ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 10, 2020 9:13:01 GMT
 As much as it pains me to say it, because I don't think it reflects community links particularly well, I fear this sort of arrangement might please the BCE and their love of pre-grouping LA areas to then draw constituencies inside them. 1 Sheffield Hallam 72090 Yes 2 Sheffield Hillsboroguh 72020 Yes 3 Sheffield Attercliffe 73066 Yes 4 Sheffield Central and Heeley 72985 Yes 5 Sheffield South East 73342 Yes 6 Wentworth and Ecclesfield 74632 Yes 7 Rotherham 70990 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes 9 Barnsley North and Penistone 69234 Yes 10 Barnsley South 73479 Yes 11 Barnsley East and Hemsworth 73511 Yes 12 Pontefract and Castleford 72989 Yes 13 Wakefield East and Normanton 71652 Yes 14 Wakefield West 72213 Yes I do quite like the way that it keeps Wakefield district within 3.5 seats, with only one of them being cross-border. Although I suspect there will be some unhappiness with the way I've split the town in two. The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary between Ecclesfield and the Wentworth side of the seat which to me makes it feel like a very unnatural pairing. But we all know the BCE don't really care about that if they can make a clean map where all the numbers work. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 10, 2020 9:55:52 GMT
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. Whereas, using this approach, my Barnsley is perfectly terrible but Calderdale and Kirklees, although not great, are not all that bad.
And you're right about the new Rotherham wards. With the old wards, if three Sheffield wards are hived off from the southeast of the city, they tend to end up in a seat that extends all the way to Maltby. But the new wards, at least judging by a quick look at the LGBCE website, may make it possible for a cross-border seat to lose Dinnington and Maltby and instead take in Swallownest, Aughton, Treeton, &c. Such a seat would cleave much more closely to Sheffield, which I'm guessing might make it more acceptable locally.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 10, 2020 10:22:43 GMT
And you're right about the new Rotherham wards. With the old wards, if three Sheffield wards are hived off from the southeast of the city, they tend to end up in a seat that extends all the way to Maltby. But the new wards, at least judging by a quick look at the LGBCE website, may make it possible for a cross-border seat to lose Dinnington and Maltby and instead take in Swallownest, Aughton, Treeton, &c. Such a seat would cleave much more closely to Sheffield, which I'm guessing might make it more acceptable locally.
Well... You can actually do that, without any splits, though in the arrangement below some of the resulting Sheffield seats are contorted to say the least. But the thing is that those Sheffield seats are also all towards the bottom of the allowable range, so somewhere (probably Swinton or Wath upon Dearne) would have to be hived off to the rest of the region, which is not very helpful. Sheffield Brightside & Stocksbridge Shiregreen & Brightside, both Ecclesfields, Stannington, Stocksbridge & Upper Don. Shiregreen & Brightside is out of place here. Sheffield Hillsborough Walkley, Hillsborough, Burngreave, Southey, Firth Park. Actually not ridiculous. Sheffield Hallam & Norton Crookes & Crosspool, Fulwood, Dore & Totley, Beauchief & Greenhill, Graves Park. Two reasonably coherent sub-constituencies which have little to do with each other. Sheffield Ecclesall & Gleadless Ecclesall, Nether Edge & Sharrow, Gleadless Valley, Park & Arbourthorne, Birley. Pitchfork bait. Sheffield Attercliffe & Broomhill Broomhill & Sharrow Vale, City, Darnall, Manor Castle, Richmond. Fortunately I don't think many students have pitchforks. Sheffield Mosborough & Kiveton Park Woodhouse, Beighton, Mosborough, plus the following new Rotherham wards: Brinsworth, Rother Vale, Aughton & Swallownest, Aston & Todwick, Wales Wickersley & Dinnington The following new Rotherham wards: Dalton & Thrybergh, Bramley & Ravenfield, Wickersley North, Thurcroft & Wickersley South, Hellaby & Maltby West, Maltby East, Dinnington, Anston & Woodsetts |
|
|
|
Post by loderingo on Aug 10, 2020 10:32:10 GMT
