J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745 
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 8, 2020 21:11:46 GMT
Yes I agree it's tricky to find the balance between the two. Certainly MPs and parties have an interest in no chance, but I suspect the new rules mean we're going to get pretty substantial changes at every future review to the extent that we perhaps didn't before. Personally I think the sweet spot is neither minimum change nor scorched earth. Where an existing seat can objectively be said to meet a lot of the discretionary factors such a community, LA boundaries etc. and is also within limits then I think there should be a higher burden of proof needed for any change proposed. But where an existing seat is in someway 'flawed', like the situation with Wakefield South in Hemsworth, I think there should be presumption in favour of change at the following review. It's worth noting that the rules as written only take account of community ties within existing seats, and not when they cross existing constituency boundaries (i.e. reviews should try to avoid splitting communities, but there is no obligation to try re-uniting split communities). This makes it more difficult - at least in theory - to fix obviously bad seats in subsequent reviews. And several rounds of "minimum change" can result in a seat getting worse and worse as it creeps away from the original seat. Stannington Ward shouldn't be in Hallam, but it will be hard to reverse it back to a proper Hallam as "minimum change" will pre-assume it stays in. 50 years of "minimum change" has seen Sheffield Attercliffe creep all the way to Mosborough and is close to losing Attercliffe itself. So much so that the BCE abandoned any pretense and changed its name to South East. Though that means that it strengthens the case to finally eject Darnall Ward and be a proper South East seat.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 8, 2020 21:12:09 GMT
I've uploaded this year's figures, both local and parliamentary, to: mdfs.net/maps/Sheffield/Wards/ with a note of figures I didn't collect in March and have calculated. Thanks for this. On a complete tangent, what is the castle the Manor and Castle ward is partially named after? I can see the Manor Estate at one end, but the other end looks like it ought to be called Park Hill. (And this is the ward I most want to split!) Manor Castle is a good option for a split. It has a clear dividing line roughly down the middle, and the Manor end runs well into Richmond whilst the Wybourn/Park Hill end has more in common with the city centre and the old industrial parts of Attercliffe. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 9, 2020 0:02:41 GMT
South London based on 75 seats for London
^ cross-border seat
* includes split ward
" (virtually) unchanged
Putney & Barnes^ 75905
Battersea" 72115, Tooting" 71370
Vauxhall" 75703, Brixton 75295*, Streatham 71230*
Southwark & Bermondsey" 71031, Camberwell 69473, Dulwich 69067
Lewisham S 75932*, Lewisham N 74479*
Greenwich & Deptford^ 75013
Eltham & Welling^ 75336
Woolwich 69358
Bexley & Sidcup 73142, Erith & Crayford 72454
Bromley & Chislehurst 72824*, Orpington 69788*, Beckenham 69483*
Crystal Palace^ 69273
Croydon C" 76023, Croydon S" 72631*
Thornton^ 70235*
Sutton & Cheam" 71136, Carshalton & Wallington" 72579
Mitcham & Morden 75443
Wimbledon & Malden^ 71734
Kingston 74315
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 9, 2020 6:25:28 GMT
Thanks for this. On a complete tangent, what is the castle the Manor and Castle ward is partially named after? I can see the Manor Estate at one end, but the other end looks like it ought to be called Park Hill. (And this is the ward I most want to split!) There uesed to be a ward at the western end that covered half the city centre and the site of Sheffield Castle under the markets, that ward was named Castle. There used to be a ward that covering the eastern end that covered the site of Sheffield Manor, that ward was called Manor. By 2002 both wards had fallen to about 60% of quota, so they were merged and tidied up. The new ward was Manor Castle, even though many people said it should be Manor *and* Castle to avoid perpetuating the common belief that the Manor is the "Manor Castle". It's not, it's the manor, the castle is something else. The site of Sheffield Castle is now no longer in the ward, being about 200yds into City Centre, but the ward name 'Castle' persists in people's feeling for the name of the area, perpetuated in the habit of the council to name community things after the ward, so