkley, and there are a number of choices for the other, none of which are ideal. I went for Southey, where at least the Wadsley Bridge side of the ward has links to Hillsborough. It's possible to then carve the rest of the city up into four seats with one split ward. Here's one solution, with the Gleadless area of Park & Arbourthorne being split off from the rest of the ward:  1. Rotherham North & Ecclesfield 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Heeley & Central 5. Sheffield Brightside & Park 6. Sheffield Birley 7. Rotherham East (?) 8. Rother Valley The mass ward splitting in Rotherham isn't an attempt to wind up islington ; rather it's an attempt to approximate the new ward boundaries there. I've tried to unite the Wickersley area in Rother Valley. If we go for the Mosborough option, then I think it makes sense to keep the three wards currently in Penistone & Stocksbridge together in a seat similar to the 1983-2010 Sheffield Hillsborough. Hallam then needs an extra ward: in the map below I've chosen Walkley, which looks a bit weird, but (a) it fits OK with Crookes (b) even if it's not a great fit, it's a better fit than Stannington. (NB adding the whole of Broomhill & Sharrow Vale would make Hallam too big.) As in the map above, I found that the numbers worked best with a cross-Sheaf seat, but at least this version keeps Beauchief & Greenhill and Graves Park together, and I don't think Nether Edge and Meersbrook are that bad a fit for each other. The split ward is City. Overall I think this works a little better than above, but it has that more controversial border crossing.  1. Kiveton Park & Mosborough 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Park 5. Sheffield Heeley & Broomhill 6. Sheffield Brightside 7. Rotherham Wickersley 8. Rotherham Wentworth Thoughts? Better options? ilerda J.G.Harston David Ashforth |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Aug 7, 2020 8:26:39 GMT
Indeed they are older than the 'historic' county boundaries, and in some places still form the boundaries of modern bishoprics. |
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Aug 7, 2020 9:21:20 GMT
You mean you can’t access the new features? Look up how to clear the cache on your browser, it worked for me I get the polygon thing for splitting wards which I was just being inept in trying to operate but I was expecting to be able to split by polling district. I may have misunderstood and that is only if you load the London polling district map at the outset, but I got the impression this was going to be possible for individual wards with the new release. I don't think it's a browser issue It could be a cache issue for London, but not other regions. Can you follow the Calderdale example that I posted on the Boundary Assistant thread? I have temporarily switched off caching of the London polling district data. If you create a London plan based on 2019 electorates you should be able to split individual wards by polling district for all boroughs except Bexley, Croydon, Redbridge and Southwark. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 7, 2020 9:44:32 GMT
I get the polygon thing for splitting wards which I was just being inept in trying to operate but I was expecting to be able to split by polling district. I may have misunderstood and that is only if you load the London polling district map at the outset, but I got the impression this was going to be possible for individual wards with the new release. I don't think it's a browser issue It could be a cache issue for London, but not other regions. Can you follow the Calderdale example that I posted on the Boundary Assistant thread? I have temporarily switched off caching of the London polling district data. If you create a London plan based on 2019 electorates you should be able to split individual wards by polling district for all boroughs except Bexley, Croydon, Redbridge and Southwark. Yeah all good now thanks. I was looking in the wrong place for the polling district split - basic failure to follow instructions |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 7, 2020 10:54:34 GMT
