|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 14, 2020 15:27:18 GMT
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/b3pWQmXHere'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. Constituency 1 would be better called Sheffield Loxely the river which runs through it not on the edge of it like the Rivelin. Constituency 3 I would keep as Sheffield Hallam that is an acceptable name to all. Sheffield Ecclesall isn't I don't like it at all, Sheffield Porter after another river is better but Sheffield Hallam or Hallamshire are best. Sheffield 4, another name which is meh, its OK but I'm sure could be improved upon. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 14, 2020 15:45:00 GMT
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. Snap-ish! Other than Rotherham Manor, that's the only non-Pensitone Sheffield arrangement I could come up with. I failed to complete it because I failed to avoid joinig Darnall to Rotherham town centre. I'd call the seats: 1: Sheffield Hillsborough (it is 80% the old Sheffield Hillsborough) 2: Sheffield Brightside (continuity, I'm annoyed the current name change breaks the Wikipedia continuity) 3: Sheffield Hallam (point 1 + point 2) 4: Sheffield Central (point 1 + point 2) |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Aug 14, 2020 15:46:27 GMT
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/b3pWQmXHere'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. That's actually not too bad, and given the restraints I reckon it's the best that's possible without splitting wards. Catcliffe is a sensible area to combine with SE Sheffield, and although uniting central Rotherham with a chunk of Sheffield is ugly, at least it largely follows the good transport links along the Don. The names aren't good, though. Lots of the seats are similar to historic ones, so I'd simplify a lot: 1. Sheffield Hillsborough; 2. Sheffield Brightside; 3. Sheffield Hallam; 4. Sheffield Heeley (or Sheffield Central); 5. Rotherham and Attercliffe; 6. Sheffield Mosborough; 7. Wentworth; 8. Rother Valley |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 14, 2020 16:02:07 GMT
I think with some of the Sheffield models have been posted by just looking at the jigsaw with no knowledge of the local geography. The following is a map of the "hardness" of the ward borders in Sheffield:  |
|
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 14, 2020 16:17:22 GMT
I think with some of the Sheffield models have been posted by just looking at the jigsaw with no knowledge of the local geography. The following is a map of the "hardness" of the ward borders in Sheffield: Well, the BCE did that in the last actual review, didn't they? Especially the bizarre provisional recommendations which put Darnall in Heeley suggested that. |
|
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 14, 2020 18:16:50 GMT
The names aren't good, though. Lots of the seats are similar to historic ones, so I'd simplify a lot: 1. Sheffield Hillsborough; 2. Sheffield Brightside; 3. Sheffield Hallam; 4. Sheffield Heeley (or Sheffield Central); 5. Rotherham and Attercliffe; 6. Sheffield Mosborough; 7. Wentworth; 8. Rother Valley I was playing around a bit with the names. I'm sure 3 would end up being Hallam if it actually existed, but I think it's worth pointing out that a seat which doesn't include Crosspool or Sandygate but does include Norton doesn't have a lot to do with the original meaning of the name. I do think the name for 7 should include "Rotherham" somehow. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Aug 14, 2020 21:04:00 GMT
These are intersting ideas of what can be done without splitting wards, but in any real sense they would make pretty undesirable final constituencies.
Can we please all agree that Sheffield is a place where ward splitting should be embraced as the solution to a thousand problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 14, 2020 21:07:02 GMT
These are intersting ideas of what can be done without splitting wards, but in any real sense they would make pretty undesirable final constituencies. Can we please all agree that Sheffield is a place where ward splitting should be embraced as the solution to a thousand problems? Yes, but that should be a contributory factor to at least questioning whether these mega-wards best represent Sheffield on a local level. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Aug 14, 2020 21:07:21 GMT
These are intersting ideas of what can be done without splitting wards, but in any real sense they would make pretty undesirable final constituencies. Can we please all agree that Sheffield is a place where ward splitting should be embraced as the solution to a thousand problems? We can all agree that, but will the Boundary Commission, who consider ward splitting an absolute last resort? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 15, 2020 9:33:13 GMT
These are intersting ideas of what can be done without splitting wards, but in any real sense they would make pretty undesirable final constituencies. Can we please all agree that Sheffield is a place where ward splitting should be embraced as the solution to a thousand problems? Yes, but that should be a contributory factor to at least questioning whether these mega-wards best represent Sheffield on a local level. They're not megawards. For a city with over half a million people they're close to just the right size for a sensably-sized elected body. The flaw is that even only two years into a new set of wards, we've /already/ got one that's 50% too big. |
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Aug 15, 2020 11:31:33 GMT
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/b3pWQmXHere'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. I think I prefer your Sheffield. I wasn't terribly happy with Burngreave in the Hillsborough seat. But I prefer my Rotherham. I don't like your treatment of the town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 15, 2020 13:26:34 GMT
Here's my Sheffield and Rotherham. I have split two megawards, but the result is reasonably nice (and the Rother Valley constituency is completely unchanged on this plan):  1 Sheffield South East 73383 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RA RB RC]2 Sheffield Heeley 74395 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RD RE RF RG]3 Sheffield Hallam 74193 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EA EB EC ED EE EF EG EH EI]4 Sheffield North 70517 Yes 5 Sheffield Central 72597 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EJ]6 Rotherham and Meadowhall 70010 Yes 7 Wentworth 74030 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Aug 15, 2020 13:56:55 GMT