you'd have Castle Tenants' Centre for tenants in Castle Ward, not for any area itself called Castle, SOAR is the Southey Owlerton Area Regenation board, named after the wards, not named after the areas, Owlerton Ward no longer exists, and Owlerton village is long depopolated and tarmac'd under the A61. I keep calling it Manor & Castle to try and pull away from people thinking there is a "Manor Castle". Manor & Castle can be quite easily split into the Manor half and the Castle half by drawing a line the City Road cemetary and along Manor Road or through Manor Wood, giving about 7500 in Castle and about 5500 in Manor. The use of "Manor Castle" to refer to the Manor ruins and the Turret House actually goes back quite some time ( old postcard on eBay; old maps show "Manor Castle Colliery" right next to the site). Personally I prefer that interpretation to the "Manor & Castle" one, as I think it's fairly daft to partially name a ward after a building which has been gone for over 350 years and wasn't even in the area actually covered by the ward. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 9, 2020 6:35:56 GMT
Following Islington's call for ward splits only to be used when it is an improvement on the best possible non-split ward solution, here is my attempt at the best possible non-split ward solution for Leeds in a 53 seat Parts of the Kingdom of Lindsey with Yorkshire. 1 Wetherby & Hammerton 75274 Yes 2 Guiseley & Blubberhouses 75796 Yes 3 Headingley 69545 Yes 4 Pudsey 69897 Yes 5 Armley 74292 Yes 6 Harehills 75848 Yes 7 Morley 70483 Yes 8 Rothwell & Outwood 74038 Yes ibb.co/fC8VS8SThere's only one truly awful seat. The other seven are pretty good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 6:59:05 GMT
I will never object to "Blubberhouses" being a constituency name.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 9, 2020 10:45:34 GMT
Following Islington's call for ward splits only to be used when it is an improvement on the best possible non-split ward solution, here is my attempt at the best possible non-split ward solution for Leeds in a 53 seat Parts of the Kingdom of Lindsey with Yorkshire. 1 Wetherby & Hammerton 75274 Yes 2 Guiseley & Blubberhouses 75796 Yes 3 Headingley 69545 Yes 4 Pudsey 69897 Yes 5 Armley 74292 Yes 6 Harehills 75848 Yes 7 Morley 70483 Yes 8 Rothwell & Outwood 74038 Yes ibb.co/fC8VS8SThere's only one truly awful seat. The other seven are pretty good. This is a fantastic effort, with five seats wholly within Leeds. And in theory, you could even have a sixth because the four Leeds wards of your Guiseley are just within range even without the N Yorks element. But I'm guessing this would leave you too many electors to accommodate in N Yorks.
Assuming you are treating Sheffield and Rotherham together for eight seats and Bradford and Doncaster by themselves for five and three respectively, you are then left to fit twelve seats into Wakefield (less Outwood) + Kirklees + Calderdale + Barnsley. On the numbers this should be fine (867876 = 11.95) but the ward sizes and configurations make it tricky. I've found a way of doing it but it's ugly; lots of cross-border seats and in particular it makes a terrible mess of Barnsley. I might post it later but judging by your performance above, I'm hoping you might come up with something better.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 9, 2020 13:10:59 GMT
South London based on 75 seats for London ^ cross-border seat * includes split ward " (virtually) unchanged Putney & Barnes^ 75905 Battersea" 72115, Tooting" 71370 Vauxhall" 75703, Brixton 75295*, Streatham 71230* Southwark & Bermondsey" 71031, Camberwell 69473, Dulwich 69067 Lewisham S 75932*, Lewisham N 74479* Greenwich & Deptford^ 75013 Eltham & Welling^ 75336 Woolwich 69358 Bexley & Sidcup 73142, Erith & Crayford 72454 Bromley & Chislehurst 72824*, Orpington 69788*, Beckenham 69483* Crystal Palace^ 69273 Croydon C" 76023, Croydon S" 72631* Thornton^ 70235* Sutton & Cheam" 71136, Carshalton & Wallington" 72579 Mitcham & Morden 75443 Wimbledon & Malden^ 71734 Kingston 74315 Your plan certainly solves the issues I had with drawing seats in Merton, as well as keeping more seats intact. However, there are three key things I can say about this plan: 1. You do not need to split any wards in Lambeth. Clapham Town is a better ward to remove from the Vauxhall constituency since the rest of Clapham is in the Streatham constituency. Brixton can meanwhile add Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill wards; neither of them really belong in Streatham (& Clapham). 2. Southwark & Bermondsey would not be "virtually unchanged" since its electorate has been reduced by 22,113. 3. It would make drawing acceptable constituencies in Richmond-upon-Thames and Hounslow extremely difficult. After inputting your plan I ended up with "Twickenham & Hounslow" and "Richmond & Hampton" for example. This in turn would cause unnecessarily high levels of disruption to West London constituencies. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 9, 2020 18:01:04 GMT
