Dec 2019 electorates

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Well those random Yorkshire wards together do add up to the right numbers, but they are a rather bizzare way to make the point that 100% of all constituencies in the country should be unbroken and made up of unbroken wards.

Whilst I would expect it usually be the case that we have unbroken constituencies, how they are built really should be done with regard to local numbers and community factors, not just some statistical method or nationally decided unbreakable rule.

To me it should be simple, try and build constituencies that add up to the right numbers and if you have to split wards, but do so with regards to local factors.

But this is political, statistical, psephological and cartographical, so naturally it has to be more complicated than I would have thought necessary.

[emidsanorak]

Aug 12, 2020 17:14:55 GMT Adrian said:

Aug 12, 2020 7:17:49 GMT emidsanorak said:

Which is good in Leeds, Wakefield and Barnsley and is a car crash in Calderdale and Kirklees.

This is not good in Leeds. Ditto islington's plan below. No plan is good that combines Leeds suburbs with the countryside around Harrogate. Something like that was proposed in 2011 and everyone was against it, including Roger Pratt (the Tory spokesman). In fact, after Mersey Banks, "Leeds North West and Nidderdale" was one of the main examples quoted of bad proposed seats.

Edit: Looking for the map of that proposal, I found this presentation by Ron Johnson et al about the first zombie review. slideplayer.com/slide/10335153/

Adrian, I agree that Leeds North West & Nidderdale was a monstrosity:

ibb.co/2vXjZHF

It doesn't compare to my proposed Guiseley & Blubberhouses:

ibb.co/b6wXK0M

which mainly includes satellite towns and villages, not suburbs, and keeps much further from the city proper. The numbers in 2013 Review meant that North Yorkshire could be dealt with as a sub-region. It will be harder this time.

[islington]

Aug 13, 2020 14:31:10 GMT emidsanorak said:

Aug 12, 2020 17:14:55 GMT Adrian said:

This is not good in Leeds. Ditto islington's plan below. No plan is good that combines Leeds suburbs with the countryside around Harrogate. Something like that was proposed in 2011 and everyone was against it, including Roger Pratt (the Tory spokesman). In fact, after Mersey Banks, "Leeds North West and Nidderdale" was one of the main examples quoted of bad proposed seats.

Edit: Looking for the map of that proposal, I found this presentation by Ron Johnson et al about the first zombie review. slideplayer.com/slide/10335153/

Adrian, I agree that Leeds North West & Nidderdale was a monstrosity:

ibb.co/2vXjZHF

It doesn't compare to my proposed Guiseley & Blubberhouses:

ibb.co/b6wXK0M

which mainly includes satellite towns and villages, not suburbs, and keeps much further from the city proper. The numbers in 2013 Review meant that North Yorkshire could be dealt with as a sub-region. It will be harder this time.

I am completely with emidsanorak's here. On his last point, while I'm sure it's true that voters in N Yorks won't exactly jump for joy if they find themselves in a constituency that lies mainly in a W Yorks borough (probably Leeds), on the numbers it's virtually impossible to avoid (ward splits or no).

If emidsanorak will allow me to tinker with his plan, one option would be for his Guiseley seat to take in Killinghall rather than Nidd Valley. This ward is (a) much less geographically extensive so it doesn't take such a large bite out of Skipton & Ripon, (b) is less villagy in character, (c) gets Harrogate & Knaresborough within range without needing any further change, and (d), probably most important, still allows the use of 'Blubberhouses' in the name (although personally I'd call it 'Otley').

[Adrian]

Aug 13, 2020 14:31:10 GMT emidsanorak said:

Aug 12, 2020 17:14:55 GMT Adrian said:

This is not good in Leeds. Ditto islington's plan below. No plan is good that combines Leeds suburbs with the countryside around Harrogate. Something like that was proposed in 2011 and everyone was against it, including Roger Pratt (the Tory spokesman). In fact, after Mersey Banks, "Leeds North West and Nidderdale" was one of the main examples quoted of bad proposed seats.

Edit: Looking for the map of that proposal, I found this presentation by Ron Johnson et al about the first zombie review. slideplayer.com/slide/10335153/

Adrian, I agree that Leeds North West & Nidderdale was a monstrosity:

ibb.co/2vXjZHF

It doesn't compare to my proposed Guiseley & Blubberhouses:

ibb.co/b6wXK0M

which mainly includes satellite towns and villages, not suburbs, and keeps much further from the city proper. The numbers in 2013 Review meant that North Yorkshire could be dealt with as a sub-region. It will be harder this time.

it's rather disingenuous to say that Horsforth and Adel aren't suburbs of Leeds.