Here are some thoughts about Sheffield and Rotherham, and a couple of maps. I agree with others, that though a Sheffield-Barnsley crossing might work well, the numbers in the region as a whole point to a Sheffield-Rotherham crossing instead. (As I've said before, I think it's quite likely this will change for the actual numbers, but let's see where we are with the numbers we've got now.) On these numbers (again this may change) Sheffield is worth about five seats plus two wards. There are two plausible looking pairs of wards where the Sheffield-Rotherham border could be crossed: the two Ecclesfield wards in the north and Mosborough and Beighton in the south. I think the first is likely to go down better, as the second got proposed by the Commission in the second zombie review and got slated locally; IMO the Commission didn't help themselves by calling the seat "Rother Valley" (thought of as a Rotherham name) but it wasn't just about the name. Furthermore, the Ecclesfield wards are already not in one of the main Sheffield seats, so I'll start with the Ecclesfield option. This requires bringing Stocksbridge & Upper Don ward into one of the main Sheffield seats, and it basically has to join with Stannington. That might suggest adding it to Hallam, but then Hallam would need to lose territory further south, and the problem is that the correct answer to the question "which ward should I remove from Hallam" is "Stannington". So I am inclined to build a new Sheffield Hillsborough seat around S & UD, Stannington and Hillsborough. Then two more wards are needed, one of which should probably be Walkley, and there are a number of choices for the other, none of which are ideal. I went for Southey, where at least the Wadsley Bridge side of the ward has links to Hillsborough. It's possible to then carve the rest of the city up into four seats with one split ward. Here's one solution, with the Gleadless area of Park & Arbourthorne being split off from the rest of the ward: 1. Rotherham North & Ecclesfield 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Heeley & Central 5. Sheffield Brightside & Park 6. Sheffield Birley 7. Rotherham East (?) 8. Rother Valley The mass ward splitting in Rotherham isn't an attempt to wind up islington ; rather it's an attempt to approximate the new ward boundaries there. I've tried to unite the Wickersley area in Rother Valley. If we go for the Mosborough option, then I think it makes sense to keep the three wards currently in Penistone & Stocksbridge together in a seat similar to the 1983-2010 Sheffield Hillsborough. Hallam then needs an extra ward: in the map below I've chosen Walkley, which looks a bit weird, but (a) it fits OK with Crookes (b) even if it's not a great fit, it's a better fit than Stannington. (NB adding the whole of Broomhill & Sharrow Vale would make Hallam too big.) As in the map above, I found that the numbers worked best with a cross-Sheaf seat, but at least this version keeps Beauchief & Greenhill and Graves Park together, and I don't think Nether Edge and Meersbrook are that bad a fit for each other. The split ward is City. Overall I think this works a little better than above, but it has that more controversial border crossing. 1. Kiveton Park & Mosborough 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Park 5. Sheffield Heeley & Broomhill 6. Sheffield Brightside 7. Rotherham Wickersley 8. Rotherham Wentworth Thoughts? Better options? ilerda J.G.Harston David Ashforth This is very interesting, I hadn't considered a lot of these options before. Personally I favour maintaining a Sheffield/Barnsley seat because I think it produces a nicer map overall. This is the perennial BCE problem of how many 'rules' are breakable in order to achieve a nice overall picture. I fear the current legislation and their interpretation of it lends itself to sticking to the rules and damning the consequences. I certainly understand your argument about moving the Sheffield-Rotherham cross border seat up to Ecclesfield. The problem with this is I really can't see either side of the border being happy with Ecclesfield parish being in the same seat as parts of central Rotherham. This sort of returns to a point I've made before about the fringe communities in SY having more in common with other fringe communities in different boroughs than they do with their own main town. Keeping Wickersley together (a very noble aim and something I'd like to do in an ideal world by including Sitwell in a central Rotherham seat) has the unfortunate consequence on the new boundaries of meaning that also includes Thurcroft and leaves the Rother Valley-esque seat with a very awkward shape, essentially cutting Maltby off from the bulk of your Rotherham Wickersley seat in plan 2. I think including Walkley with Dore and Batemoor with Broomhill might be pushing the bounds of community cohesion a bit far, but the BCE has accepted odder things in the past. My preference would be for two seats to cross the Sheffield border, maintaining Penistone and Stocksbridge as an established seat that is within tolerance (and avoiding a Holmfirth and Penistone situation), and one that takes in the new Brinsworth ward from Rotheram (Catcliffe now being in Rother Vale with Treeton).  