North West London based on 75 seats for London
Islington S & The City" 71900, Islington N" 70696
Hackney S" 73524, Hackney N 75186
Hornsey E & Wood Green^ 73794*
Tottenham" 69363
Edmonton" 70197*, Enfield N" 71315*
Southgate^ 69992*
Barnet 69043*, Finchley" 73533, Hendon" 74758*
Paddington & Pimlico 72194
Marylebone & Holborn^ 73582
Camden Town 70922
Hampstead & Highgate^ 72391*
Willesden 69114, Wembley 70280*
Kenton & Kingsbury^ 71556*
Harrow E 73432, Harrow W 70431
Kensington" 69391
Fulham & Chelsea^ 73284
Hammersmith^ 75395*
Ealing Acton 73805*, Greenford" 72565
Hayes & Southall^ 72291
Uxbridge 76223, Ruislip-Northwood 72992
Brentford & Isleworth^ 73867
Heston & Whitton^ 71098
Feltham & Hampton^ 69937
Richmond & Twickenham 75498
As greentudorrose surmised, my choice of where to draw the line between South and North West creates problems in Twickenham. It'd be good to keep a Feltham & Heston seat, but I accept that Richmond & Teddington is unlikely to be acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 9, 2020 19:09:11 GMT
Putting the City in with Islington South proved unpopular when the PBCE tried it in 2011. Those four Camden wards would go neatly into Westminster-based constituencies, but local ties in Westminster don't support constituencies formed on the basis of an east-west split.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 9, 2020 20:01:53 GMT
South London based on 75 seats for London ^ cross-border seat * includes split ward " (virtually) unchanged Putney & Barnes^ 75905 Battersea" 72115, Tooting" 71370 Vauxhall" 75703, Brixton 75295*, Streatham 71230* Southwark & Bermondsey" 71031, Camberwell 69473, Dulwich 69067 Lewisham S 75932*, Lewisham N 74479* Greenwich & Deptford^ 75013 Eltham & Welling^ 75336 Woolwich 69358 Bexley & Sidcup 73142, Erith & Crayford 72454 Bromley & Chislehurst 72824*, Orpington 69788*, Beckenham 69483* Crystal Palace^ 69273 Croydon C" 76023, Croydon S" 72631* Thornton^ 70235* Sutton & Cheam" 71136, Carshalton & Wallington" 72579 Mitcham & Morden 75443 Wimbledon & Malden^ 71734 Kingston 74315 Your plan certainly solves the issues I had with drawing seats in Merton, as well as keeping more seats intact. However, there are three key things I can say about this plan: 1. You do not need to split any wards in Lambeth. Clapham Town is a better ward to remove from the Vauxhall constituency since the rest of Clapham is in the Streatham constituency. Brixton can meanwhile add Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill wards; neither of them really belong in Streatham (& Clapham). Yes I was confused by that ward split - I think this may be a case where someone has come up with a constituency name first and then tried to draw the boundaries to facilitate that, consequently missing a far more obvious and less disruptive solution. I assume you mean Gipsy Hill and Knights Hill since Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill are already in that seat. Effectively we are recreating the 1983-97 boundaries in only slightly modified form. Vauxhall loses Clapham Town to Streatham which in turn loses Brixton HIll and Tulse Hill to Norwood which loses it's Southwark wards. Call the Norwood seat Brixton if you (ie Adrian) insist on reviving that name. Sure it doesn't include all of Brixton, but the old Brixton seat never did either |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 9, 2020 20:10:31 GMT
Putting the City in with Islington South proved unpopular when the PBCE tried it in 2011. Those four Camden wards would go neatly into Westminster-based constituencies, but local ties in Westminster don't support constituencies formed on the basis of an east-west split. Despite those MCC local ties having previously been perfectly happy with an east-west split between the former boroughs of St Marylebone and Paddington in the north of the present borough, and between the Abbey and St George's constituencies in the south. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 9, 2020 20:11:08 GMT