As much as it pains me to say it, because I don't think it reflects community links particularly well, I fear this sort of arrangement might please the BCE and their love of pre-grouping LA areas to then draw constituencies inside them. 1 Sheffield Hallam 72090 Yes 2 Sheffield Hillsboroguh 72020 Yes 3 Sheffield Attercliffe 73066 Yes 4 Sheffield Central and Heeley 72985 Yes 5 Sheffield South East 73342 Yes 6 Wentworth and Ecclesfield 74632 Yes 7 Rotherham 70990 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes 9 Barnsley North and Penistone 69234 Yes 10 Barnsley South 73479 Yes 11 Barnsley East and Hemsworth 73511 Yes 12 Pontefract and Castleford 72989 Yes 13 Wakefield East and Normanton 71652 Yes 14 Wakefield West 72213 Yes I do quite like the way that it keeps Wakefield district within 3.5 seats, with only one of them being cross-border. Although I suspect there will be some unhappiness with the way I've split the town in two. The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary between Ecclesfield and the Wentworth side of the seat which to me makes it feel like a very unnatural pairing. But we all know the BCE don't really care about that if they can make a clean map where all the numbers work. I quite like your plan actually. I would rather have one cross border seat for each pairing than multiple ones. If you want to keep Wakefield together could you do it by splitting up Pontefract and Castleford and then putting Castleford with Outwood? I was also wondering if it would work to cross the borough border in the west and pair Penistone with Ossett. This then allows Pontefract to go with Hemsworth in the east. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742 
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 10, 2020 13:17:17 GMT
The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary Um... |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 10, 2020 14:12:46 GMT
The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary Um... Haha oops. I'm going to say that I was referring to the 2nd definition given by the OED as opposed to the first: 1. Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind. 2. In accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something. As in natural meaning inherently sensible or obvious due to its nature, rather than suggesting it's not manmade. |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Aug 10, 2020 14:13:22 GMT
The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary Um... I believe they are using natural as a synonym for obvious. For example. It was Valentines Day so naturally I'm wearing my red t-shirt. Its a perfectly valid use. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2020 10:37:29 GMT
For Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, a lot of it comes down to which combinations of local authorities you want to use. At the moment, my proposed groupings are as follows: - Bradford - 5 seats
- Calderdale - 2 seats
- City of York - 2 seats
- Hull and East Yorkshire - 6 seats
- Leeds and North Yorkshire - 14 seats
- Wakefield, Kirklees and Barnsley - 10 seats
- Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire - 14 seats
I'm reasonably happy with those groupings (especially since in Lincolnshire you've got 3 seats entirely to the east of the Trent) but ideally I would prefer to treat Sheffield and Rotheram for 8 seats and Doncaster for 3. So I'm considering a modification, adding Pocklington Provincial ward to York Outer and rejigging things in North Yorkshire to compensate. That then means one of the East Yorkshire seats has to grab two wards of the Isle of Axholme and Scunthorpe has to grab the other. In principle, do people think this would be an improvement or not? On the one hand, this would cause unnecessary change in York (which could otherwise be left as is) and it would divide the Isle of Axholme. On the other hand, in either case you're crossing the historic Lincolnshire-Yorkshire county boundary and doing this would let you minimise changes in Doncaster. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 11, 2020 10:49:35 GMT