This only requires one ward to be split in Sheffield, and I would take a couple of polling districts from Manor Castle Ward (around Manor itself) and add them into a general Sheffield SE seat. Under this plan Rother Valley essentially stays as it is, and Rotherham is just a slightly altered version of the pre-existing seat. Wentworth and Dearne changes to lose Rawmarsh and north Wickersley but gain Keppel and Hoyland, which are much better fits in my opinion. As for Sheffield, I think this sort of four compass points could work well. Southey has better links to Hillsborough than it does to Brightside or anywhere around there. As Crookes becomes more studenty it is starting to resemble Walkley more, and Gleadless just went Green which is a sure sign of gentrification. In the east, although the railway line is a natural border I actually think Burngreave and Brightside are far more similar to Darnall than they are to Hillsborough. I'm loathed to lose the Hallam name, and Hillsborough could work well for the NW seat, but I don't think there are really any appropriate non-compass point names for the other seats. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 7, 2020 13:01:41 GMT
Adrian - On wards, I understand your position but I respectfully disagree. I take wards as I find them: I don't spend time worrying about whether they are well or ill drawn; that's a matter for the local government boundary review, a separate exercise. I do happen to agree with you that the wards in Humberside are grotetesquely large, but there it is. We work with what we've got. On Axholme, I agree it would be good to keep the three wards together, but for me it's a 'nice-to-have', not a 'must-have'. I couldn't see on your map how it affects Grimsby, but if it forces a split through the heart of the town, then the cure's worse than the disease. Wards are there as part of local democracy. They are not there as part of national democracy.* Their use as building blocks is a matter of convenience, and slavish adherence to them is a matter of expediency, which equates to not doing one's job properly. I do stick to ward boundaries as much as I think is reasonable. For example, the seats in Wakefield aren't ideal, but there are quite a lot of conflicting options if you split wards, so it's probably best to go for the convenience of the non-split solution. But in the case of Calderdale the only non-split solutions involve crossing the LA boundary, which is unacceptable in principle (although there are circumstances where it might be justified). Splitting LAs and communities is where justification is required. Splitting wards requires no justification. I have divided Grimsby town between seats, which I don't normally do, but as I said about Leeds and Sheffield, this is a matter best judged by local people. *Before you say that the same is true of LA boundaries, the difference is that LA boundaries are an essential component of "local ties" - which we should be keeping in mind when considering which plan is most effective in representing not only our people but also our communities - and an essential component of our national fabric. Well, we differ on wards. I'd say that the expediency and convenience of using them is a strong argument in favour.
And I'm not sure I altogether agree that they are not part of our national democracy. Those involved in drawing up ward boundaries must be aware that it is long-standing practice to use wards as building blocks for Parliamentary seats. I'm not saying this the primary purpose of wards - of course not - but it's a significant secondary consideration surely. Sheffield's an example: I believe I'm right in saying (and if not, there are posters in this forum who will rapidly correct me) that the reason Sheffield has 28 wards is to make it easier to draw up the city's anticipated allowance of five-and-a-half constituencies. And if this is right, I imagine it is not the only case where wards were drawn with at least half an eye on their future use for Parliamentary boundaries.