I've now updated my Sheffield ward maps for all the Central and Brightside wards: Updated with 2020 electorate and 2020 polling district boundaries. Some of them have become bloody weird and demonstrate why I can't agree with an earlier proposal that consitutency reviews should be based on polling districts. Just look at Manor&Castle and Firth Park! Updating the rest of the city will have to wait for the library to re-open, or if I can get to the Sheffield LibDem office and get somebody to log me onto Connect with access to the whole city. (I had to stare into space for a few seconds to try and remember where it is.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 9, 2020 20:24:23 GMT
Putting the City in with Islington South proved unpopular when the PBCE tried it in 2011. Those four Camden wards would go neatly into Westminster-based constituencies, but local ties in Westminster don't support constituencies formed on the basis of an east-west split. Despite those MCC local ties having previously been perfectly happy with an east-west split between the former boroughs of St Marylebone and Paddington in the north of the present borough, and between the Abbey and St George's constituencies in the south. The fact that a set of boundaries was in place (as recently as 37 years ago in one instance, and 70 years in the other) is no proof that they were supported by residents then, and certainly not now. The St George's constituency was awful. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 9, 2020 20:32:38 GMT
Despite those MCC local ties having previously been perfectly happy with an east-west split between the former boroughs of St Marylebone and Paddington in the north of the present borough, and between the Abbey and St George's constituencies in the south. The fact that a set of boundaries was in place (as recently as 37 years ago in one instance, and 70 years in the other) is no proof that they were supported by residents then, and certainly not now. The St George's constituency was awful. You may think it was awful, but it existed as a civil parish from 1724, and the parliamentary constituency just followed the parish boundary until it was decided in 1918 that Abbey having an exclave was a bad idea. I'm sure it must have made some sort of sense for all that time – most civil parishes are pretty reasonable things on a hyper-local scale. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 9, 2020 20:42:21 GMT
Putting the City in with Islington South proved unpopular when the PBCE tried it in 2011. Those four Camden wards would go neatly into Westminster-based constituencies, but local ties in Westminster don't support constituencies formed on the basis of an east-west split. I remember the 2011 plan. I still think it's worth proposing. In some ways Finsbury is a better fit than Westminster, so the objections were somewhat sentimental. I agree with you re the Westminster seats. Neath West makes the good point that I've used traditional boundaries, but they're probably trumped by modern community affiliations. Still, I don't think that *any* arrangement within Westminster would cause much suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 9, 2020 21:49:18 GMT
Following Islington's call for ward splits only to be used when it is an improvement on the best possible non-split ward solution, here is my attempt at the best possible non-split ward solution for Leeds in a 53 seat Parts of the Kingdom of Lindsey with Yorkshire. 1 Wetherby & Hammerton 75274 Yes 2 Guiseley & Blubberhouses 75796 Yes 3 Headingley 69545 Yes 4 Pudsey 69897 Yes 5 Armley 74292 Yes 6 Harehills 75848 Yes 7 Morley 70483 Yes 8 Rothwell & Outwood 74038 Yes ibb.co/fC8VS8SThere's only one truly awful seat. The other seven are pretty good. This is a fantastic effort, with five seats wholly within Leeds. And in theory, you could even have a sixth because the four Leeds wards of your Guiseley are just within range even without the N Yorks element. But I'm guessing this would leave you too many electors to accommodate in N Yorks. Assuming you are treating Sheffield and Rotherham together for eight seats and Bradford and Doncaster by themselves for five and three respectively, you are then left to fit twelve seats into Wakefield (less Outwood) + Kirklees + Calderdale + Barnsley. On the numbers this should be fine (867876 = 11.95) but the ward sizes and configurations make it tricky. I've found a way of doing it but it's ugly; lots of cross-border seats and in particular it makes a terrible mess of Barnsley. I might post it later but judging by your performance above, I'm hoping you might come up with something better.