As much as it pains me to say it, because I don't think it reflects community links particularly well, I fear this sort of arrangement might please the BCE and their love of pre-grouping LA areas to then draw constituencies inside them. 1 Sheffield Hallam 72090 Yes 2 Sheffield Hillsboroguh 72020 Yes 3 Sheffield Attercliffe 73066 Yes 4 Sheffield Central and Heeley 72985 Yes 5 Sheffield South East 73342 Yes 6 Wentworth and Ecclesfield 74632 Yes 7 Rotherham 70990 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes 9 Barnsley North and Penistone 69234 Yes 10 Barnsley South 73479 Yes 11 Barnsley East and Hemsworth 73511 Yes 12 Pontefract and Castleford 72989 Yes 13 Wakefield East and Normanton 71652 Yes 14 Wakefield West 72213 Yes I do quite like the way that it keeps Wakefield district within 3.5 seats, with only one of them being cross-border. Although I suspect there will be some unhappiness with the way I've split the town in two. The M1 forms a very clear and strong natural boundary between Ecclesfield and the Wentworth side of the seat which to me makes it feel like a very unnatural pairing. But we all know the BCE don't really care about that if they can make a clean map where all the numbers work. I quite like your plan actually. I would rather have one cross border seat for each pairing than multiple ones. If you want to keep Wakefield together could you do it by splitting up Pontefract and Castleford and then putting Castleford with Outwood? I was also wondering if it would work to cross the borough border in the west and pair Penistone with Ossett. This then allows Pontefract to go with Hemsworth in the east. Castleford and Outwood works but leaves rump Wakefield too small with the addition of any other two wards (such as Crofton, Normanton, Featherstone etc). If you do Castleford, Knottingley, Normanton and Featherstone as one seat, and Pontefract and Hemsworth as another, then they're both in quota. You can keep the four urban Wakefield wards together with the two Outwood wards but that ends up 826 too small (this might be ironed out in the final figures). My main problem is Penistone and Ossett is a very odd combination. I doubt either town knows the other exists, and there's a huge chunk of empty countryside between the two. Surprisingly though the numbers do work if you take the two Ossett wards and Wakefield Rural and put them together with the two Darton wards and two Penistone wards in Barnsley. Having to exclude Dodworth leaves it looking rather odd however. On the plus side it should be a fairly easy Tory win. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 11, 2020 11:14:40 GMT
For Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, a lot of it comes down to which combinations of local authorities you want to use. At the moment, my proposed groupings are as follows: - Bradford - 5 seats
- Calderdale - 2 seats
- City of York - 2 seats
- Hull and East Yorkshire - 6 seats
- Leeds and North Yorkshire - 14 seats
- Wakefield, Kirklees and Barnsley - 10 seats
- Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire - 14 seats
I'm reasonably happy with those groupings (especially since in Lincolnshire you've got 3 seats entirely to the east of the Trent) but ideally I would prefer to treat Sheffield and Rotheram for 8 seats and Doncaster for 3. So I'm considering a modification, adding Pocklington Provincial ward to York Outer and rejigging things in North Yorkshire to compensate. That then means one of the East Yorkshire seats has to grab two wards of the Isle of Axholme and Scunthorpe has to grab the other. In principle, do people think this would be an improvement or not? On the one hand, this would cause unnecessary change in York (which could otherwise be left as is) and it would divide the Isle of Axholme. On the other hand, in either case you're crossing the historic Lincolnshire-Yorkshire county boundary and doing this would let you minimise changes in Doncaster. I think I prefer your first option, assuming there's a reasonable arrangement for Sheffield plus Rotherham plus one Doncaster ward. The thing is that, in spite of what people redrawing the county map in the 1970s seem to have thought, the Isle of Axholme really isn't well connected northwards across the Ouse -- its connections are east-west -- and it's also self contained in a way which makes me think splitting it isn't desirable. On the other hand I don't see a very strong distinction between Mexborough and Wath/Swinton; the map of South Yorkshire wouldn't make much less sense if Mexborough were in Rotherham or Barnsley rather than Doncaster. My approach was similar but removed Norton & Askern ward from Doncaster and added it to the North Yorkshire group. If the numbers work out OK in the two sub-regions, putting Mexborough with Rotherham is probably preferable to that. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2020 11:43:11 GMT