Yes, but that should be a contributory factor to at least questioning whether these mega-wards best represent Sheffield on a local level. They're not megawards. For a city with over half a million people they're close to just the right size for a sensably-sized elected body. The flaw is that even only two years into a new set of wards, we've /already/ got one that's 50% too big. I disagree. Three-member wards are fine in small local authorities where you'd just end up with arbitrary splits of villages with tiny electorates – say you have 48,000 electors in a district with 36 councillors; it may be completely reasonable to draw a ward of 4000 electors to cover a small town, rather than to try to trisect it. In larger districts, the wards aren't identifying the smallest reasonable communities, but lumping several together to hit three times an already large target. In Sheffield this obviously looks like the case with names such as Nether Edge and Sharrow, Shiregreen and Brightside, and Park and Arbourthorne. All they achieve is to put a brake on turfing an unpopular party out of office (thank goodness they're no longer allowed to appoint aldermen on top of this), return perverse unrepresentative knife-edge results in all-out elections (it's even worse in Wales (the country, not the village), where there are some four- and five-member wards), and make it relatively easier for machine politics for the largest party in the district and harder for opposition parties, let alone residents' groups. There really should be a ceiling on ward electorates to prevent these large-district stitch-ups. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 15, 2020 14:20:17 GMT
These are intersting ideas of what can be done without splitting wards, but in any real sense they would make pretty undesirable final constituencies. Can we please all agree that Sheffield is a place where ward splitting should be embraced as the solution to a thousand problems? (indicates dissent) |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 15, 2020 14:38:06 GMT
Here's my Sheffield and Rotherham. I have split two megawards, but the result is reasonably nice (and the Rother Valley constituency is completely unchanged on this plan): 1 Sheffield South East 73383 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RA RB RC]2 Sheffield Heeley 74395 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RD RE RF RG]3 Sheffield Hallam 74193 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EA EB EC ED EE EF EG EH EI]4 Sheffield North 70517 Yes 5 Sheffield Central 72597 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EJ]6 Rotherham and Meadowhall 70010 Yes 7 Wentworth 74030 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes Just because Brightside can advance northwards and take Ecclesfield, that doesn't mean that Ecclesfield can advance south and take Southey. Southey belongs in a South-FirthPark-Shiregreen grouping, if you're going to put Southey in with something else you must put Firth Park and Shiregreen in with it as well. Similarly, Dore is a part of a Dore-Fulwood-Ecclesall grouping. Dore needs to go in whatever Fulwood and Ecclesall is in. Just because Hallam can advance eastwards and take in Beauchief doesn't mean that Heeley can advance westwards and take in Dore. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,745
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 15, 2020 14:47:20 GMT
They're not megawards. For a city with over half a million people they're close to just the right size for a sensably-sized elected body. The flaw is that even only two years into a new set of wards, we've /already/ got one that's 50% too big. I disagree. Three-member wards are fine in small local authorities where you'd just end up with arbitrary splits of villages with tiny electorates – say you have 48,000 electors in a district with 36 councillors; it may be completely reasonable to draw a ward of 4000 electors to cover a small town, rather than to try to trisect it. In larger districts, the wards aren't identifying the smallest reasonable communities, but lumping several together to hit three times an already large target. A solution to that is different sized wards. Two-member Walkley just covering Walkley, two-member Stocksbridge just covering Stocksbridge. Three-member Hillsborough covering Hillsborough. One-member High Green just covering High Green. It's the large mets that have large wards, are there any large mets that don't elect in thirds? If we ever get to STV for English councils we need multi-member seats. My personal preference for council STV is 3-member seats. Unless you increase Sheffield Council to 120 members, you're going to have wards in the region of 15,000 electors. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Aug 15, 2020 14:58:03 GMT
Here's my Sheffield and Rotherham. I have split two megawards, but the result is reasonably nice (and the Rother Valley constituency is completely unchanged on this plan): 1 Sheffield South East 73383 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RA RB RC]2 Sheffield Heeley 74395 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RD RE RF RG]3 Sheffield Hallam 74193 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EA EB EC ED EE EF EG EH EI]4 Sheffield North 70517 Yes 5 Sheffield Central 72597 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EJ]6 Rotherham and Meadowhall 70010 Yes 7 Wentworth 74030 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes Just because Brightside can advance northwards and take Ecclesfield, that doesn't mean that Ecclesfield can advance south and take Southey. Southey belongs in a South-FirthPark-Shiregreen grouping, if you're going to put Southey in with something else you must put Firth Park and Shiregreen in with it as well. Similarly, Dore is a part of a Dore-Fulwood-Ecclesall grouping. Dore needs to go in whatever Fulwood and Ecclesall is in. Just because Hallam can advance eastwards and take in Beauchief doesn't mean that Heeley can advance westwards and take in Dore.