In a 54 seat scenario, Guiseley doesn't need the North Yorkshire wards and Wetherby needs only one. We should probably wait for the figures on Rotherham's new wards before we try to work out Sheffield and Rotherham's eight seats. Bradford is good for five unchanged seats either way. Doncaster can be treated on its own for three seats in a 54 seat region but, with 53 seats is better treated together with North and North East Lincolnshire for six. My Barnsley isn't that bad, but my Calderdale and Kirklees is probably an argument for judicious ward-splitting. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
Member is Online
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 9, 2020 22:53:30 GMT
Assuming you are treating Sheffield and Rotherham together for eight seats ... We should probably wait for the figures on Rotherham's new wards before we try to work out Sheffield and Rotherham's eight seats. I've been experimenting to get a model with a Sheffield-Rotherham seat. Every time I go around and find I've put too much in somewhere and back off "let's just remove this... and this...." and I find I've removed Stocksbridge/WestEcc/EastEcc.
Brinsworth feeds in quite nicely to Tinsley, and Catcliffe and Treeton feeds quite nicely into Handworth. But Treeton is in Rother Vale ward which stretches out towards Nottinghamshire and forces me to cut it in two, and I've already snipped off the Richmond Polyp and don't want to go splitting wards willy nilly.
Is there a "use user-supplied electorate figures" option? That would help with Broomhill and City Centre.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Aug 9, 2020 23:37:14 GMT
We should probably wait for the figures on Rotherham's new wards before we try to work out Sheffield and Rotherham's eight seats. I've been experimenting to get a model with a Sheffield-Rotherham seat. Every time I go around and find I've put too much in somewhere and back off "let's just remove this... and this...." and I find I've removed Stocksbridge/WestEcc/EastEcc.
Brinsworth feeds in quite nicely to Tinsley, and Catcliffe and Treeton feeds quite nicely into Handworth. But Treeton is in Rother Vale ward which stretches out towards Nottinghamshire and forces me to cut it in two, and I've already snipped off the Richmond Polyp and don't want to go splitting wards willy nilly.
Is there a "use user-supplied electorate figures" option? That would help with Broomhill and City Centre.
You can only use user-supplied figures if you do the ward split manually. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
|
Post by YL on Aug 10, 2020 6:54:10 GMT
We should probably wait for the figures on Rotherham's new wards before we try to work out Sheffield and Rotherham's eight seats. I've been experimenting to get a model with a Sheffield-Rotherham seat. Every time I go around and find I've put too much in somewhere and back off "let's just remove this... and this...." and I find I've removed Stocksbridge/WestEcc/EastEcc. Brinsworth feeds in quite nicely to Tinsley, and Catcliffe and Treeton feeds quite nicely into Handworth. But Treeton is in Rother Vale ward which stretches out towards Nottinghamshire and forces me to cut it in two, and I've already snipped off the Richmond Polyp and don't want to go splitting wards willy nilly. Is there a "use user-supplied electorate figures" option? That would help with Broomhill and City Centre.
Remember Rotherham has new wards (they were planned for 2020, and are confirmed by statutory instrument, so should be the ones used in the review; Election Maps has been updated and shows them). To a large extent the new ones can be constructed using the polling districts on Boundary Assistant. For the most likely areas where you might want to cross the border: Brinsworth no longer goes with Catcliffe; you can get it on BA by removing polling districts CF and CG; the estimated electorate is 7569. Rother Vale now consists of the parishes of Catcliffe, Treeton and Waverley, so no longer has that extension to Thurcroft; it's CF and CG, together with KA and KG from the old Rother Vale; electorate is 4864. (I suspect this is an underestimate, caused by underestimating the new Waverley developments in the polling district split.) Aughton & Swallownest covers Orgreave and Ulley (both formerly in Rother Vale), and part of Aston-cum-Aughton. The boundary through Aston-cum-Aughton isn't an old polling district boundary, but we can approximate it by KB, KC, KD and KE from Rother Vale and FD and FF from Holderness, giving 5561. (This is clearly an underestimate, but this shouldn't matter much as I doubt you'd want to split Aston-cum-Aughton.) Aston & Todwick contains the rest of Aston-cum-Aughton together with Todwick. That's the rest of Holderness and RC from Wales, giving 8322, similarly an overestimate. The two Aston-cum-Aughton wards together give 13883. Wales has lost Todwick (RC) and Thorpe Salvin (RA) giving 7044. Anston & Woodsetts and Dinnington are basically the current arrangement except that the former gains Thorpe Salvin (RA) from Wales, and a small area, which doesn't follow an old polling district boundary, is transferred from the latter to the former. Again, I doubt you'd want to separate these two wards. Thurcroft is now grouped with Wickersley. |
|
)