This is what I had for South Yorkshire, using my best approximation of the new wards in Rotheram:  Sheffield Hallam 72536 Sheffield Central 76188 Sheffield Helley 73199* Sheffield South East 72694* Sheffield Brightside & Stocksbridge 75914+ Chapeltown & Swinton 73958+ Rotheram 75309 Rother Valley 74625 Doncaster North 72116 Doncaster West 76074 Doncaster East & Axholme 74611 * The split ward is Richmond and I assumed equal electorates in both halves, but there's a lot of leeway. + The split ward is East Ecclesfield and here it's a little tighter. I picked East rather than West as Ecclesfield proper seems to be slightly larger than Grenoside. I'm not that keen on Chapeltown & Swinton, especially as it extends into three separate boroughs, but it means you can keep the Wickersley area intact and minimise change to Rotheram. I would also have liked to be able to keep the current Doncaster Central with minimal changes, but that would require Conisbrough being the orphan ward rather than Mexborough. That's probably doable, but the knock-on consequences would be more disruption to Rotheram so it's a case of picking your poison. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2020 11:56:55 GMT
Here's what I've got for East Yorkshire and the rest of North Lincolnshire:  Bridlington & Holderness 72424 Hull East & Hedon 74148 Hull West & Hessle 73265 Hull North 69846 Beverley 74575 Cottingham & Goole 72788 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76221 Brigg & Immingham 69963 Scunthorpe 71740 I'm not normally keen on crossing a boundary twice, but in this case adding SW Holderness into Hull just makes things so much simpler. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 11, 2020 12:27:56 GMT
This is what I had for South Yorkshire, using my best approximation of the new wards in Rotheram: Sheffield Hallam 72536 Sheffield Central 76188 Sheffield Helley 73199* Sheffield South East 72694* Sheffield Brightside & Stocksbridge 75914+ Chapeltown & Swinton 73958+ Rotheram 75309 Rother Valley 74625 Doncaster North 72116 Doncaster West 76074 Doncaster East & Axholme 74611 * The split ward is Richmond and I assumed equal electorates in both halves, but there's a lot of leeway. + The split ward is East Ecclesfield and here it's a little tighter. I picked East rather than West as Ecclesfield proper seems to be slightly larger than Grenoside. I'm not that keen on Chapeltown & Swinton, especially as it extends into three separate boroughs, but it means you can keep the Wickersley area intact and minimise change to Rotheram. I would also have liked to be able to keep the current Doncaster Central with minimal changes, but that would require Conisbrough being the orphan ward rather than Mexborough. That's probably doable, but the knock-on consequences would be more disruption to Rotheram so it's a case of picking your poison. Being forced to take Mexborough out of Doncaster and put it into Sheffield & Rotherham grouping makes this a lot more complicated than it would otherwise need to be. In an ideal world I agree it would be good to include Axholme in Doncaster, but it's just not necessary. Also I think I cried a little bit inside at the idea of Sheffield Brightside and Stocksbridge. By not including Grenoside in that seat you actually leave the Stocksbridge ward with no road link to the rest of the seat that doesn't pass through another constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2020 12:35:32 GMT
This is what I had for South Yorkshire, using my best approximation of the new wards in Rotheram: Sheffield Hallam 72536 Sheffield Central 76188 Sheffield Helley 73199* Sheffield South East 72694* Sheffield Brightside & Stocksbridge 75914+ Chapeltown & Swinton 73958+ Rotheram 75309 Rother Valley 74625 Doncaster North 72116 Doncaster West 76074 Doncaster East & Axholme 74611 * The split ward is Richmond and I assumed equal electorates in both halves, but there's a lot of leeway. + The split ward is East Ecclesfield and here it's a little tighter. I picked East rather than West as Ecclesfield proper seems to be slightly larger than Grenoside. I'm not that keen on Chapeltown & Swinton, especially as it extends into three separate boroughs, but it means you can keep the Wickersley area intact and minimise change to Rotheram. I would also have liked to be able to keep the current Doncaster Central with minimal changes, but that would require Conisbrough being the orphan ward rather than Mexborough. That's probably doable, but the knock-on consequences would be more disruption to Rotheram so it's a case of picking your poison. Being forced to take Mexborough out of Doncaster and put it into Sheffield & Rotherham grouping makes this a lot more complicated than it would otherwise need to be. In