[YL]

Aug 13, 2020 15:43:24 GMT islington said:

I am completely with emidsanorak's here. On his last point, while I'm sure it's true that voters in N Yorks won't exactly jump for joy if they find themselves in a constituency that lies mainly in a W Yorks borough (probably Leeds), on the numbers it's virtually impossible to avoid (ward splits or no).

This is simply false. At least two plans have been posted which do not have such a constituency. Rather, they have a cross-border seat with a roughly equal balance of parts of North Yorkshire and parts of Leeds with are a relatively good fit with those parts of North Yorkshire, and in both cases the North Yorkshire parts are slightly in the majority.

Even if it were true, there is absolutely no need to have two such constituencies, leading to the North Yorkshire bits being more cut off in them, and there shouldn't be any need for them to include parts of the main Leeds urban area, which while it is not as true of the above proposals as of "Leeds NW & Nidderdale", it is still true of them. (And "Leeds NW & Nidderdale" is a very low bar.)

As we've seen before, you'll never accept that actually it is better to split the odd ward than draw these ridiculous constituencies which tack little bits of neighbouring areas on just because the wards are too big to be sensible building blocks. And please don't come back with "then Leeds should have smaller wards"; that's a local government issue which shouldn't be forced by the needs of a different process, and it's not North Yorkshire's responsibility anyway.

[Adrian]

Aug 13, 2020 15:43:24 GMT islington said:

I am completely with emidsanorak's here. On his last point, while I'm sure it's true that voters in N Yorks won't exactly jump for joy if they find themselves in a constituency that lies mainly in a W Yorks borough (probably Leeds), on the numbers it's virtually impossible to avoid (ward splits or no).

There are at least 7 wards that don't include part of the city in them, so it's hardly unreasonable to require that only those wards be included in a cross-border seat.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2020 15:43:24 GMT islington said:

Aug 13, 2020 14:31:10 GMT emidsanorak said:

Adrian, I agree that Leeds North West & Nidderdale was a monstrosity:

ibb.co/2vXjZHF

It doesn't compare to my proposed Guiseley & Blubberhouses:

ibb.co/b6wXK0M

which mainly includes satellite towns and villages, not suburbs, and keeps much further from the city proper. The numbers in 2013 Review meant that North Yorkshire could be dealt with as a sub-region. It will be harder this time.

I am completely with emidsanorak's here. On his last point, while I'm sure it's true that voters in N Yorks won't exactly jump for joy if they find themselves in a constituency that lies mainly in a W Yorks borough (probably Leeds), on the numbers it's virtually impossible to avoid (ward splits or no).

I've managed to create a plan that doesn't cross the N Yorks/W Yorks border at all. It crosses the N Yorks/E Yorks border but I would argue that this is preferable because the nature of the neighbouring areas of those two are far more similar to each other than N Yorks and suburban Leeds. 

[islington]

All right, fair point. I went too far in saying 'virtually impossible'. I should have said that since N Yorks has an entitlement of 6.43 (or 8.39 if you throw in York as well), then it will need at least one cross-border seat and and, all else being equal, it is likelier than not that its electors will be a minority in that seat.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2020 16:12:25 GMT islington said:

All right, fair point. I went too far in saying 'virtually impossible'. I should have said that since N Yorks has an entitlement of 6.43 (or 8.39 if you throw in York as well), then it will need at least one cross-border seat and and, all else being equal, it is likelier than not that its electors will be a minority in that seat.

I'm not sure that's a problem though depending on where you cross the border. There are enough similarities between rural N Yorks and rural E Yorks to make such a plan viable with very little pitchfork-waving

[kvasir]

Aug 13, 2020 16:03:13 GMT Adrian said:

Aug 13, 2020 15:43:24 GMT islington said:

I am completely with emidsanorak's here. On his last point, while I'm sure it's true that voters in N Yorks won't exactly jump for joy if they find themselves in a constituency that lies mainly in a W Yorks borough (probably Leeds), on the numbers it's virtually impossible to avoid (ward splits or no).

There are at least 7 wards that don't include part of the city in them, so it's hardly unreasonable to require that only those wards be included in a cross-border seat.

What do you mean by 'the city'?

[islington]

Thanks to emidsanorak, what we have now is a choice of two viable non-split plans in this very difficult area. I've been looking from one to the other trying to decide which I prefer.

Here's the version I posted ages ago, let's call it Plan A:

And here's the alternative, Plan B, based on emidsnorak's recent postings. I hope he doesn't mind the alterations I've made; but if anyone takes exception to them, please blame me and not emidsanorak.

I'm not going to post all the electorates but they are all within range on both plans. Also, I've cropped off the more rural N Yorks seats so the maps don't get too big.

The plans are interchangeable because each assigns 33 seats to exactly the same combination of authorities. To ease comparison I've kept the colours compatible so that each seat is the same colour as its nearest equivalent in the other scheme.