In my opinion Fulwood actually sits ok with that group its in with, it has as much if not more in common with Crookes, Crosspool, Broomhill as it does Dore, the issue is Dore being with unlike places, that is throwing Stainless Steel Cutlery territory, but I'm really tempted by it because it would cause a real reaction in Dore. Please Please oh yes Please, lets do it.  |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Aug 15, 2020 15:01:54 GMT
Lincolnshire redux
I did give up on a whole-Lincolnshire plan but I've had a go and come up with something that's okay. It's possible to do it without splitting wards but I split a couple, mainly so that I didn't need to cross the Kesteven boundary.
Scunthorpe 75928
Humber 75619
Grimsby & Cleethorpes 74159*
Gainsborough 73789
Louth & Horncastle 76193*
Boston & Skegness 76014*
Holland 75783*
Lincoln 73919
Sleaford & North Hykeham 75588
Grantham & Newark 72756
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 15, 2020 21:02:00 GMT
From the plans I have seen so far, it is fair to say that the following constituencies are likely or practically certain to be abolished (as they will not form the largest part of any new or redrawn constituency):
Brigg & Goole
Wyre & Preston North
Penrith & The Border
Arfon
Cardiff Central
Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire
Clwyd South
Stockton North
Wansbeck
Dudley South
Stone
Walthamstow
(also Mid Dorset & North Poole and Bournemouth East if Dorset's constituency boundaries are redrawn to match the new authorities, which I believe they will be)
And the following new constituencies (amongst others) are likely or practically certain to be created:
Tenterden
Thornbury
Brixton
Rutland & Stamford
Hitchin & Stotfold
Bicester
Milton Keynes Central
(also East Dorset and Broadstone & Kinson if Dorset's constituency boundaries are redrawn to match the new authorities)
|
|
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 16, 2020 6:42:41 GMT
Here's my Sheffield and Rotherham. I have split two megawards, but the result is reasonably nice (and the Rother Valley constituency is completely unchanged on this plan): 1 Sheffield South East 73383 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RA RB RC]2 Sheffield Heeley 74395 Yes [includes split ward Manor Castle RD RE RF RG]3 Sheffield Hallam 74193 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EA EB EC ED EE EF EG EH EI]4 Sheffield North 70517 Yes 5 Sheffield Central 72597 Yes [includes split ward Broomhill and Sharrow Vale EJ]6 Rotherham and Meadowhall 70010 Yes 7 Wentworth 74030 Yes 8 Rother Valley 74050 Yes Just because Brightside can advance northwards and take Ecclesfield, that doesn't mean that Ecclesfield can advance south and take Southey. Southey belongs in a South-FirthPark-Shiregreen grouping, if you're going to put Southey in with something else you must put Firth Park and Shiregreen in with it as well. Similarly, Dore is a part of a Dore-Fulwood-Ecclesall grouping. Dore needs to go in whatever Fulwood and Ecclesall is in. Just because Hallam can advance eastwards and take in Beauchief doesn't mean that Heeley can advance westwards and take in Dore. I don't actually think it's unreasonable to separate Fulwood from Dore and Ecclesall if it gives a better plan elsewhere -- the Porter is a clear boundary and the strongest community links tend to be east/west -- but as I've said before I think separating Dore & Totley from Ecclesall with the current ward boundaries is a blunder. (Though as Defenestrated Fipplebox says watching the reaction of people in Dore at being put in a seat with Wybourn is quite tempting.) Maintaining the existing Rother Valley on that plan just means Rotherham town is split into three (much of Sitwell being part of the town) and doesn't work on the new ward boundaries anyway. |
|