Having had a dig at your plan for the number of ward splits in ERY, I'd like to add that it's a positive feature that it allows Bradford to be treated separately with its seats left as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 7, 2020 13:15:51 GMT
Adrian - On wards, I understand your position but I respectfully disagree. I take wards as I find them: I don't spend time worrying about whether they are well or ill drawn; that's a matter for the local government boundary review, a separate exercise. I do happen to agree with you that the wards in Humberside are grotetesquely large, but there it is. We work with what we've got. On Axholme, I agree it would be good to keep the three wards together, but for me it's a 'nice-to-have', not a 'must-have'. I couldn't see on your map how it affects Grimsby, but if it forces a split through the heart of the town, then the cure's worse than the disease. Wards are there as part of local democracy. They are not there as part of national democracy.* Their use as building blocks is a matter of convenience, and slavish adherence to them is a matter of expediency, which equates to not doing one's job properly. I do stick to ward boundaries as much as I think is reasonable. For example, the seats in Wakefield aren't ideal, but there are quite a lot of conflicting options if you split wards, so it's probably best to go for the convenience of the non-split solution. But in the case of Calderdale the only non-split solutions involve crossing the LA boundary, which is unacceptable in principle (although there are circumstances where it might be justified). Splitting LAs and communities is where justification is required. Splitting wards requires no justification. I have divided Grimsby town between seats, which I don't normally do, but as I said about Leeds and Sheffield, this is a matter best judged by local people. *Before you say that the same is true of LA boundaries, the difference is that LA boundaries are an essential component of "local ties" - which we should be keeping in mind when considering which plan is most effective in representing not only our people but also our communities - and an essential component of our national fabric. Just for you, Adrian, here is a scheme which crosses the Calderdale/Kirklees boundary four times: 1 Halifax 70413 Yes 2 Batley & Hipperholme 75817 Yes 3 Todmorden & Kirkburton 74765 Yes 4 Dewsbury 69454 Yes 5 Huddersfield Brighouse 69768 Yes 6 Huddersfield Elland 71857 Yes 7 Penistone & Holmfirth 74317 Yes ibb.co/2yTFbMG |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 7, 2020 13:28:24 GMT
It only works for boroughs where (I think) more than 50% of wards are more than 150% of the electorate range. So there are some mets and London boroughs with smaller wards which don't allow a split. It also doesn't work for mets or London boroughs rewarded since 2015. It's a shame that the exceptions are very good at coinciding with where one would want to split wards: Leeds, Manchester, Bolton, Wigan, Wolverhampton, Croydon... It looks like I've found all but two of the exceptions without even looking for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 7, 2020 13:57:44 GMT
Here are some thoughts about Sheffield and Rotherham, and a couple of maps. I agree with others, that though a Sheffield-Barnsley crossing might work well, the numbers in the region as a whole point to a Sheffield-Rotherham crossing instead. (As I've said before, I think it's quite likely this will change for the actual numbers, but let's see where we are with the numbers we've got now.) On these numbers (again this may change) Sheffield is worth about five seats plus two wards. There are two plausible looking pairs of wards where the Sheffield-Rotherham border could be crossed: the two Ecclesfield wards in the north and Mosborough and Beighton in the south. I think the first is likely to go down better, as the second got proposed by the Commission in the second zombie review and got slated locally; IMO the Commission didn't help themselves by calling the seat "Rother Valley" (thought of as a Rotherham name) but it wasn't just about the name. Furthermore, the Ecclesfield wards are already not in one of the main Sheffield seats, so I'll start with the Ecclesfield option. This requires bringing Stocksbridge & Upper Don ward into one of the main Sheffield seats, and it basically has to join with Stannington. That might suggest adding it to Hallam, but then Hallam would need to lose territory further south, and the problem is that the correct answer to the question "which ward should I remove from Hallam" is "Stannington". So I am inclined to build a new Sheffield Hillsborough seat around S & UD, Stannington and Hillsborough. Then two more wards are needed, one of which should probably be Walkley, and there are a number of choices for the other, none of which are ideal. I went for Southey, where at least the Wadsley Bridge side of the ward has links to Hillsborough. It's possible to then carve the rest of the city up into four seats with one split ward. Here's one solution, with the Gleadless area of Park & Arbourthorne being split off from the rest of the ward: 1. Rotherham North & Ecclesfield 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Heeley & Central 5. Sheffield Brightside & Park 6. Sheffield Birley 7. Rotherham East (?) 