Without prejudice to the ward-split issue (and for the avoidance of doubt let me say that I can see a case for a small number of splits in this area), I feel these are both viable schemes, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses. I've been looking at them since yesterday and I think I've settled on my preference but I'd welcome others' thoughts.

[emidsanorak]

Aug 13, 2020 15:51:02 GMT Adrian said:

Aug 13, 2020 14:31:10 GMT emidsanorak said:

Adrian, I agree that Leeds North West & Nidderdale was a monstrosity:

ibb.co/2vXjZHF

It doesn't compare to my proposed Guiseley & Blubberhouses:

ibb.co/b6wXK0M

which mainly includes satellite towns and villages, not suburbs, and keeps much further from the city proper. The numbers in 2013 Review meant that North Yorkshire could be dealt with as a sub-region. It will be harder this time.

it's rather disingenuous to say that Horsforth and Adel aren't suburbs of Leeds.

I'd concede Adel. Horsforth, however, has a town council. That part of the Horsforth ward that is not part of the town of Horsforth is in the parish of Rawdon.

[emidsanorak]

Aug 13, 2020 16:35:29 GMT islington said:

Thanks to emidsanorak, what we have now is a choice of two viable non-split plans in this very difficult area. I've been looking from one to the other trying to decide which I prefer.

Here's the version I posted ages ago, let's call it Plan A:

And here's the alternative, Plan B, based on emidsnorak's recent postings. I hope he doesn't mind the alterations I've made; but if anyone takes exception to them, please blame me and not emidsanorak.

I'm not going to post all the electorates but they are all within range on both plans. Also, I've cropped off the more rural N Yorks seats so the maps don't get too big.

The plans are interchangeable because each assigns 33 seats to exactly the same combination of authorities. To ease comparison I've kept the colours compatible so that each seat is the same colour as its nearest equivalent in the other scheme.

Without prejudice to the ward-split issue (and for the avoidance of doubt let me say that I can see a case for a small number of splits in this area), I feel these are both viable schemes, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses. I've been looking at them since yesterday and I think I've settled on my preference but I'd welcome others' thoughts.

Islington, I'm not ecstatic about some of the changes you've made to my plan. If all the Bradford seats can remain unchanged, I think they should. I think dividing Huddersfield between three seats, instead of two, is wrong. Dividing the the town of Brighouse by putting the Brighouse and Rastrick wards in different seats is unnecessary. The majority of the Rastrick ward is part of Brighouse. Brighouse railway station is in the Rastrick ward.

ibb.co/6R3xkdW

I think that Hoyland is more easily detachable from Barnsley than Darton. Putting the South Elmsall & South Kirkby ward into a Barnsley seat creates a nasty boundary in the village of Minsthorpe.

ibb.co/5LQVD6W

I'm nor sure why you have reshuffled Leeds. I was careful to keep those wards inside the A6120 in Leeds only constituencies. Having Killingbeck & Seacroft ward in a seat that includes three Harrogate wards is problematic. I do not agree with unnecessarily dividing the Ryedale district. Otherwise, you've done a great job in highlighting the major differences between the plans.

[islington]

Emidsanorak, I apologize. I had no wish to mess up your plan, which on the contrary I admire.

Let me atone by posting it as you originally had it.

So we now have three candidates for the Y&H non-split championship.

[YL]

Aug 13, 2020 16:12:12 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I've managed to create a plan that doesn't cross the N Yorks/W Yorks border at all. It crosses the N Yorks/E Yorks border but I would argue that this is preferable because the nature of the neighbouring areas of those two are far more similar to each other than N Yorks and suburban Leeds. 

I'd be interested to see that. Which of the other county/UA/Met borders did you need to cross?

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2020 18:26:59 GMT YL said:

Aug 13, 2020 16:12:12 GMT @europeanlefty said:

I've managed to create a plan that doesn't cross the N Yorks/W Yorks border at all. It crosses the N Yorks/E Yorks border but I would argue that this is preferable because the nature of the neighbouring areas of those two are far more similar to each other than N Yorks and suburban Leeds. 

I'd be interested to see that. Which of the other county/UA/Met borders did you need to cross?

I need to go back over it and iron out a few kinks, but if I've got it right I've left Doncaster, Bradford and Calderdale alone, crossed the Rotherham/Barnsley, Rotherham/Sheffield and Barnsley/Sheffield borders once each in S Yorks and left Wakefield, Leeds and Calderdale almost whole aside from creating a slightly unfortunate "Batley & Outwood" seat that takes in bits of all three

EDIT: just realised I have a Dewsbury seat with one Wakefield ward as well

[emidsanorak]

I've held off from posting an eight seat non-split Sheffield and Rotherham until now. Thanks to YL's advice on approximating the new Rotherham wards by aggregating polling districts, I'll now give it a try. I've ended up with four seats wholly in Sheffield, two in Rotherham and two which cross the borough boundary.