an ideal world I agree it would be good to include Axholme in Doncaster, but it's just not necessary. Also I think I cried a little bit inside at the idea of Sheffield Brightside and Stocksbridge. By not including Grenoside in that seat you actually leave the Stocksbridge ward with no road link to the rest of the seat that doesn't pass through another constituency. It's necessary for Axholme (or at least the two northern wards) to go with somewhere that isn't North Lincolnshire and the only other option is East Yorkshire, which is extremely messy without ward splits. I do see your point about Grenoside - if the numbers work, it might be better to split West Ecclesfield instead. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 11, 2020 13:16:20 GMT
This is what I had for South Yorkshire, using my best approximation of the new wards in Rotheram: Sheffield Hallam 72536 Sheffield Central 76188 Sheffield Helley 73199* Sheffield South East 72694* Sheffield Brightside & Stocksbridge 75914+ Chapeltown & Swinton 73958+ Rotheram 75309 Rother Valley 74625 Doncaster North 72116 Doncaster West 76074 Doncaster East & Axholme 74611 * The split ward is Richmond and I assumed equal electorates in both halves, but there's a lot of leeway. + The split ward is East Ecclesfield and here it's a little tighter. I picked East rather than West as Ecclesfield proper seems to be slightly larger than Grenoside. I'm not that keen on Chapeltown & Swinton, especially as it extends into three separate boroughs, but it means you can keep the Wickersley area intact and minimise change to Rotheram. I would also have liked to be able to keep the current Doncaster Central with minimal changes, but that would require Conisbrough being the orphan ward rather than Mexborough. That's probably doable, but the knock-on consequences would be more disruption to Rotheram so it's a case of picking your poison. Being forced to take Mexborough out of Doncaster and put it into Sheffield & Rotherham grouping makes this a lot more complicated than it would otherwise need to be. In an ideal world I agree it would be good to include Axholme in Doncaster, but it's just not necessary. Also I think I cried a little bit inside at the idea of Sheffield Brightside and Stocksbridge. By not including Grenoside in that seat you actually leave the Stocksbridge ward with no road link to the rest of the seat that doesn't pass through another constituency. But why does that form of contiguity matter to so many of you? This is all about voting and absolutely nothing else at all. Why do you seem to think that the voters need to be able to pass about freely in the whole of the constituency? They don't need to and will never need to. And why is driving about and, shock horror, passing through another constituency such an issue? There is no toll for passing through another constituency and only a complete anorak nerk would even know it had happened or care a twopenny piece that they had done so. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 11, 2020 15:39:11 GMT
Here's what I've got for East Yorkshire and the rest of North Lincolnshire: Bridlington & Holderness 72424 Hull East & Hedon 74148 Hull West & Hessle 73265 Hull North 69846 Beverley 74575 Cottingham & Goole 72788 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76221 Brigg & Immingham 69963 Scunthorpe 71740 I'm not normally keen on crossing a boundary twice, but in this case adding SW Holderness into Hull just makes things so much simpler. Really good plan for ERY and Hull. Regarding N Lincs and NE Lincs, EAL's plan crosses the border with Doncaster and to accommodate this he pops out a Doncaster ward (Mexborough) to be treated with Sheffield/Rotherham. But, as his plan implies, it's then far from easy to devise an 8 seat plan for this area. So I fell to wondering whether it was possible to treat Doncaster + N Lincs + NE Lincs for 6 seats. Well, obviously you then have to split Axholme but I take a more sanguine view of this than some posters. At any rate, I came up with this. 
Grimsby & Cleethorpes - 76221 (not shown) Brigg - 73526 Scunthorpe - 74433 An advantage of this approach is that you can link Scunthorpe with N Axholme, with which its comms are much better than with S Axholme Doncaster E - 75510 Doncaster N - 76209 Doncaster S - 76074
I thought the Doncaster seats worked out surprisingly well, considering they all need to be so near the upper limit.
This then leaves Sheffield/Rotherham to get 8 seats, for which we have many plans.