8. Rother Valley The mass ward splitting in Rotherham isn't an attempt to wind up islington ; rather it's an attempt to approximate the new ward boundaries there. I've tried to unite the Wickersley area in Rother Valley. If we go for the Mosborough option, then I think it makes sense to keep the three wards currently in Penistone & Stocksbridge together in a seat similar to the 1983-2010 Sheffield Hillsborough. Hallam then needs an extra ward: in the map below I've chosen Walkley, which looks a bit weird, but (a) it fits OK with Crookes (b) even if it's not a great fit, it's a better fit than Stannington. (NB adding the whole of Broomhill & Sharrow Vale would make Hallam too big.) As in the map above, I found that the numbers worked best with a cross-Sheaf seat, but at least this version keeps Beauchief & Greenhill and Graves Park together, and I don't think Nether Edge and Meersbrook are that bad a fit for each other. The split ward is City. Overall I think this works a little better than above, but it has that more controversial border crossing. 1. Kiveton Park & Mosborough 2. Sheffield Hillsborough 3. Sheffield Hallam 4. Sheffield Park 5. Sheffield Heeley & Broomhill 6. Sheffield Brightside 7. Rotherham Wickersley 8. Rotherham Wentworth Thoughts? Better options? ilerda J.G.Harston David Ashforth This is very interesting, I hadn't considered a lot of these options before. Personally I favour maintaining a Sheffield/Barnsley seat because I think it produces a nicer map overall. This is the perennial BCE problem of how many 'rules' are breakable in order to achieve a nice overall picture. I fear the current legislation and their interpretation of it lends itself to sticking to the rules and damning the consequences. I certainly understand your argument about moving the Sheffield-Rotherham cross border seat up to Ecclesfield. The problem with this is I really can't see either side of the border being happy with Ecclesfield parish being in the same seat as parts of central Rotherham. This sort of returns to a point I've made before about the fringe communities in SY having more in common with other fringe communities in different boroughs than they do with their own main town. Keeping Wickersley together (a very noble aim and something I'd like to do in an ideal world by including Sitwell in a central Rotherham seat) has the unfortunate consequence on the new boundaries of meaning that also includes Thurcroft and leaves the Rother Valley-esque seat with a very awkward shape, essentially cutting Maltby off from the bulk of your Rotherham Wickersley seat in plan 2. I think including Walkley with Dore and Batemoor with Broomhill might be pushing the bounds of community cohesion a bit far, but the BCE has accepted odder things in the past. My preference would be for two seats to cross the Sheffield border, maintaining Penistone and Stocksbridge as an established seat that is within tolerance (and avoiding a Holmfirth and Penistone situation), and one that takes in the new Brinsworth ward from Rotheram (Catcliffe now being in Rother Vale with Treeton). This only requires one ward to be split in Sheffield, and I would take a couple of polling districts from Manor Castle Ward (around Manor itself) and add them into a general Sheffield SE seat. Under this plan Rother Valley essentially stays as it is, and Rotherham is just a slightly altered version of the pre-existing seat. Wentworth and Dearne changes to lose Rawmarsh and north Wickersley but gain Keppel and Hoyland, which are much better fits in my opinion. As for Sheffield, I think this sort of four compass points could work well. Southey has better links to Hillsborough than it does to Brightside or anywhere around there. As Crookes becomes more studenty it is starting to resemble Walkley more, and Gleadless just went Green which is a sure sign of gentrification. In the east, although the railway line is a natural border I actually think Burngreave and Brightside are far more similar to Darnall than they are to Hillsborough. I'm loathed to lose the Hallam name, and Hillsborough could work well for the NW seat, but I don't think there are really any appropriate non-compass point names for the other seats.
I like Stannington moving out of Hallam, its always felt a bit wrong somehow; you get a significant change in community when you cross over the Rivelin Valley.
The cross-border seat between Sheffield and Barnsley and Sheffield also has never made sense to me, Sheffield has more in common with Rotherham than it does Barnsley, so I like that idea but I agree it needs to be eastern Sheffield that crosses as Northern and Southern Sheffield are more individualistic.
Of those three options I'd say the first is my preferred option but in the end its just personal preference.