1 Hallam 72090 Yes
2 Hillsborough 71467 Yes
3 Heeley 72985 Yes
4 Brightside 69092 Yes
5 Attercliffe & Brinsworth (inc. Brinsworth, Rother Vale, Sitwell) 74214 Approx
6 Hackenthorpe & Wales (inc. Aston & Todwick, Aughton & Swallownest, Wales) 74779 Approx
7 Rotherham (Boston Castle, Greasborough, Hoober, Keppel, Rawmarsh East, Rawmarsh West, Rotherham East, Rotherham West, Wath) 74915 Approx
8 Maltby (Anston & Woodsetts, Bramley & Ravenfield, Dalton & Thrybergh, Dinnington, Hellaby & Maltby West, Kilnhurst & Swinton East, Maltby East, Swinton Rockingham, Thurcroft & Wickersley South, Wickersley North) 73633 Approx

ibb.co/b3pWQmX

[kvasir]

Aug 13, 2020 16:46:32 GMT emidsanorak said:

Aug 13, 2020 15:51:02 GMT Adrian said:

it's rather disingenuous to say that Horsforth and Adel aren't suburbs of Leeds.

I'd concede Adel. Horsforth, however, has a town council. That part of the Horsforth ward that is not part of the town of Horsforth is in the parish of Rawdon.

Horsforth has a town council because the locals made a parish council and voted to rename themselves a town council. That's their democratic choice but if you call a warm bucket of spit a glass of fresh milk that doesn't make it so. Horsforth was considered a large village before becoming part of Leeds. But it is very very much part of the urban area and doesn't act as a town next to Leeds. It is a suburb with a glorified sense of its own importance and some very passionate locals who like to spread the tale. But just look on a map. It is all the same urban area.

[YL]

Aug 14, 2020 7:38:20 GMT emidsanorak said:

I've held off from posting an eight seat non-split Sheffield and Rotherham until now. Thanks to YL's advice on approximating the new Rotherham wards by aggregating polling districts, I'll now give it a try. I've ended up with four seats wholly in Sheffield, two in Rotherham and two which cross the borough boundary.

1 Hallam 72090 Yes
2 Hillsborough 71467 Yes
3 Heeley 72985 Yes
4 Brightside 69092 Yes
5 Attercliffe & Brinsworth (inc. Brinsworth, Rother Vale, Sitwell) 74214 Approx
6 Hackenthorpe & Wales (inc. Aston & Todwick, Aughton & Swallownest, Wales) 74779 Approx
7 Rotherham (Boston Castle, Greasborough, Hoober, Keppel, Rawmarsh East, Rawmarsh West, Rotherham East, Rotherham West, Wath) 74915 Approx
8 Maltby (Anston & Woodsetts, Bramley & Ravenfield, Dalton & Thrybergh, Dinnington, Hellaby & Maltby West, Kilnhurst & Swinton East, Maltby East, Swinton Rockingham, Thurcroft & Wickersley South, Wickersley North) 73633 Approx

ibb.co/b3pWQmX

Here's my attempt:


1. Sheffield Rivelin 2. Sheffield Brightside & Ecclesfield 3. Sheffield Ecclesall 4. Sheffield Sharrow 5. Attercliffe & Rotherham South 6. Sheffield Mosborough & Catcliffe 7. Rotherham Wentworth 8. Rother Valley

This keeps Swinton with the rest of the "Wentworth" area, and I think it's neater in Sheffield, especially regarding Burngreave and the Handsworth area. The big downside is putting Rotherham town centre in a majority Sheffield constituency.

Predictably, I think it's better to split a single Sheffield ward than to double cross the border.

[YL]

Aug 13, 2020 16:34:08 GMT kvasir said:

Aug 13, 2020 16:03:13 GMT Adrian said:

There are at least 7 wards that don't include part of the city in them, so it's hardly unreasonable to require that only those wards be included in a cross-border seat.

What do you mean by 'the city'?

I'd say "the city" (or "Leeds proper") in this context could mean
(a) the main built-up area of Leeds
(b) areas which don't really have an identity (as perceived by locals and by people in nearby areas) as towns and villages in their own right as opposed to Leeds suburbs
(c) areas where it would seem like the boundary was excessively tightly drawn if they were excluded from the City Council area (NB I think several areas like this in other cities are excluded...)

Obviously this is somewhat subjective. I would say that Wetherby is fairly clearly not part of it, nor the rural area which forms almost all of Harewood ward, and I would argue that Otley and Garforth, say, also have enough of a separate identity; probably Morley does too, even though its built up area is contiguous. OTOH I tend to agree with you on Horsforth, so having a parish council isn't decisive. Nor do I think the Outer Ring Road is the right boundary, given Whinmoor, Alwoodley and Adel.