Incidentally, a question for those of you that know Sheffield better than I do (this would be almost everyone, I imagine). I have noticed that virtually all plans posted on here - at least, the non-split ones - assume that the two Ecclesfield wards need to be kept together. But to me, as a non-Sheffield person sitting at a computer screen in London staring at maps, it seems that Ecclesfield itself is located entirely within the Ecclesfield E ward. If that's correct, is there any particular reason the wards need to be kept in the same seat?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 11, 2020 16:06:12 GMT
Here's what I've got for East Yorkshire and the rest of North Lincolnshire: Bridlington & Holderness 72424 Hull East & Hedon 74148 Hull West & Hessle 73265 Hull North 69846 Beverley 74575 Cottingham & Goole 72788 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76221 Brigg & Immingham 69963 Scunthorpe 71740 I'm not normally keen on crossing a boundary twice, but in this case adding SW Holderness into Hull just makes things so much simpler. Really good plan for ERY and Hull. Regarding N Lincs and NE Lincs, EAL's plan crosses the border with Doncaster and to accommodate this he pops out a Doncaster ward (Mexborough) to be treated with Sheffield/Rotherham. But, as his plan implies, it's then far from easy to devise an 8 seat plan for this area. So I fell to wondering whether it was possible to treat Doncaster + N Lincs + NE Lincs for 6 seats. Well, obviously you then have to split Axholme but I take a more sanguine view of this than some posters. At any rate, I came up with this. Grimsby & Cleethorpes - 76221 (not shown) Brigg - 73526 Scunthorpe - 74433 An advantage of this approach is that you can link Scunthorpe with N Axholme, with which its comms are much better than with S Axholme Doncaster E - 75510 Doncaster N - 76209 Doncaster S - 76074 I thought the Doncaster seats worked out surprisingly well, considering they all need to be so near the upper limit. This then leaves Sheffield/Rotherham to get 8 seats, for which we have many plans. Incidentally, a question for those of you that know Sheffield better than I do (this would be almost everyone, I imagine). I have noticed that virtually all plans posted on here - at least, the non-split ones - assume that the two Ecclesfield wards need to be kept together. But to me, as a non-Sheffield person sitting at a computer screen in London staring at maps, it seems that Ecclesfield itself is located entirely within the Ecclesfield E ward. If that's correct, is there any particular reason the wards need to be kept in the same seat?
I like that arrangement (well, I would, it's basically the same as mine but with Axholme North swapped for Mexborough, but it's definitely a neater solution than I came up with.) My only question would be whether an 8 seat plan for Rotheram and Sheffield makes it more likely that Rotheram gets carved up, as the saving grace of my ugly Chapeltown to Mexborough seat was that didn't have to go beyond Rawmarsh to get up to quota. Regarding Ecclesfield, the ward names don't refer to the area proper but to the civil parish. And the issue is that the north of the two wards (Chapeltown/High Green) form an area of contiguous settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 11, 2020 16:06:29 GMT
For Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, a lot of it comes down to which combinations of local authorities you want to use. At the moment, my proposed groupings are as follows: - Bradford - 5 seats
- Calderdale - 2 seats
- City of York - 2 seats
- Hull and East Yorkshire - 6 seats
- Leeds and North Yorkshire - 14 seats
- Wakefield, Kirklees and Barnsley - 10 seats
- Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire - 14 seats
I'm reasonably happy with those groupings (especially since in Lincolnshire you've got 3 seats entirely to the east of the Trent) but ideally I would prefer to treat Sheffield and Rotheram for 8 seats and Doncaster for 3. So I'm considering a modification, adding Pocklington Provincial ward to York Outer and rejigging things in North Yorkshire to compensate. That then means one of the East Yorkshire seats has to grab two wards of the Isle of Axholme and Scunthorpe has to grab the other. In principle, do people think this would be an improvement or not? On the one hand, this would cause unnecessary change in York (which could otherwise be left as is) and it would divide the Isle of Axholme. On the other hand, in either case you're crossing the historic Lincolnshire-Yorkshire county boundary and doing this would let you minimise changes in Doncaster. I think I prefer your first option, assuming there's a reasonable arrangement for Sheffield plus Rotherham plus one Doncaster ward. The thing is that, in spite of what people redrawing the county map in the 1970s seem to have thought, the Isle of Axholme really isn't well connected northwards across the Ouse -- its connections are east-west -- and it's also self contained in a way which makes me think splitting it isn't desirable. On the other hand I don't see a very strong distinction between Mexborough and Wath/Swinton; the map of South Yorkshire wouldn't make much less sense if Mexborough were in Rotherham or Barnsley rather than Doncaster. My approach was similar but removed Norton & Askern ward from Doncaster and added it to the North Yorkshire group. If the numbers work out OK in the two sub-regions, putting Mexborough with Rotherham is probably preferable to that. I entirely agree with the approach of subdividing regions by top-level authority in the way EAL suggests, but unfortunately it didn't work at all well for Y&H on these numbers.
I ended up with -
Sheffield / Rotherham = 583175 = 8.03 = 8 seats Doncaster = 216250 = 2.98 = 3 Humberside (as was) = 672769 = 9.26 = 9 Everything else = 2410302 = 33.19 = 33
Obviously the last of these is far too big to be useful. It would be good to separate out Bradford for 5 seats but I can't find a reasonable non-split plan that achieves this. And before anyone else points it out, let me say that this is a persuasive argument for splitting wards - but that goes against what I'm trying to do, which is devise the best possible non-split plan.