Edit: I think cross-bordering with Barnsley is easier than with Rotherham, its just how the numbers stack up, I expect any plan will therefore continue to be cross-bordering with Barnsley rather than with Rotherham.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 7, 2020 14:25:28 GMT
This is very interesting, I hadn't considered a lot of these options before. Personally I favour maintaining a Sheffield/Barnsley seat because I think it produces a nicer map overall. This is the perennial BCE problem of how many 'rules' are breakable in order to achieve a nice overall picture. I fear the current legislation and their interpretation of it lends itself to sticking to the rules and damning the consequences. I certainly understand your argument about moving the Sheffield-Rotherham cross border seat up to Ecclesfield. The problem with this is I really can't see either side of the border being happy with Ecclesfield parish being in the same seat as parts of central Rotherham. This sort of returns to a point I've made before about the fringe communities in SY having more in common with other fringe communities in different boroughs than they do with their own main town. Keeping Wickersley together (a very noble aim and something I'd like to do in an ideal world by including Sitwell in a central Rotherham seat) has the unfortunate consequence on the new boundaries of meaning that also includes Thurcroft and leaves the Rother Valley-esque seat with a very awkward shape, essentially cutting Maltby off from the bulk of your Rotherham Wickersley seat in plan 2. I think including Walkley with Dore and Batemoor with Broomhill might be pushing the bounds of community cohesion a bit far, but the BCE has accepted odder things in the past. My preference would be for two seats to cross the Sheffield border, maintaining Penistone and Stocksbridge as an established seat that is within tolerance (and avoiding a Holmfirth and Penistone situation), and one that takes in the new Brinsworth ward from Rotheram (Catcliffe now being in Rother Vale with Treeton). This only requires one ward to be split in Sheffield, and I would take a couple of polling districts from Manor Castle Ward (around Manor itself) and add them into a general Sheffield SE seat. Under this plan Rother Valley essentially stays as it is, and Rotherham is just a slightly altered version of the pre-existing seat. Wentworth and Dearne changes to lose Rawmarsh and north Wickersley but gain Keppel and Hoyland, which are much better fits in my opinion. As for Sheffield, I think this sort of four compass points could work well. Southey has better links to Hillsborough than it does to Brightside or anywhere around there. As Crookes becomes more studenty it is starting to resemble Walkley more, and Gleadless just went Green which is a sure sign of gentrification. In the east, although the railway line is a natural border I actually think Burngreave and Brightside are far more similar to Darnall than they are to Hillsborough. I'm loathed to lose the Hallam name, and Hillsborough could work well for the NW seat, but I don't think there are really any appropriate non-compass point names for the other seats.
I like Stannington moving out of Hallam, its always felt a bit wrong somehow; you get a significant change in community when you cross over the Rivelin Valley.
The cross-border seat between Sheffield and Barnsley and Sheffield also has never made sense to me, Sheffield has more in common with Rotherham than it does Barnsley, so I like that idea but I agree it needs to be eastern Sheffield that crosses as Northern and Southern Sheffield are more individualistic.
Of those three options I'd say the first is my preferred option but in the end its just personal preference.
Edit: I think cross-bordering with Barnsley is easier than with Rotherham, its just how the numbers stack up, I expect any plan will therefore continue to be cross-bordering with Barnsley rather than with Rotherham.
For me the logic is that Stocksbridge and Ecclesfield (at least most of the bits that are in the parish of Ecclesfield) don't really feel like they're Sheffield. They're totally separate urban areas and communities from the main urban bulk that makes up the current five Sheffield X seats. Similarly with Barnsley, Penistone really isn't part of Barnsley at all. It may sit in the Barnsley council area but its identity is totally separate. These fringe communities have long histories that pre-date their merging into large metropolitan districts, and so are naturally quite happy to be in a constituency that is separate from the main towns. If you start taking chunks out of the main urban areas to merge with neighbouring districts then you get into a bit of an identity crisis. I can't imagine anyone wanting to be in a "Sheffield East and Rotherham Central" constituency for example. Similarly, most of the population of the Mosborough Townships are people who have moved out to the new housing developments and still have very strong links to the main Sheffield urban area. They see themselves as Sheffield, whereas Stocksbridge and Ecclesfield sort of don't. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 7, 2020 16:00:50 GMT
YL ilerda Though your Sheffield plans look okay, I'm not sure why you both feel the need to smash Rotherham. It's possible and preferable to create a Rotherham seat very similar to the current one.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 7, 2020 16:16:06 GMT
Those involved in drawing up ward boundaries must be aware that it is long-standing practice to use wards as building blocks for Parliamentary seats. I'm not saying this the primary purpose of wards - of course not - but it's a significant secondary consideration surely. Sheffield's an example: I believe I'm right in saying (and if not, there are posters in this forum who will rapidly correct me) that the reason Sheffield has 28 wards is to make it easier to draw up the city's anticipated allowance of five-and-a-half constituencies. And if this is right, I imagine it is not the only case where wards were drawn with at least half an eye on their future use for Parliamentary boundaries. You're right that the LGBCE does sometimes allocate a number of wards that it believes will be helpful to the BCE. But this usually proves to be a fool's errand. Taking the Sheffield example, is it actually straightforward to create a non-split plan based on these supposedly helpful wards? Such a policy by the LGBCE would only be effective if theirs and the BCE's rules were in sync, which they're not. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 7, 2020 16:19:21 GMT
Plan for North London with two split wards, both in Barnet:  Romford (71247)Hornchurch & Upminster (70060) Dagenham & Rainham (71761) Barking (70597) Ilford (73313) Chadwell & Hainault (69844) Chingford & Woodford Green (76153) Walthamstow (74362) Leyton & Wanstead (70126) East Ham (75766) West Ham (69199) Stratford & Bow (71145) - new seat Poplar & Limehouse (75576) Bethnal Green (69127) Hackney South (72788) Hackney North (72672) Islington North (70696)Islington Central & Shoreditch (71937) St. Pancras & Finsbury (74166) Hampstead & Highgate (73574) Hornsey (76048) Tottenham (69363) Southgate & Bowes Park (71742) Edmonton & Enfield East (76042) Enfield West (74414) - includes 3 polling districts from East Barnet) Chipping Barnet (70859) Finchley & Golders Green (73533)Hendon (74574) Harrow East (71274)
Harrow West (71055)Brent North (73164) - includes 2 polling districts from West Hendon ward) Willesden (74382) Paddington & Kensington North (71181) Cities of London & Westminster (69147) Kensington & Chelsea (72099) Fulham & Hammersmith South (71832) Acton & Shepherd's Bush (76132) Wembley & Ealing Central (75704) Brentford & Isleworth (74502) Ealing Southall (71139) Ealing North (72820)Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner (71843)Uxbridge & South Ruislip (75430) Hayes & Harlington (70068) Feltham & Heston (71859) There are no tri-borough seats and there are two orphan wards (Bedfont in Hayes & Harlington; College Park & Old Oak in Willesden) plus two orphan part-wards (the bits of East Barnet in Enfield West and the bits of West Hendon in Brent North.) I think the Barnet ward splits are defensible, as they allow the rest of the borough to remain unchanged and they're areas that have good connections to the places they're being linked to - the bits of East barnet transferred are all a short walk from Cockfosters train station and the two West Hendon polling districts both extent east of Edgware Road and the Brent Reservoir.) I'm less happy about College Park & Old Oak, but the only easy fix I can see to that is to put it with Paddington & Kensington North, which makes a degree of sense but extends into 3 separate boroughs. Seats in italics are unchanged. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 7, 2020 16:34:58 GMT