I have a plan in front of me at the moment that treats Bradford separately. It's the best I've managed so far, but it still has a lot of really unattractive features. But on the other hand, it does keep the Outwood wards together.
It's consistent with EAL's plan to treat ERY/Hull together and with my suggestion of grouping NE Lincs / N Lincs / Doncaster. On this basis the groupings would be -
ERY / Hull = 437046 = 6.02 = 6 NE Lincs / N Lincs / Doncaster = 451973 = 6.22 = 6 (Amazing that this can be made to work) Bradford = 363363 = 5.00 = 5 Everything else (i.e. now without Bradford) = 2046939 = 28.18 = 28 Plus Sheffield/Rotherham as before.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,903
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Aug 11, 2020 16:10:28 GMT
Here's what I've got for East Yorkshire and the rest of North Lincolnshire: Bridlington & Holderness 72424 Hull East & Hedon 74148 Hull West & Hessle 73265 Hull North 69846 Beverley 74575 Cottingham & Goole 72788 Grimsby & Cleethorpes 76221 Brigg & Immingham 69963 Scunthorpe 71740 I'm not normally keen on crossing a boundary twice, but in this case adding SW Holderness into Hull just makes things so much simpler. Really good plan for ERY and Hull. Regarding N Lincs and NE Lincs, EAL's plan crosses the border with Doncaster and to accommodate this he pops out a Doncaster ward (Mexborough) to be treated with Sheffield/Rotherham. But, as his plan implies, it's then far from easy to devise an 8 seat plan for this area. So I fell to wondering whether it was possible to treat Doncaster + N Lincs + NE Lincs for 6 seats. Well, obviously you then have to split Axholme but I take a more sanguine view of this than some posters. At any rate, I came up with this. Grimsby & Cleethorpes - 76221 (not shown) Brigg - 73526 Scunthorpe - 74433 An advantage of this approach is that you can link Scunthorpe with N Axholme, with which its comms are much better than with S Axholme Doncaster E - 75510 Doncaster N - 76209 Doncaster S - 76074 I think that split of Axholme isn't too bad; it's the other one, which puts two of the wards with the East Riding, which I don't like. So yes, this seems like a reasonable option. But I think you should be open about what you've done in the name, so "Doncaster East & Epworth" or suchlike. (Cf the "Rother Valley" issue.) Ecclesfield village is indeed in East Ecclesfield; the names refer to the parish, which also covers Grenoside, High Green, Burncross and Chapeltown, so all of West Ecc and most of East Ecc. (The southern end of East Ecc is outside the parish.) I don't think separating them is unthinkable, but I'd like to know why you'd want to. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Aug 11, 2020 16:16:29 GMT
I'm reasonably happy with those groupings (especially since in Lincolnshire you've got 3 seats entirely to the east of the Trent) but ideally I would prefer to treat Sheffield and Rotheram for 8 seats and Doncaster for 3. So I'm considering a modification, adding Pocklington Provincial ward to York Outer and rejigging things in North Yorkshire to compensate. That then means one of the East Yorkshire seats has to grab two wards of the Isle of Axholme and Scunthorpe has to grab the other. In principle, do people think this would be an improvement or not? On the one hand, this would cause unnecessary change in York (which could otherwise be left as is) and it would divide the Isle of Axholme. On the other hand, in either case you're crossing the historic Lincolnshire-Yorkshire county boundary and doing this would let you minimise changes in Doncaster. I'm sure I'm not the best person to answer this question, but considering the 'badnesses' of the two options for Axholme: Axholme with Doncaster: Doncaster can have three whole seats, but not in this plan Three borough Mexborough to Ecclesfield with split ward South West Holderness Axholme with Goole/Howden: Splits Axholme Disrupts the otherwise practically unchanged York seats, and forces a York - North Yorks crossing as well as adding Pocklington (but this might be useful for the extra electors Selby district needs) The Goole option is clearly worse for Axholme, but allows a plan much closer to minimum change for most of East Yorkshire. The Commission will probably be very reluctant to change anything in York though. It's less neat if you're trying to divide things into manageable blocks of LAs as well. |
|