YL ilerda Though your Sheffield plans look okay, I'm not sure why you both feel the need to smash Rotherham. It's possible and preferable to create a Rotherham seat very similar to the current one. I'm not sure it quite counts as smashing Rotherham. I swapped out Keppel and Brinsworth for Rawmarsh, Wickersley and Silverwood. The vast majority of the core of the seat remains intact (5 out of 7 wards) and the bits added in aren't particularly out of place. If necessary for my plan it's possible to keep Keppel in and add Silverwood to Wentworth and Dearne, but personally I think Thorpe Hesley and Kimberworth have a stronger claim to inclusion in a W&D seat than Ravenfield and Thrybergh do. The fact that Bramley is in W&D at the moment makes absolutely no sense to me at all. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 7, 2020 16:43:43 GMT
 Following on from my Sheffield and Rotherham post earlier, this is an idea West Yorkshire apart from the Leeds seats. It involves two minor splits in Wakefield wards to allow for fairly sensible seats across the borough, and one in the centre of Huddersfield. I can't say I'm too happy with Calderdale, but it does allow all of Bradford's seats to be kept the same and there are fairly decent links between the bits that are linked with Halifax now. 10 Barnsley Central 71775 Yes 11 Barnsley East and Dearne 69359 Yes 12 Pontefract 73199 Yes 13 Castleford and Outwood 74864 Yes 14 Wakefield 76144 Yes 15 Huddersfield South 70208 Yes 16 Dewsbury 69454 Yes 17 Holmfirth and Denby Dale 72979 Yes 18 Huddersfield North and Brighouse 71417 Yes 19 Halifax West and Todmorden 70800 Yes 20 Halifax East and Spen 70936 Yes 21 Batley and Morley 74328 Yes 22 Bradford South 69667 Yes 23 Bradford West 71585 Yes 24 Bradford East 74205 Yes 25 Shipley 74522 Yes 26 Keighley 73384 Yes |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 8, 2020 9:53:32 GMT
OK, here's my take on the rest of the region. As previously discussed, 53 is an awkward number in some ways. My division into subregions is: (a) Sheffield and Rotherham (8) - already discussed (b) East Riding, including Hull (6) (c) N and NE Lincolnshire plus Doncaster, excluding Norton & Askern ward (6) (d) Barnsley, Wakefield and Kirklees (10) (e) Calderdale (2) (f) Bradford (5) (g) Leeds and North Yorkshire plus Norton & Askern (16) Here is a plan for (b) and (c). There are no split wards in this plan, although there's a case that a split ward in the East Riding is less of a badness than "Bridlington & North Ferriby". It also only crosses the boundary between the two UAs once.  (b) 1. Beverley & Haltemprice 2. Bridlington & North Ferriby 3. Goole & Driffield 4. Hull North 5. Hull West 6. Hull East & Holderness (c) 7. Grimsby & Cleethorpes 8. Brigg & Immingham 9. Scunthorpe 10. Thorne & Axholme 11. Doncaster 12. Conisbrough |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 8, 2020 10:04:01 GMT
Next, (d), (e) and (f). Bradford's seats remain unchanged and the map doesn't show them all.  In Calderdale, I've just split Hipperholme & Lightcliffe to allow the two seats to continue with little change. 6. Calder Valley 7. Halifax. In Kirklees, Wakefield and Barnsley the basic idea is to incorporate Outwood and Penistone, maintain the rough pattern of the other seats, and create a new seat crossing the Kirklees-Wakefield border. One ward is split in Wakefield and three in Kirklees; I found trimming Batley & Spen awkward, and there may be better ideas which don't have the double split. 8. Colne Valley 9. Dewsbury 10. Huddersfield 11. Batley & Spen 12. Wakefield 13. Barnsley North & Penistone 14. Pontefract & Castleford 15. Hemsworth & Cudworth 16. Barnsley South 17. Wakefield South & Denby EDIT: in Kirklees it might be better to have a Dewsbury & Batley seat which also includes Kirkburton but does not include the Ravensthorpe area of Dewsbury West, which goes into a Spen Valley seat with Mirfield and the non-Batley bits of Batley & Spen. That reduces the number of split wards in Kirklees to two. |
|
